Official Report: Tuesday 30 June 2026

Mr Speaker: Members, under Standing Order 30(2A):

Since February 2024, I have made it clear that this is a shortened mandate and that it would not be possible to progress all 27 of Members' proposals for Bills. I have also been consistent in highlighting the point that we must learn lessons from the previous mandate so as not to flood the system with private Members' Bills to the detriment of conducting proper scrutiny. So far, six Bills have been introduced to the Assembly: Declan McAleer's Areas with Natural Constraints (Payments) Bill; Danny Baker's Education (Holiday Meal Payments) Bill; Pat Sheehan's Irish-medium Education (Workforce Plan) Bill; John Blair's Hunting with Dogs Bill; Sineád McLaughlin's Regional Balance Bill; and Peter McReynolds's Tree Protection Bill. Yesterday, I approved a further four Bills to be introduced today: Colm Gildernew's Housing (Amendment) Bill; Paula Bradshaw's Display of Flags and Emblems Bill; Eóin Tennyson's Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill; and Claire Sugden's Age Discrimination (Goods, Facilities and Services) Bill.

The 10 Members behind those Bills engaged with the Bill Office over the past two years to reach this point. I recognise that there are other Members who are disappointed that they did not manage to bring a Bill forward before the deadline. I know that many of them will return to those proposals after the next election. Those 10 private Members' Bills, combined with Executive Bills that have already been introduced and more that will come after the summer, mean that the Assembly will have a heavy legislative workload for the rest of the mandate. However, that should allow the Assembly to conduct proper scrutiny of the legislation that is in the system. Of course, much will turn on the issues engaged by particular Bills, but those are decisions for Committees and the Assembly to take through the legislative process. It is clear that there will be significant work to do in the amending stages that will begin later in the year.

Finally, I thank the officials in the Bill Office for the effort that they have invested to support Members in reaching this point.

Mrs Mason: Just over a week ago, artists from across Ireland gathered in Dublin — fittingly, it was at the end of Bloomsday Week — for an event titled "The Arts in a New Ireland", which was organised by Sinn Féin's Commission on the Future of Ireland. It gave artists the opportunity to raise concerns about the challenges facing the sector today and to share their hopes for the future of the arts, particularly in the context of a united Ireland.

As more and more people spoke, one thing became strikingly clear. While artists in the Twenty-six Counties face real challenges, artists in the North look with envy at the support available in the rest of Ireland, and it is not hard to see why.

We have no new arts strategy in the North, while, in the South, serious efforts were made to rebuild the sector following COVID. Arts funding here has suffered real-terms cuts of around 40%, while funding per capita in the South is around four times higher. The universal basic income for artists recognises the immense cultural and economic value that artists bring to society. Nothing remotely comparable exists in the North.

Investing in the arts is not a luxury. Every £1 invested through the Arts Council generates £1·81 in economic activity, with the potential to deliver even greater returns were the sector properly supported.

It would be easy to lay all the blame at the Minister's door. Certainly, Minister Lyons could never be accused of being a champion for the arts. Just last week, he confirmed to me that his Department will provide no direct funding to Fleadh Cheoil, one of the largest music festivals in Europe, when it comes to Belfast for the first time in August. However, the real barrier to progress runs much deeper, with its roots in partition and indifferent Governments in London holding our purse strings.

The message from those at the "The Arts in a New Ireland" event was clear: develop a coherent, all-island arts strategy; maximise cooperation across Ireland on arts projects and policy; remove barriers for artists working across the island; and ensure equal opportunities for arts from Derry to Kerry. I urge the Minister to remember that his remit extends beyond soccer clubs and marching bands and to listen to a sector that enriches our communities and strengthens our economy and is slowly suffocating on his watch.

Mr Brett: I warmly welcome the progress that has been achieved in the promotion of the Twelfth of July and our wider Orange and Ulster-Scots traditions by Tourism Northern Ireland. Last summer, I was hugely disappointed when Tourism Northern Ireland promoted a range of events taking place across Belfast but completely ignored the Twelfth of July, despite it being the largest annual cultural event in our capital city. I raised those concerns publicly at the time and continued to pursue the issue, including by directly questioning Tourism Northern Ireland officials when they appeared before the Economy Committee. My message that day was simple: if Tourism Northern Ireland is genuinely committed to promoting everything that Northern Ireland has to offer, it cannot overlook one of the biggest cultural and tourism events on the island.

I am therefore delighted to report to the House that a U-turn has been secured. This year, the Twelfth has been promoted through Discover Northern Ireland's social media channels. In addition, due to the work of my DUP colleague Cheryl Brownlee, the Royal Landing commemorations in Carrickfergus have been included in official Northern Ireland marketing material. That is real progress, and it deserves to be recognised. The scale of the Twelfth of July cannot be ignored. Tens of thousands of participants take part in events across Northern Ireland, with tens of thousands of people coming out to support that important day.

The Orange tradition and Ulster-Scots tradition are a vital part of our cultural heritage, and they deserve the same respect, promotion and inclusion as any other culture or identity. For too long, many parts of our community have felt that Departments have ignored those traditions: that is no longer the case. I hope that this marks not just a one-year improvement but a lasting commitment to ensuring that the Twelfth of July, our Orange tradition and Ulster-Scots heritage continue to receive the support that they deserve. It is good news for our culture and our tourism and for the Northern Ireland economy.

Mr Stewart: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on micro and small business, but I feel that I must highlight an issue that should concern every Member, regardless of party or constituency.

Northern Ireland has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape how we support entrepreneurs, start-ups and small businesses from April 2027, but that window is rapidly closing. The UK Government have made it clear that responsibility for the local growth fund will transfer to Executive Departments from April 2027. That funding is fundamental to the future of the Go Succeed programme and our entire enterprise support system. Decisions taken over the next two months will determine whether Northern Ireland has a modern, responsive enterprise service or whether we simply roll forward a model that increasingly struggles to keep pace with the world around it.

Technology is changing; artificial intelligence is transforming how businesses grow and start up; consumer behaviour is evolving; and business models are changing faster than ever before. Our enterprise support system risks standing still, and the evidence is sobering. Northern Ireland now has the lowest business start-up rate across the UK and Ireland, while our business survival rates continue to lag behind those of our neighbours. At a time when every business creates jobs, wealth, innovation and stronger communities, that should concern us all.

I thank Enterprise Northern Ireland and note the outstanding work of our local enterprise agencies, which go above and beyond, often in challenging financial circumstances, for our entrepreneurs and businesses. Day in, day out and often with limited resources, they work at the coalface of enterprise, supporting people with an idea, helping new businesses survive those difficult first years and backing local entrepreneurs in every corner of our country. That experience is invaluable. Enterprise NI has produced a paper on the evidence base, which draws together research, international best practice, programme evaluation and decades of practical delivery experience. That paper deserves serious consideration.

I understand that significant efforts have been made to bring the Department for the Economy, councils and Enterprise NI around a table to design collaboratively the modernised service for 2027, yet that meeting still has not happened. That is deeply disappointing. We now have a 12-week window in which meaningful engagement can take place. The clock is ticking, so we must ask what is preventing that collaboration. Is it a lack of urgency, a lack of trust or simply a lack of ambition? These are difficult and concerning times for our enterprise sector. I therefore urge the Minister for the Economy to act quickly and work with all stakeholders to ensure that collaboration is done properly in the coming weeks.

Ms Mulholland: I will use my final Member's statement before recess to reflect on the work of the Ten is Too Young Coalition and all those who have worked so passionately to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), including Voice of Young People in Care, the Children's Law Centre, NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, Children in Northern Ireland and Include Youth, alongside 70 other organisations, and the social workers, the youth practitioners, the Youth Justice Agency and all who have worked to create a better justice system that will continue to have victims and young people at its heart.

The debate on MACR in the Chamber demonstrated something really significant, which is that there is now a substantial body of support across the Assembly for that type of youth justice reform. Members from different parties recognised that our justice system must continue to evolve and continue to have children, young people and victims at its heart. What, we know, works to reduce offending and create safer communities has that support.

Not every contribution reflected that approach. Some Members chose to sensationalise the issue rather than engage with the evidence. Instead of grappling with decades of research and professional expertise, they dismissed it. They ignored the voices of those who work day in, day out with vulnerable children and young people. Even more disappointingly, organisations such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, respected children's organisations, youth justice professionals and others were belittled in the Chamber simply because their evidence challenged established views. We so often hear calls in the Chamber for legislation that is evidence-led, data-driven and compliant with our human rights obligations. Those are principles that I wholeheartedly support, but they cannot be principles that are applied only when they are convenient. Children's rights are human rights too. They do not become optional just because they are politically uncomfortable or do not grab the headlines.

The reality is that our youth justice system has changed remarkably over the past number of years. Through the dedication of those who work in it, there is now a greater emphasis on prevention, diversion and rehabilitation. In practice, most children who come into contact with the system are already diverted away from formal criminalisation, so the law must reflect that reality.

The triggering of the petition of concern mechanism was a misuse of a mechanism that was designed to protect minority rights. Here it is, blocking change designed to protect those who are most vulnerable. None of the proposed reforms diminishes the impact of crime on victims; they recognise that the best way to prevent future victims is to intervene early. The system can change, and I believe that it will. I thank those who have fought the fight, and I pledge that I will continue that fight with them in the years ahead.

Mr O'Toole: In the few minutes that I have before the end of term, I would want to be talking about the chaos that has been created by the absence of an Executive Budget and expressing hope that the Executive and the UK Government will finally get on with agreeing a Budget in order to prevent the collapse of more public services in Northern Ireland. It is shameful that we are in that situation, but, since I have only a few minutes, I must talk about an urgent matter that relates to the revelations over the past week involving Jeffrey Donaldson.

There are profound questions to answer for institutions, most particularly for the DUP and for individuals associated with the DUP. We talked about some of them yesterday. We need to understand more from the DUP leader about what the supposedly independent review will mean. However, we need to address a specific context in Northern Ireland, which is our defamation regime.

We learned about the antics of Jeffrey Donaldson that were not criminal — so far — only after his conviction. Reporters have been able to go and find that information and people have been able to speak — felt able to speak — because Mr Donaldson has been sent to prison, convicted of appalling crimes, and is therefore less likely to seek recourse through litigation. Otherwise, people probably would not have spoken and the media probably would have been chilled from reporting on it. That is a crisis throughout public life here. Members of the Chamber have used the defamation regime to shut down debate. Institutions use it to shut down scrutiny. In the past, Jeffrey Donaldson used it to shut down a not-for-profit website, openDemocracy, that was reporting on his shady links to the funding of a wrap-around pro-Brexit ad. He tried to intimidate the people running that website using lawyers. That kind of intimidation happens in Northern Ireland every day, because our defamation regime encourages the chilling of free, democratic debate. It is used not just by the DUP but by Sinn Féin in order to silence debate. I have a real worry that that prevented the reporting of Donaldson's deeply, grotesquely hypocritical behaviour and his other types of behaviour that may have crossed the criminal threshold. We do not know that yet, but we may find out more, because journalists, free from libelling that gentleman because of the predicament that he is in, are now able to report on it properly.

The crisis has been going on for years — in fact, decades. People have not properly confronted it, in part because some in the Chamber benefit from the protections that it offers. Others in the Chamber do not and have been subject to defamation actions. Of course there should be protections for people from false and defamatory claims, but, in this region, we have a particular problem. I am writing to the Finance Minister and the Justice Minister, both of whom have a policy interest, to get to the heart of whether our defamation regime prevents reporting on vital matters. I think that it does — in fact, I am sure that it does. One of the many things that has to come from the Donaldson scandal is a proper examination of our libel regime, the ways in which powerful people use it to protect themselves from scrutiny —

Mr Speaker: Your time is up, Mr O'Toole.

Mr O'Toole: — and what that means for public life in Northern Ireland.

Ms Ennis: The revelation over recent days that members of the DUP, including the Assembly Speaker, Edwin Poots, had knowledge of the exploitation of a young woman by the now convicted paedophile Jeffrey Donaldson raises serious questions for the DUP. Even if we accept that there were no criminal or safeguarding issues — and that remains to be seen — there was clearly knowledge of inappropriate behaviour by Donaldson that, according to the current DUP leader, was not passed to the party officers. The result is that those issues were not raised or dealt with, even as the DUP elevated Donaldson to leadership of the party. In effect, Donaldson's behaviour was ignored. That raises serious questions for Edwin Poots as Assembly Speaker. At best, it was a gross misjudgement by the Speaker; at worst, it was a fundamental and disastrous moral failure. The bottom line here is that a dangerous paedophile went unchallenged and, worse still and despite clear, known red flags, was elected leader of the DUP. On that basis, I call for the Speaker to stand aside, pending full disclosure of all the issues and any and all knowledge within the DUP of inappropriate behaviour before and during Donaldson's time as DUP leader.

Mr Buckley: I highlight yet another example of a political party claiming to represent the views of people across the island of Ireland yet taking a position that is fundamentally out of step with the concerns being expressed by a vast number of people across Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is on the issue of uncontrolled and illegal immigration.

Sinn Féin's latest position follows a pattern that Members will be well aware of.

Last year, Sinn Féin, alongside the open-border brigade of the Alliance Party and the SDLP, voted against my motion in the Assembly that called for action to address concerns about illegal and uncontrolled immigration. At a time when people were looking for a balanced and sensible discussion about the challenges associated with illegal immigration, those concerns were not acknowledged by those parties; rather, they were dismissed, and the people who expressed them were smeared and sneered at.

We now see a similar approach when it comes to the European Union. Sinn Féin's representatives in the European Parliament voted against proposals aimed at strengthening the management of illegal immigration and facilitating the return of failed asylum applicants — those who entered countries illegally — to designated return hubs outside the European Union. Sinn Féin described the measures as "racist" and "xenophobic", despite the legislation's receiving the support of 418 Members of the European Parliament. The same party took the same position when the UK Government attempted to address the issue in part with the returns hub in Rwanda.

The public are increasingly looking for a serious conversation about illegal and uncontrolled immigration. If that debate can happen in the European Parliament, the reasonable question to ask is this: why not in Belfast? People want an immigration system that is controlled, credible and properly enforced whilst ensuring that the genuine, heartfelt, lived experience and concerns of local citizens are at the heart of the debate. That is not an unreasonable position to take. It is one that is shared by many hard-working people of all political opinions and none, right across this country and beyond. On illegal immigration, Sinn Féin, once again, is taking a different approach. It is out of touch on an issue that is clearly out of control.

Mr Kearney: The 'good jobs' Bill is designed to benefit every single worker across this society, regardless of background. It is not anti-business. It is about growing economic productivity and enhancing employment and workers' rights. It is obvious that that transformative legislation is being blocked by the DUP while it continues to thwart the work of the power-sharing Executive and the Assembly.

For its own political reasons, the DUP is willing to deny the challenges faced by vulnerable workers and those who are responsible for looking after members of their own families. The DUP's blockage of the 'good jobs' Bill is a dereliction of political responsibility. It ignores the potential for the Bill to benefit the lives of even its own voters. The rhetoric around proper scrutiny is a complete red herring; it is an attempt by the DUP to run down the clock in relation to the mandate. Why is that? What is the DUP afraid of? Why is it vetoing the 'good jobs' Bill? Is it that the DUP is anti-trade union or anti-workers' rights, or is it just because transformative legislation is being brought forward by a Sinn Féin Economy Minister? Those are the questions that the DUP has to answer.

For our part, Sinn Féin will continue to progress the legislation. Workers' rights delayed are workers' rights denied.

Ms Forsythe: As we come to the end of another school term, I pay tribute to some excellent work at Kilkeel Primary School in my constituency, especially by the P7s. I declare an interest, as my son is one of them. Last week, the P7s put on four incredible performances entitled 'Tha Lang Road Tae Liberty' to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The drama production told the story of the Ulster Scots, their journey from Scotland to Ulster, including the connections to Mourne, and then to America, where they made their contribution to the Declaration of Independence.

That production was delivered thanks to Communities Minister Gordon Lyons and his USA-NI250 funding. The Schomberg Society and the staff and pupils of Kilkeel Primary School worked hard alongside the team from Blue Eagle Productions, especially director Rosie McClelland, to deliver a fantastic performance. We saw Northern Ireland's history, heritage and the pupils' great talent shining through.

The key roles that were played by people in Northern Ireland in the formation of the United States have become much more clearly understood on both sides of the Atlantic in the past few years, and it was fantastic to hear those stories through those young people. It was a pleasure to be joined at the performance by Lisa Guyselman from the USA, who is a direct descendant of one of the key characters portrayed in the drama, Captain Alexander Chesney. Her presence really helped bring the story to life.

The production was an excellent way to mark that important historic event and for those P7 pupils to bring their time in primary school to a close. It was bittersweet for the year group, as one of their dear classmates was notably missing. It was almost five months ago that I spoke in the Chamber about the tragic death of young John Doole. He remains so dearly missed and loved by his classmates in Kilkeel.

Following the production, we had the P7 leavers' assembly, at which John's big smile filled the screen and we all remembered him fondly. Theresa, Wesley and John's entire family remain in my thoughts and prayers. John will always remain part of that year group. Mrs McCabe, the school principal, shared with the children the words of Proverbs chapter 17, verse 17 on how true friends love at all times — through the good times and the hardships of life. I thank Mrs McCabe for her leadership. The support, guidance and care offered to that class throughout this difficult year by all the staff of Kilkeel Primary School, especially the P7 staff and Mr Annett, has been incredible. It really shows us how much school staff go above and beyond and the fact that school life is about more than just education; it is about life lessons, friendship and fellowship, setting young people up for their journey into the world.

Mr Carroll: Yesterday morning, as others did, I stood alongside our resident doctors as they commenced a 24-hour period of industrial action. We often praise our healthcare workers in the House and more generally, saying things such as that they are invaluable and that we wish them well. However, when questions arise about adequate pay, properly resourcing hospitals and other issues, we are quite quickly told that the money is not there. That is repeated ad nauseam in the House and elsewhere, but it is a complete fallacy. If the will were there to pay our doctors, healthcare workers and all other public-sector workers properly, it would have been done by now.

In recent days, the Health Minister in particular has been at pains to say that he has no money for healthcare workers. I challenge that assertion: it is not true. Agency spend has, again, gone through the roof and is sky-high; locum spend has gone up and continues to go up — it has gone up by in the region of £0·5 billion over the past few years; and, almost every single year out of the past five to 10 years, hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been pumped into the for-profit private healthcare sector. Again, if the will were there to properly pay our healthcare workers, including the doctors who were out on strike yesterday, the money would be found, repurposed and prioritised. The question is whether this Health Minister and the Executive value our doctors and other healthcare workers more broadly.

It was said yesterday on the picket line at the Royal Victoria Hospital, on the Grosvenor Road in west Belfast, that, "Claps don't pay the bills". With bills increasing month-on-month and year-on-year, that is true, and those workers need a proper settlement that meets their needs and the ever-increasing cost of living. One striking doctor put it to me starkly yesterday. They said that they left Scotland and took a more senior position in the health sector in Belfast. They actually took a pay cut. So, they left Scotland, took a more senior position and took a pay cut of several thousand pounds, despite taking on more responsibility and more work. They also said that corridor care, as it is euphemistically — or maybe offensively — called, does not exist to any real extent in Scotland — maybe here or there — but it is a daily occurrence in the North. That shows the kind of normalisation that is taking place as a result of this process.

I call on the Health Minister to sit down with the BMA and the striking doctors, meet their demands and find the money to make sure that those doctors do not leave the North and go to the South or Australia or England, where they are more respected and better paid.

Ms Sugden: I highlight the uncertain future of Fertility Network UK in Northern Ireland, following the announcement that its parent charity has entered a managed closure due to financial pressures. While efforts are ongoing to transfer the Northern Ireland service to another organisation, there is no certainty that that will happen.

In the meantime, new referrals for support have already stopped. Fertility Network UK is a service recognised and signposted by our own regional fertility centre, providing information, peer support and practical guidance to people who are navigating infertility.

Around one in seven couples in Northern Ireland experiences fertility problems, yet Northern Ireland continues to offer one of the most limited publicly funded fertility services anywhere in the United Kingdom. Couples face lengthy waits, restricted eligibility criteria and fewer publicly funded IVF opportunities than elsewhere. We rightly focus on improving the journey of access to treatment, but treatment is only one part of that journey. Fertility treatment can take over every aspect of someone's life. It affects relationships, work, finances and mental well-being. Women often carry the physical burden of treatment, but the emotional impact is shared by couples and families alike. When treatment does not work, patients do not simply stop being fertility patients. They are left trying to decide whether they want to try again, whether they can afford private treatment or how they can come to terms with a future that they never expected. Those conversations do not happen in a consultant's office; they happen at home, often in isolation. For many people, Fertility Network UK has been the place that they turned to for that support from others who genuinely understood what they were going through.

Northern Ireland already asks more of people experiencing infertility than any other part of the United Kingdom. We ask them to wait longer, we offer fewer publicly funded opportunities for treatment, and we ask them to navigate a more restricted system. The very least that we should ensure is that, throughout that journey, people have somewhere to turn for independent advice and specialist support. I sincerely hope that a new organisation can be found to continue that important work. If not, the Department of Health should work urgently with healthcare providers and the voluntary sector to ensure that that support is not simply allowed to disappear. If we are serious about improving fertility services in Northern Ireland, we cannot measure success solely by the treatment. We must also consider how we support people through one of the most difficult experiences and processes of their lives.

Mr Butler: Today, I want to talk about a very talented young girl from Lisburn called Freya Terris. Freya, who is 17 years old, attends Friends' School and studies the piano under former Lisburn resident Rory Dowse. Freya is an incredibly accomplished young pianist and has performed in the Ulster Hall. She gave a keynote talk at the Northern Ireland Young Musician Competition in the Waterfront last year, and, earlier this year, she passed her grade 8 piano exam with distinction.

What makes Freya unique is that she did it all using only her left hand. Freya had played piano since she was only four years of age. She loved it, and she immersed herself in it so much that it became a part of her identity. Sadly, a long-term injury and surgery left her unable to play with her right hand. Most would have given up, and no one would have blamed Freya had she done so, but Freya is cut from a different cloth, and she showed Herculean determination and steadfast patience, spending years building up her technique from the foundations and learning to play at a high standard with only her left hand. Freya then took the initiative and contacted the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM) to see whether it was possible to sit a grade 8 exam using only her left hand. The board agreed, and, in January of this year, she sat and passed her grade 8 piano exam using only her left hand, becoming the first person ever to do so in 137 years of the ABRSM.

The story does not stop there. Earlier this month, the ABRSM announced that, for the first time, its 2027-28 piano syllabus will include a dedicated list of piano music for one hand from grade 1 to grade 8. Anyone who knows anything about music will know that grade 8 is a phenomenal standard. For the first time in the board's history, pianists at every level can work towards a recognised qualification even if they have the use of only one hand. Freya has not let her restrictions define her or her piano ability. Her family are proud of her, I am proud of her, Lisburn is proud of her, Lagan Valley is proud of her, and I am sure that everyone in the Assembly will also say that they are proud of her, not just because of what she has achieved for herself but because of what she has achieved for others. I recommend to anyone who wants to take the time that they jump on to Rory Dowse's website to hear a fantastic recital played by Freya. Trust me: it will blow your mind.

Mr Speaker: Before we move to the Justice Bill, I will make a couple of announcements. The Minister of Education has written to say that he is no longer in a position to move the Consideration Stage of the General Teaching Council Bill today. He intends to move it at a later stage.

The Business Committee is not meeting today, so there will be no lunchtime suspension.

Mr Speaker: We move to the Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill.

Ms Sheerin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members will be aware that the DUP and some of its lackeys in the UUP cynically used petitions of concern, two weeks ago, to block rights for children. They will also be aware that the Human Rights Commission wrote to us all, independently, last week, to advise that the proposed changes in the amendments would have been in line with human rights advice. Will the Speaker's Office advise on the interpretation of Standing Orders that has not seen the setting up of an Ad Hoc Committee to consider that matter?

Mr Speaker: The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission provided advice to the Assembly on amendments that were tabled to the Justice Bill on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Members will know that those amendments are subject to petitions of concern. Under section 69(4)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the commission can advise the Assembly on whether a Bill is compatible with human rights on such occasions as the commission thinks appropriate, but it is for Members to consider to what extent they wish to act on that advice.

Section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Standing Order 28 set out the requirements in relation to a petition of concern. Section 42(6) of the Act sets out matters to be included in Standing Orders. The Standing Orders must include a provision under which the matter to which a petition of concern relates may be referred to an Ad Hoc Committee on conformity with equality requirements, but such a referral is not required in every case. Although I understand that the Committee on Procedures is considering those matters, no Standing Orders have yet been made under section 42(6) of the Act. It has not been the practice of the Assembly to refer matters to which a petition of concern relates to an Ad Hoc Committee, and there is no reason why that should happen in this case.

Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, will you rule on whether the ignorant comment that was made by the Member opposite, in which she described democratically elected Members as "lackeys", is appropriate parliamentary language? Will you further advise that the petition of concern is set down in Standing Orders for Members to use and that, although the Member may not like the outcome, that is the democratic will of the process of the petition of concern?

Mr Speaker: As I have said on many occasions, I encourage robust debate. Members strongly expressing their views on issues is something that the public should see, but I discourage personal insults. That continues to be the case. Members should not use gratuitous insults to describe colleagues. They should focus on making their case.

I will move on.

Ms Sheerin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm whether the Speaker's Office will write to all Members to clarify how Standing Order 60 was interpreted to decide that no Ad Hoc Committee was required for the implementation of this petition of concern?

Mr Speaker: I have just explained it to the House, and a fair number of Members are here. However, if Members wish to be updated, they can read the Hansard report of today's meeting.

Mr Speaker: As we move to the Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill, I advise Members that all petitions of concern that were presented on 15 June 2026 on amendment Nos 79 to 82, amendment No 85 and amendment No 86 have been confirmed. That means that the vote on the petitioned amendments will proceed on a cross-community basis, in accordance with section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Following the vote on the group 6 amendments, we will proceed directly to vote on amendment Nos 87 to 132, clauses 24 to 34 and schedules 1 to 4. The votes on those amendments and provisions will be by simple majority. There will be no further debate on any of the amendments. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I assume that this is a point of order, but I cannot hear you at this end of the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: Apologies.

Mrs Long: I do not think that your microphone is on.

Mr Speaker: I did not have my mic switched on, so I will read it again. Apologies for that. Could you not have made your point of order at the start? [Laughter.]

I advise Members that all petitions of concern that were presented on 15 June 2026 on amendment Nos 79 to 82, amendment No 85 and amendment No 86 have been confirmed. That means that the votes on the petitioned amendments will now proceed on a cross-community basis, in accordance with section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

Following the votes on the group 6 amendments, we will then proceed directly to votes on amendment Nos 87 to 132, clauses 24 to 34 and schedules 1 to 4. All those votes will be by simple majority. There will be no further debate on any of the amendments. If that is clear, we shall now proceed.

I remind Members that the vote on amendment No 79 requires cross-community support.

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that, because of the petition of concern, the Member may not have moved the amendment.

Mr Frew: It was moved at the start of the debate on the group 6 amendments.

Mrs Long: I think that we were advised at the start of the debate that the amendment could not be moved.

Mr Speaker: Amendment No 79 was moved at the start of the debate. The Member can still withdraw it if she so desires.

Mr Speaker: As amendment No 80 is consequential to amendment No 79, which was not been made, it will not be called.

Mr Carroll: This is all a bit pointless, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that the vote on amendment No 81 will require cross-community support.

Ms Sheerin: As previously stated, this is all pointless.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that the vote on amendment No 82 will require cross-community support. As amendment Nos 83 and 84 are amendments to amendment No 82, we need to dispose of them before returning to amendment No 82.

Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that the vote on amendment No 82 will be by cross-community support.

Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 85, as it is consequential to amendment No 82, which was not made.

Mr Speaker: I again remind Members that the vote on amendment No 86 requires cross-community support.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): No amendments have been tabled to clauses 24 to 26. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the clauses for the Question on stand part.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Question is that amendment No 91 be made and the new clause added to the Bill. All those in favour say Aye.

Some Members: Aye.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Any contraries?

Some Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division, so I now call for Tellers. Do we have Tellers?

Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I get some clarity, please? I opened the debate on this group of amendments, but I was advised that, because a petition of concern had already been laid, I could not move the amendment at that time. Is it therefore not in order that the amendment now has to be moved formally before the vote can be taken?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I have just taken learned advice from our friend at the Table. The answer is that, yes, you should have been called to move the amendment. In that case, would you care to move amendment No 91, Minister?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We are now back to where we were at. I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, a bit of hush here. Before I put the Question, I remind Members that we have debated the Minister of Justice's opposition to clause 28 but the Question will be put in the positive as usual.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 101 is consequential to amendment No 91, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 103 is consequential to amendment No 92, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment 105 is consequential to amendment No 8, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 107 is a paving amendment for amendment No 111.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 109 is consequential to amendment No 108, which has been made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 110 is a paving amendment for amendment No 111.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 112 is consequential to amendment No 108, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 113 is consequential to amendment No 111, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 114 is consequential to amendment No 108, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 115 is consequential to amendment No 108, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 116 is consequential to amendment No 111, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 117 is consequential to amendment No 108, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 118 is consequential to amendment No 111, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 119 is consequential to amendment No 111, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 120 is consequential to amendment Nos 108 and 111, both of which were made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 122 will not be called, as it is consequential to amendment No 13, which was not made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 123 is consequential to amendment No 48, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 124 is consequential to amendment No 58, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 125 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 64, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 126 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 66, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 127 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 69, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 128 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 70, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 129 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 94, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 130 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment Nos 45 to 48, which were made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 131 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 69, which as made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 132 has already been debated and is consequential to amendment No 70, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes the Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Thank you, one and all.

Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to introduce the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill [NIA Bill 42/22-27], which is a Bill to confer powers to provide financial assistance for the purposes of encouraging low-carbon electricity generation.

Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Ms Bunting: It is not an exaggeration to say that today is a momentous day. It is an honour and a privilege for me to move the Final Stage of this important legislation on behalf of the First Minister and the deputy first Minister, junior Minister Reilly and, indeed, the Executive.

Before turning to the detail of the Bill, it is right that we pause to recognise those who have helped to bring us to this point. This moment has truly been many years in the making. It has been shaped by the courage, perseverance and determination of countless individuals, some of whom are with us today in the Public Gallery. Others will be watching or listening remotely, and to all of them we offer our sincere thanks.

Most of all, I pay tribute to the victims and survivors whose experiences sit at the heart of the legislation. We are deeply grateful to those who, often at great cost to themselves, have shared their painful, personal experiences and to those who have engaged constructively and thoughtfully through the consultation forum and the various consultation processes. Without question, they have helped to shape the policy and legislation before the House today. Their willingness to participate in the process has made the Bill stronger, more informed and more meaningful.

Special recognition must also be given to the women who began this journey and never gave up: we all know who they are. We specifically acknowledge the women who started Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice all those years ago, as well as those who stood alongside them. Those women showed extraordinary courage. They challenged a silence that had endured for far too long. They encouraged others to come forward and helped them to find their voice. They refused to be cowed, and they rejected the shame and stigma that had been wrongly placed on them by others — a shame that was never theirs to bear. I believe that it is true to say that, for them, it has been a monumental fight to be heard. It is a fight to be acknowledged, and it is a fight to hold to account those responsible for the pain and suffering that they visited on those women during that dark period of our past and since. I think that I can speak for all of us when we say that we are sorry that they have had to fight at all.

Of course, the experience did not end with the institution itself; rather, for the victims and survivors — those women and children — the period has been a thread of pain that has woven its way through their entire lives. For many, the past has, indeed, been a lifelong struggle to be heard, to be believed and to be acknowledged. The harm that they experienced did not end when an institution closed its doors, nor did it end when records were filed away. Many victims and survivors carried the consequences throughout their lives, affecting identities, relationships, families and futures — effects that have echoed across generations.

I thank all who have contributed to the process. First, the victims, survivors and relatives have been central to the truth recovery programme from the very beginning. We thank all who participated in the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum. We know that that has not always been an easy space, but we hope that, today, they can reflect on all their efforts with pride. We say a special thanks to Marie Breen Smyth, current independent chair of the forum, and Avila Kilmurray, the previous chair, for their great support of the forum and the programme more generally and to Danny Taggart for his support as clinical psychologist to the forum.

We express our gratitude to the Committee for the Executive Office and Assembly staff. The Committee Chairperson and members undertook their scrutiny with diligence, sensitivity and respect. Throughout the process, their engagement with victims and survivors and with the Department reflected the gravity and importance of the issues under consideration. We also take this opportunity to express our appreciation to our own officials, who have worked tirelessly with care, sensitivity and dedication on the Bill with us, with the Committee and, most important, as they engaged with victims and survivors. Likewise, we commend the Office of the Legislative Counsel for its support and drafting expertise.

While no legislation can undo the extent of the suffering endured, it is our hope that the Bill represents another important step towards recognition, accountability and healing. The inquiry and the redress scheme represent two parts of a single commitment. One seeks to uncover the truth: what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. The other provides acknowledgement now by creating a redress scheme that provides a financial payment that represents society's acceptance that those affected should not have to wait any longer to receive tangible confirmation that their experiences mattered.

To recap, the legislation before the House has been carefully designed to establish an independent and effective public inquiry that is capable of carrying out the comprehensive investigation for which survivors and advocates have long called and that they deserve. It will be built on the important work of the truth recovery independent panel, whose report will launch next week. The establishment of the inquiry matters, because it will do more than examine historical events. It will provide a formal and authoritative process through which experiences can be acknowledged, evidence can be gathered and the historical record can be strengthened. It will have additional powers to examine the evidence and the power to compel new evidence that may not have been accessible to date.

We welcome the creation of the advisory panel, which is a distinctive and important feature of the legislation. It goes beyond the standard provisions of the Inquiries Act 2005 and is designed to ensure that the perspectives of victims and survivors remain central throughout the work of the inquiry, while still fully protecting its independence and integrity. It also recognises the broad scope of the work of the inquiry, encompassing communities across this jurisdiction while acknowledging the importance of understanding the experiences of those who were relocated elsewhere on these islands or further afield.

If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, today is also an important and appropriate moment to reflect on the importance of the Preservation of Documents (Historical Institutions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, passed by the Assembly almost four years ago to the day. That legislation laid essential foundations for the work that follows and for the inquiry that this Bill seeks to establish. It has enabled colleagues in the Public Record Office to ensure access to records held by institutions within the scope of this programme. To date, more than 6,000 institutional records have been preserved, digitised and catalogued. That covers over 32 record collections and almost 60,000 digital images. Those records can now be made available to the inquiry chair without any unnecessary delay. That is a significant achievement and one that, hopefully, brings victims and survivors closer to obtaining the answers that they have sought for so long.

Important work has also been undertaken by officials in the Department of Health and the trusts to improve access to relevant records, but we appreciate that there is much more to do. We know that the records situation is not perfect, but, nevertheless, we hope that the steps taken thus far represent progress, and we trust that that progress will continue. We are grateful to the Health Minister for his support in advancing that work, and we will continue to engage with him on preparations for the redress scheme and the inquiry.

In shaping the framework for the inquiry, we learned valuable lessons from other major inquiries on how best to support participation, engage with vulnerable individuals and ensure that processes are conducted with compassion and care. Through the wider truth recovery programme, dedicated counselling and therapeutic support services were made available through the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) via its community partners WAVE Trauma Centre and Adopt NI. Over 600 people have accessed those supports to date. The Executive remain committed to ensuring that engagement with those processes is conducted with sensitivity, compassion and respect, and that support remains a central and vital part of the process.

To anyone considering whether to engage with the inquiry, let me say that we hope that it will be seen as an opportunity to contribute to a fuller understanding of our shared past. Every testimony matters, as does every piece of evidence. Together, they can help to establish a clearer and more complete picture of what occurred. That is important not only for those who were directly affected but for society as a whole. We cannot change the past or undo the suffering, separation, loss and trauma that were experienced by so many women, children and families, but we can and will seek the truth. We can and will investigate what happened thoroughly and independently. We can ensure that experiences are recognised and recorded, never to be forgotten, and we can help future generations to understand that dark chapter of our history.

The practices of these institutions may have been hidden or not spoken about openly, but they were never accidental. They were the product of systemic misogyny, and we continue to see misogyny today from some; it is just in different guises, and that is the ugly truth. It is still cruel, disheartening and difficult to fully comprehend. I hope that the experiences of the many women who were affected by those institutions and practices will serve as a challenge to us all. It is a challenge to us as a society to reflect on what more we can do now to treat women and girls with respect and care and to offer hope for a better future.

Ultimately, the success of the inquiry will depend on its ability to uncover the truth. That truth will be stronger, more meaningful and more powerful if those with lived experience feel able to participate. I must say that hearing their lived experiences hits home. It is immensely powerful. I encourage everyone who feels able to engage with the process to do so. They should feel confident that every effort will be made to treat them with dignity, respect and care. The inquiry is about more than examining the past; it is about listening, acknowledging and, above all, ensuring that those whose voices were ignored for far too long are finally heard.

Alongside the inquiry, the Bill delivers something that victims and survivors have consistently told us is essential: meaningful acknowledgement in the here and now. Final Stage is not about revisiting policy arguments or decisions on what was or was not passed, yet it was important, necessary and right that the Executive's position was placed on the record. Nevertheless, today is a good day. Moreover, it is a historic day. We are delivering for victims and survivors, as we should.

Everybody concerned approached the Bill with the best of intentions and mindful of the hurt and harm of the past. Together, we sought to arrive at deliverable solutions. We worked our way through the challenges and disagreements together, as we should. We did so sensitively, given the nature of the issues, and we afforded respect to one another, including in the debates. We saw constructive engagement between the Executive and the Assembly throughout. I trust that what we witnessed throughout the legislative process will bring some confidence and reassurance to our citizenry and those who care about democracy. The democratic process together with the perseverance of victims and survivors have delivered the final version of the Bill. We congratulate the victims and survivors on all that they did to bring it to fruition. We extend our sincere thanks to all who engaged in the process, recognising the significant achievement. Their input was instrumental in shaping the Bill that the Assembly will shortly be invited to pass.

For those affected by the mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and related pathways and practices, the process has taken too long, but we can be pleased that we got there, for the victims' sakes. Many have spent decades feeling lost while searching for answers, records, recognition and acknowledgement of the profound impact that the institutions had on their lives. That is why the Bill establishes a statutory redress scheme alongside the inquiry. That approach reflects the recommendations of the truth recovery design panel, agreed by Ministers, which recognise that victims and survivors should not have to wait until every aspect of a truth recovery process has concluded before receiving meaningful acknowledgement. The standardised payment provided for in the Bill is not about financial compensation. It is an acknowledgement of the shame, stigma and lifelong consequences imposed on so many women, children and families. Many of us have been deeply moved and, honestly, forever impacted on by the harrowing details of what we have heard and read of how women and children were treated in those places of supposed care and shelter. We will not forget them or their lived experiences. We fully appreciate that no payment can erase the grief, loss, separation and trauma, but the scheme can provide some tangible recognition to as many people as possible that those experiences mattered and that society accepts a responsibility to acknowledge that the wrongs occurred.

The Bill establishes an independent redress service to administer the scheme fairly, consistently and independently. We thank the Justice Minister and her officials for their support in establishing the shadow redress service and for taking forward important preparatory work in advance of the Bill passing and the scheme opening. The service provides powers to obtain relevant evidence and information, which will help applicants to overcome barriers that often arise when dealing with events that occurred many decades ago.

We also recognise the victims and survivors who, sadly, did not live to see this day. Many campaigned tirelessly for truth and acknowledgement but have not lived to witness the Bill's passage. Their absence is keenly felt.

To victims and survivors considering whether to engage with the redress service, I send an unequivocal message: the scheme exists because your experiences matter, and you need not face the process alone.

Today, through the Bill, to victims and survivors we say this: we see you, and we hear you; we feel for what you went through and endured; we acknowledge your experiences; we recognise the injustice that was done to you; and we are committed to uncovering the truth about the past and providing meaningful acknowledgement of its impact. The Bill cannot undo what happened, but it can help to ensure that it is never forgotten, never ignored and never denied.

Today is a good day for Northern Ireland, for the House and, most especially, for victims and survivors. I commend the Bill to the House.

Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): As Chairperson of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Final Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. I welcome the victims and survivors and their family members who have come to Parliament Buildings today, as well as those watching online. Today is a huge milestone for victims and survivors, many of whom have waited decades for recognition of the harm and suffering that they endured.

I put on record the Committee's thanks to everyone who gave evidence to the Committee and continued to engage with us throughout the process. In particular, I thank the victims and survivors who appeared before the Committee and engaged courageously and honestly with members on the Bill. As we move towards the public inquiry, I give a commitment that the Committee will continue to work with you in the time ahead through our role in scrutinising the delegated legislation, engaging on memorialisation and access to records and making any necessary recommendations for the successor Executive Office Committee to take forward in the next Assembly mandate, including on the individually assessed payment scheme.

I thank the junior Ministers for bringing the Bill to the Assembly today for its Final Stage. I also thank the Committee team, my fellow Committee members and other Members of the House for the respect shown and the quality of debate throughout the Bill's passage. At all stages, the Committee has set out its clear support for the legislation's overarching aims and principles, which are to establish a statutory public inquiry into the systemic failings associated with mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses between 1922 and 1995 and to create a statutory redress scheme for those directly affected.

The Committee undertook extensive, trauma-informed engagement throughout its scrutiny, receiving 91 written submissions, oral evidence from 24 organisations and many detailed briefings from departmental officials. In addition to formal evidence sessions, the Committee held stakeholder familiarisation events, round-table discussions across Northern Ireland and dedicated sessions for victims and survivors, supported by advocacy and well-being services. Those contributions were invaluable. The testimony that we heard from victims and survivors did not simply inform our work but shaped and strengthened it.

The Committee unanimously supported the Bill in principle and used the Committee Stage to develop amendments to strengthen transparency, enhance survivor involvement, improve accountability and ensure robust Assembly oversight, including requiring the publication of the inquiry's terms of reference within six months; broadening statutory consultation requirements; amending provisions to ensure the explicit inclusion of women who became pregnant while in workhouses; ensuring multidisciplinary membership of the inquiry panel; strengthening the requirements around advisory panel consultation; extending appeal periods; enhancing transparency around restriction orders; introducing penalties for breaches; requiring Ministers to publish a post-inquiry scheme for pursuing financial contributions from institutions where systemic failings are identified in the public inquiry; strengthening public access, witness support and core participant arrangements throughout through amendments to the rule-making power; and removing the posthumous cut-off date of 29 September 2011. Although an amendment was not selected for debate at Consideration Stage, a revised date of 28 April 1953, which was tabled as an amendment by the Committee, was agreed by the House at Further Consideration Stage.

Members will recall that a consistent theme that emerged from the Committee's call for evidence was the strong opposition to the proposed posthumous cut-off date of 29 September 2011. Throughout Committee Stage, victims and survivors consistently advocated its removal in order to ensure a more inclusive approach. The exclusion of posthumous claims prior to 2011 was described as "arbitrary" and "unjustified", as it would create harmful hierarchies among victims and survivors. As I said, although the Committee's amendment to remove the posthumous cut-off date was not selected for debate at Consideration Stage, an alternative amendment was successful at Further Consideration Stage, with the Assembly agreeing on a revised date of 28 April 1953. That date was chosen by the Committee because it reflects the posthumous eligibility cut-off date used in the redress scheme for survivors of historical institutional abuse. The date was adopted on the basis that it marks the point at which concerns were first formally raised by the Northern Ireland Government's Ministry of Home Affairs through a memorandum on conditions in such institutions and were therefore known to the state.

The Committee amendment broadens the eligibility for redress payments by addressing the issue of the posthumous cut-off date. It ensures that individuals who may previously have been excluded may now potentially be included in the scope of the redress scheme, therefore widening access for survivors and their family members. In particular, the amendment responds positively and directly to the concerns raised by victims and survivors, promoting a more inclusive, fairer approach. It helps to ensure that entitlement is not limited by a restrictive date, particularly in circumstances where the harms in question were known to the state over a much longer period.

The First Minister and deputy First Minister tabled a number of amendments that gave effect to the Committee's intent across a number of clauses. In several instances, the Committee chose to withdraw its amendments in favour of the Ministers' wording, where that better reflected the broader book of the law. That reflects the close working relationship between the Committee and the Department throughout the passage of the Bill, which ensured that amendments were strengthened in line with the policy intent and that the language was aligned appropriately with other provisions in the Bill. I thank the departmental officials for the way in which they engaged with the Committee, adopting a constructive approach to help deliver the best possible outcomes for victims and survivors.

The Committee also welcomed the majority of amendments tabled to offer tidying-up alternatives to a number of Gerry Carroll's amendments that had been successful at Consideration Stage. Again, the Committee asked the Department to engage further with the Member on the technical wording and to consider how the amendments could be strengthened in line with the policy intent. While the Committee did not support Gerry Carroll's amendments at Further Consideration Stage, I recognise the work undertaken by the Member.

While significant progress has been made to reach this stage, further work remains to be done beyond Final Stage to ensure that an inquiry chair is appointed without delay. That will help to ensure that, once the inquiry begins, it can fully examine and determine the facts relating to the institutions between 1922 and 1995.

The Committee made important recommendations throughout the Committee Stage that are reflected in the Committee's report. The key points from that report include the importance of ensuring that the inquiry adopt a modular approach to allow for institutions to be included in the redress scheme, where evidence presents itself; the need for the Executive Office to communicate clearly to victims and survivors that the institutions included in the redress scheme may be highlighted in light of the inquiry's findings; and the need to ensure that the recommendations contained in the truth recovery independent panel's final report, which will be published on 7 July, relating to the inquiry are considered and that they inform and influence the inquiry's work, once it is established. Key points were also made in relation to redress: the need to ensure that the Executive Office introduces clear guidelines for the scheme as soon as practicable; the need for the Executive Office to widely communicate and promote the scheme to all victims and survivors, including those who live overseas; and the need for the Executive Office to expedite the necessary preparatory work for the harm-based individually assessed payment scheme that is due to follow.

I thank everyone who engaged with the Committee, the Committee team, the Bill Office and other business areas across the Assembly for their work on the Bill. I thank WAVE Trauma Centre, the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS), Adopt NI and the consultative forum, who supported the unique scrutiny of the Bill.

The Committee for the Executive Office supports the Final Stage of the Bill. The Bill represents a long-awaited milestone for victims and survivors, recognising the harm that they endured and providing access to redress.

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I will make some remarks as an Alliance Party MLA. We stand at a profound and important crossroads in our history. As we reach the Final Stage of the Bill, we are not merely passing legislation; we are confronting a dark, long-cast shadow that has stained our national conscience for generations. The mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses were not accidental failures of our past; they were deliberate, institutionalised systems of cruelty. They were places where those who were vulnerable were concealed, young mothers were stripped of their babies and children were stripped of their identities. Let us be resolute in our remembrance of what happened behind the doors of those institutions. We now know that women and children were punished for the supposed crimes of being poor, unmarried or vulnerable. They have had to carry that stigma and shame ever since. We now know that names were changed, records hidden and the natural, sacred bond between mother and child treated as something to be severed and sold. That was an erasure of their identity, and how incredibly cruel it was.

We now know that the institutions operated in an atmosphere of fear. The pregnant women had to comply with a regime of harsh forced labour, emotional abuse and systemic neglect. For decades, the state looked the other way. Society chose comfortable ignorance over uncomfortable truth, but the truth, no matter how deeply buried, has a way of rising to the light.

As I previously said, in the Gallery of the Chamber and watching online today there are many brave birth mothers, adult adoptees and supportive family members who have campaigned so hard to get to this point. It was not because those institutions of power woke up one day and decided to acknowledge the abuse and seek to remediate it.

As I said in a previous debate, I first met Oonagh McAleer, Mechelle Dillon and Eunan Duffy in 2016 when they came to my office to seek support for their campaign as part of the wider Birth Mothers and their Children for Justice group. At that stage, they had gone from office to office and from meeting to meeting, and, again, I will use the phrase that Eunan used on that day and that stuck with me. He said that they were drowning in tea and sympathy. I want to officially and wholeheartedly acknowledge them today, for they kept pushing back against the excuses for progress not being made, the bureaucratic loopholes and hoops that they had to jump through. Yet, they refused to let the issue go. They and many of the campaigners who are here today have carried the heavy burden of their trauma into the public space. They campaigned, they organised and they provided support to one another. They testified, and they demanded to be heard. They relived their darkest and most personal moments so that future generations would know their truth, their experience would be acknowledged and those responsible would be held accountable. We owe them and every campaigner who joined them a debt of gratitude that we can never fully repay. Their courage has broken the silence and forced the Assembly to back them.

The Bill and the accompanying redress scheme are a necessary, though belated, acknowledgement of the state's failure. No financial compensation can undo the pain of a stolen childhood, a forced separation or a lifetime of carried shame. No legislation can hand back the years lost in a damp, cold institution such as a Magdalene laundry or the sterile isolation of a mother-and-baby institution. Again, I refuse to call them "mother-and-baby homes", for we now know that there was nothing homely about them. What the Bill can and must do is offer a tangible declaration that the state accepts its responsibility. It provides a mechanism for accountability, a pathway for support and an official permanent record that the survivors were right and the system was wrong.

Members, as we cast our final votes on the Bill, let us do so in full acknowledgement of what the moment demands, and let us pass this not just as a matter of legislative procedure but as a pledge, a pledge that we will never again allow the vulnerable to be hidden away, a pledge that we will protect human rights above institutional reputations and, above all, a pledge to the survivors who have long walked a painful march for justice. They have finally brought us to this place today, and our country must honour them.

In closing, in a personal capacity, I thank my fellow Committee members. I thank the Committee for the Executive Office team, and I want to read their names into the record: Nick Mitford, Sarah-Anne McKinley, Andrienne Magee, Neil Porter and, most recently, Trevor Allen. I thank the Bill Office, especially Stephen Orme, and the communications team at the Assembly for facilitating our consultation with the victims and survivors. Last but not least, I thank the departmental officials for their constructive engagement throughout the Bill's scrutiny stage.

Ms McLaughlin: Today is an important day because it is a day of accountability. I welcome to the Gallery all of the birth mothers, all of the adult adoptees and all of their family members. I thank everyone who has journeyed with you and loved you throughout the process.

After a long legislative process, we have reached the Final Stage of the Bill. There has been detailed scrutiny, with difficult conversations and thoughtful debate along the way, and that is as it should be. However, before the Bill completes its passage through the Assembly, it is worth reminding ourselves why we began the journey in the first place. We are not here simply to pass legislation; we are here because of the women, children and families whose lives were changed for ever by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. We are here because survivors refused to accept that their stories would remain untold. We are here because they never stopped asking for what should never have been so difficult to receive in the first place: recognition, dignity and justice. For many of us, today's debate marks the end of the legislative process, but, for survivors, I hope that it marks another step forward. It is not the end of their journey, because there is still work to do, but it is an important step nonetheless.

One thing has stayed with me throughout the passage of the Bill. Every time that we debated amendments or discussed technical aspects of the legislation, I found myself thinking about the people behind those discussions. Behind every clause is a person; behind every amendment is someone's lived experience; and behind every decision that we make in the Chamber are people who have spent years carrying the consequences of decisions that they never made. That is why the legislation is so important. It is not that any Act of the Assembly can rewrite history, because it cannot. We cannot undo what happened, give people back the years that were taken from them or remove the hurt that so many survivors still carry, but we can acknowledge that what happened was wrong. We can recognise the profound harm that was caused, and, as a society, we can say that those who were failed have finally been heard. Sometimes, recognition can be as important as anything else. After decades of silence, being believed matters; having your experience acknowledged matters; and knowing that society finally accepts the truth matters deeply. That is what, I hope, the legislation provides.

Throughout the process, I wanted to ensure that, where we could strengthen the Bill, we did. That is why I tabled the amendment to increase the standard payment from £10,000 to £12,000. I never viewed that amendment simply in financial terms, because no amount of compensation will make up for what survivors endured, no figure could ever reflect their pain, and the loss of the lasting impact that the institutions had on so many lives will never be overcome, but compensation is still an important recognition of the harm that was suffered. It is one way of acknowledging that people were profoundly failed. As time passed, I believed that the original figure no longer reflected the recognition as strongly as it should have done, so I was pleased that Members from across the Chamber supported that amendment. I hope that survivors saw that vote for what it was: a genuine attempt by the Assembly to strengthen the recognition in the legislation.

None of us has reached that alone today. That is why I thank every survivor who found the courage to come forward and tell their story. Many did so knowing how painful it would be, and many relived experiences that no one should ever have endured. The courage that they have shown has changed this society. I also thank the families, campaign groups and advocates who have stood beside survivors over many years and never allowed the issue to slip from public attention. I do not want to name individuals, but change happened because you — all of you — refused to give up. I also acknowledge the work that has taken place behind the scenes. In particular, I have enjoyed working with Marie Breen Smyth, as she sensitively supported and advocated on behalf of every victim and survivor. I also thank the departmental officials: you were outstanding in the work that you did on the Bill. I also acknowledge the Ministers: your contributions have been considered and welcome.

To those in the Bill Office, thank you for the support, expertise and professionalism that you have shown through every stage of the Bill. I acknowledge Paula as Chair of the Committee and, indeed, all my Committee colleagues. It was an example of how, cross party, we can work together to deliver legislation that supports those who need it most: victims, survivors and families from across all communities.

It is often Members who receive the attention in debates such as this, but good legislation depends on the dedication and expertise of many people working quietly in the background. Today, we complete the legislative journey, but we should not pretend that justice begins and ends with the passing of a Bill. The redress scheme must now be delivered with compassion, the public inquiry must continue its work, survivors must continue to be listened to, and we must continue to seek answers to any unanswered questions. The responsibility does not end this afternoon; if anything, it becomes greater.

When survivors look back on today, I hope that they will see more than another piece of legislation passing through the Assembly. I hope that they will see a society finally prepared to acknowledge the wrong that was done to them; a society prepared to listen; a society prepared to recognise their suffering; and a society committed to ensuring that what happened will never be forgotten or repeated. The Bill cannot change the past, but it can mark another important step on the journey towards justice. For that reason, the SDLP is proud to support it at Final Stage.

Ms Murphy: For the final time, I declare an interest: my mother resided in a mother-and-baby home that is included in schedule 2 to the Bill. I pay tribute to all birth mothers, adult adoptees and family members, some of whom join us in the Public Gallery today, and, of course, to those watching online.

Today belongs to the women and girls who were told that they should remain silent; to the children who grew up without knowing who they were; to the families who carried many unanswered questions across generations; and to those who fought for justice but did not live long enough to see the legislation finally pass. For decades, many victims and survivors believed that nobody wanted to hear their story, and they often carried shame that was never theirs to bear, grief that society expected them to live with and secrets that were forced upon them by institutions that were supposed to care for and protect them with compassion.

The research undertaken by teams from Ulster University, Queen's University and others across Ireland exposed the scale of what happened here. Around 10,500 women entered mother-and-baby institutions, and approximately 3,000 women entered Magdalene laundries in the North between 1922 and 1990. Some were girls who were only 12 years old — they were children. Many had experienced rape, abuse or exploitation even before arriving at those institutions, yet, too often, they were treated as though they were the ones who should carry shame.

Throughout Committee Stage, we listened to testimony that was difficult to hear but impossible to ignore. Survivors reminded us that the legislation could never be about compensation, which has been alluded to by other Members, but had to be about truth. As one witness put it, "Without the truth, we do not have any recovery". Those words stayed with me throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill, and they remind us that acknowledgement without truth is incomplete and that justice delayed must not become justice denied.

We heard the frustration of many survivors who spent years trying to obtain the most basic information about their lives. As one group said to the Committee, survivors were told that their records could re-traumatise them. It is worse not to know such vital information. Imagine being told that someone else knows more about your life, your medical records and your history than you ever will. Imagine spending decades searching for your birth records, your family history and the truth about what happened to you as a child or to your child. That is why the Bill is about so much more than financial redress; it is about restoring identity and, importantly, dignity.

During Committee Stage, we worked constructively across party lines, because we recognised that survivors deserved legislation that reflected their experiences. When survivors highlighted ways in which the Bill could be strengthened, we took those seriously. We sought to broaden the scope of the inquiry to ensure that more institutions and victims were recognised, and we acknowledged the importance of posthumous recognition for those who died waiting for justice. Not every amendment could be accepted and not every aspiration could be delivered through the Bill, but I hope that survivors know that their voices shaped it and that every contribution that they made strengthened the Bill and made it into the final version before us today.

To those who are following today's debate, I say this: the wounds left by rejection, secrecy and institutional mistreatment run too deep for any statute to fully heal. What we can do, however, is to confront that history honestly. We recognise that those who endured such experiences were failed by systems that should have protected them. We reject the prejudice and judgement that were imposed on them, and we will ensure that their experiences are no longer hidden, dismissed or forgotten. Most importantly, we can offer what should have been given long ago: recognition, dignity and the assurance that their place in our history will be acknowledged with truth and respect.

From a personal point of view, the debate carries deep significance. My mother was born into a mother-and-baby home. As is the case with so many families across Ireland, the legacy of those institutions has echoed through our family history. I am delighted that she is in the Public Gallery to see the legislation reach its Final Stage. Today is about recognising generations of women and children whose lives were forever altered by decisions made in places that denied them compassion and dignity.

Finally, I remember the victims and survivors who are not here to witness today's debate. Many campaigned for years; many told their stories repeatedly so that others might one day receive recognition; and many never lived to hear the Assembly say, "We believe you".

The Bill cannot rewrite the past, but it can ensure that the truth is never hidden again. It can ensure that future generations understand and acknowledge what happened, and, in some small measure, it can replace silence with acknowledgement, secrecy with truth and shame with dignity. For those reasons, I am immensely proud to support the Bill at its Final Stage today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Áine. I am sure that your mother is looking at you with pride.

Mr Brett: At the outset, I pay tribute to the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for her heartfelt and valuable contribution. As you rightly said, Mr Deputy Speaker, her family will be very proud of the contribution that she has just made.

Today marks a truly significant moment. No legislation can erase the suffering endured by those who suffered in mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. The Bill cannot restore the years that were stolen from them or heal every wound or pain that so many women, children and families have carried throughout their lives, but it represents an important step towards acknowledging those wrongs, finally establishing truth and providing long-overdue recognition and redress.

For too long, many victims and survivors felt ignored, dismissed or simply forgotten. Many carried those experiences in silence for decades; others, sadly, never lived to see this day. That is why I begin by paying tribute to victims and survivors who found the courage to tell their stories. Reliving deeply traumatic experiences was never easy, yet they did so because they wanted to ensure that future generations would know the truth and that what happened to them would never be repeated.

I recognise the tireless work of the campaigners, advocacy groups and families who refused to let the issue disappear. Through years of persistence, determination and dignity, they ensured that their voices could no longer be ignored. Without their commitment, we would not be debating the Bill at its Final Stage today.

The Bill will establish a statutory public inquiry alongside a redress scheme, both of which are important. Their establishment recognises that there is a responsibility not only to uncover truth but to acknowledge the profound harm that was caused. Although no financial payment can ever compensate victims for what they endured, redress is about far more than money. It is about providing recognition and dignity and acknowledging that grievous wrongs were committed and that society has a responsibility to confront those wrongs honestly. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that the inquiry is independent, robust and capable of commanding the confidence of those whom it is intended to serve. Victims and survivors must remain at the heart of the process, because, above all else, the legislation is about them.

Today's debate is not about rewriting history but about confronting history honestly. It is about recognising that vulnerable women and children were failed by institutions, by society and by the state. It is about ensuring that future generations understand what happened and why safeguards must always exist to protect the dignity, rights and welfare of every individual in our society. History cannot be rewritten. The pain that victims and survivors endured cannot be undone. The years that were stolen from them can never be restored. Today, however, the Assembly has the opportunity to ensure that those wrongs are finally recognised, that the truth, which has been evaded for so long, is finally pursued and that those who suffered the most are heard. For too long, many carried their burden in silence. Today, we acknowledge them. Today, we honour their courage and commit to ensuring that those injustices are never forgotten.

I will briefly pay tribute to all involved in the process. First, I pay tribute to junior Minister Bunting and junior Minister Reilly, whose commitment to the Bill and to ensuring that it was shaped by victims and survivors cannot be overstated. I acknowledge the importance of the First Minister's being in the Chamber today. Her presence recognises the commitment of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, the junior Ministers, the Assembly and the Executive to delivering on the legislation. I also pay tribute to the Chair of the Committee, Paula Bradshaw, who dedicated her time to the Bill not just professionally but personally. Paula has been a diligent Chair who has championed the interests of victims and survivors. I personally thank her for her work on the Bill. I pay tribute to Committee members, who also dedicated their time to the Bill, and to our Committee staff. I place on record my thanks to the Executive Office officials, including Martin and his team. I think that Martin saw more of our Committee than he did of his family in recent weeks to ensure that we got the Bill right. It is important that I recognise that.

The arc of the moral universe is long, but, eventually, it bends towards justice. Today, through this legislation and the work of the people in the Public Gallery, we take another step towards bending that arc towards justice for those who, for too long, were denied what they deserved. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs Dillon: I begin by offering the apologies of my colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, who cannot be here today owing to ill health. Carál has been very much invested in the work on the legislation. The Bill is very important to her, given the work that she does in the Assembly and the people with whom she has personally worked and engaged over many years.

I am sure that Carál is very sorry not to be here today to meet all of you in the Public Gallery. Like others, I acknowledge your being here today. For me, that is the most important thing. We have said many things in the Chamber — we could talk all day and says lots of things — but none of us can truly understand or reflect what you have been through. My colleague Áine is the Member who probably comes closest to having a true understanding of what you have had to live with and endure, and continue to live with and endure, because it has affected, and will affect, you all your life, and we know that those effects are transgenerational. I acknowledge that. There is nothing that we can do through legislation to remove what you have been through. I hope, however, that you know that this is the long-awaited acknowledgement that you deserve. We are genuinely sorry that there are people who never lived to see this day, and it is important to acknowledge those individuals today.

Some lived to see the beginning of the campaign but not the Bill getting to this stage. Many did not even see the beginning of the campaign and did not believe that, in their lifetime — or anyone else's lifetime, for that matter — there would be an acknowledgement of what happened to them.

It is important to have that acknowledgement for the sake of history — so that the generations who come after us will understand what happened to you and what you went through. It is also important for our present and future: we must make sure that what happened to those women, girls and children never happens again. I am really worried about that when I look at what is happening in society today. Women, girls and children continue to suffer and continue be abused. In some cases, women and girls are more vulnerable than they ever were. We need to make sure that the legislation not only acknowledges what happened to you but protects women, girls and children in the future. We need to ensure that what we do makes things better, and that we do not just say, "It happened. We're sorry. Let's forget about it and move on". We can never allow that to happen.

You showed bravery by speaking up. You spoke up, yes, so that people would know what had happened to you, but you also spoke up so that it would not happen to others. You did it for other people; you did it for the many people who are watching online, or not watching at all, and are, for whatever reason, not able to acknowledge what happened to them for themselves. You are doing it for them. I thank all of you. As the Chair of the Committee said, the light of truth only comes through if somebody lifts the lid, and you did that, so thank you very much.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Linda. Will you pass on the regards of the Chair to Carál? I hope that she gets better soon.

Mr Gaston: I begin my remarks by putting on record, once again, my thanks to the victims and survivors who have campaigned for many years to bring us to this point today, where the Bill will pass its Final Stage. To those who started the process and are no longer with us; to those who came to the Committee and gave their very moving personal testimonies; to those who attended the consultation round tables; to those who individually submitted evidence to help shape the Bill; and to those who lobbied MLAs long before I came to the Chamber: thank you for your time, for your patience and, most importantly, for not giving up. Your time and efforts have made a difference.

Yes, the Bill before us is not perfect, but it is better than it was when it was first introduced to the House. Throughout the process, the Committee has taken steps to ensure that victims and survivors of religious institutions, state homes and private homes see themselves reflected in the Bill. I trust that, by insisting that the inquiry takes a modular approach, we have ensured that the inquiry will be able follow the evidence and that, via that route, the institutions and bodies not currently listed in the Bill will be investigated, and that there will be access to redress where the evidence leads. It is only now, as the Bill passes its Final Stage and goes to obtain Royal Assent, that we will see the terms of reference of the inquiry. I trust that those who have worked diligently in the background on the terms of reference will reflect the requests of the Committee and those who have given evidence to ensure that they are victim-centred and that truth and justice will be pursued.

From the get-go — on hearing from the birth mothers — the inquiry should lay the foundations for the remainder of its work. As we proceed into the inquiry, I acknowledge that some progress has been made on ensuring that records have been preserved and are accessible. However, much work still needs to be done to ensure that the records held by trusts will be accessible in a timely manner to those who need them. Today is not the end of the process for the Assembly. There is an onus on the Assembly in the next mandate to ensure that the work continues, with a second phase of redress that will consider individualised acknowledgement of the harm and trauma that the birth mothers and adult adoptees experienced. We must ensure, as a collective body and as a society, that the institutions that allowed those systemic failings and that abuse are held accountable and that they acknowledge their role in that shameful period in Northern Ireland's history.

I want to record my thanks to the Chair of the Executive Office Committee and, indeed, all members, past and present, who worked on the Bill. I believe that members set aside their differences to come together for the common goal of putting victims and survivors first. I thank the Clerks and officials who have tended very diligently to the Committee. Although the Bill is not perfect, it is a start towards acknowledging the hurt and trauma that has been caused, and the start of ensuring that it never happens again.

Mr Carroll: I want to speak briefly on the Bill. The Bill should always have been about victims and survivors. Sometimes, it was, and the voices of victims and survivors came through and were heard, but, quite often, it was not, especially when it came to certain amendments not being heard, selected or voted for. I commend all the people in the Gallery and the people who are watching the debate for not being quiet or piping down because to do so might have suited some of those people in power. I commend them for speaking out and speaking up, and I commend the groups that work alongside them and support them. If we have learnt anything from the political events of the past week, it is that powerful people — powerful men, in particular — and institutions should always be held to maximum account when it comes to abuse, neglect and victims, and that victims and survivors should be believed and supported on every occasion.

There are a lot of positives in the Bill — it would be remiss of me not to mention that — which have been welcomed broadly in the House and by victims and survivors more generally. It would, however, be remiss of me not to mention some glaring omissions. Workhouses, the people who were in them and their families are excluded from the Bill on payment issues. That is a massive oversight. My simple proposed amendment would have rectified that anomaly but was voted down by the Executive parties. I commend people for speaking out on the issue, especially Sharon Burke. I think that she might be in the Gallery. She has been emailing Members on that issue.

I am happy to have played a small part — I emphasise that it was a small part — in the Bill and to have raised issues that were previously not included by working alongside victims and survivors to table amendments. I thank them for bringing issues to my attention, and I thank Members for voting for such matters as payments for people who were in an institution on two separate occasions and ensuring that the chairperson of the inquiry takes every single step to ensure that documents are obtained when victims and survivors reside outside the North.

I hope that the inquiry process will not adopt a timid approach to truth and accountability but will take an aggressive and uncompromising approach when chasing down documents, seeking truth and ensuring that the state and religious institutions actually cough up the finance and documents that relate to their role in allowing and furthering abuse, neglect, people trafficking and many other crimes that happened on their watch.

I commend the Committee members. I do not always agree with them and they do not always agree with me. Maybe that is no surprise. The Chair and members have, however, done important work. I commend Stephen and his colleagues in the Bill Office and the Executive Office officials, who worked closely with me to try to support, amend or help along my amendments — whatever way you want to look at it. I also want to commend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone who spoke out during the last few stages. I pay tribute to her and to her mother for speaking out and for being here.

Today is about victims and survivors. That is right and proper. The fact that we are here debating the Bill is no accident: it is down to the tenacity and doggedness of victims and survivors who had doors shut in their faces for decades but refused to be quiet or to let that stop them. Never again should we allow any institution to lock up, imprison and abuse women or anybody else. I commend the Bill and offer my support for it at Final Stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, Question Time is scheduled for 2.00 pm. The debate will resume after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be junior Minister Reilly to conclude the Final Stage.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) assesses that current staffing levels are sufficient to maintain the safe and secure operation of houses, units and landings across the estate. However, sustained increases in the prison population have placed pressures on staffing, requiring difficult decisions at times on staff deployment and the delivery of regimes in order to prioritise safety and security. NIPS is actively recruiting and training additional prison officers and continues to keep staffing requirements under close review in light of population pressures.

While safe and secure custody is fundamental, the ambition is to ensure that prisons are also properly resourced to support rehabilitation through education, training and other interventions that reduce reoffending. I will continue to work to secure appropriate funding for the justice system, including prisons, in order to support operational demands and those relating to the wider rehabilitative ambition.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for her answer. Whilst my question was very much about the increasing prison estate, she will also understand that high-profile prisoners taking up residence in our facilities has a ripple effect in those establishments. In light of the recent high-profile imprisonment, can the Minister give us an assurance today that resources will be made available to ensure that any ripple effect is minimised and that staff are not affected by it?

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for his question. As a former prison officer, he will be aware of the delicate balance that has to be struck around those issues. It is, of course, always our intent that every prisoner, irrespective of who they are, will be held in custody that is dignified and safe, and that will be the same in this case. We do not discuss the housing of individual prisoners, but, of course, higher-profile prisoners can cause a ripple in the prison and will certainly draw some public attention. It is important, however, that we ensure that every prisoner is treated equally and fairly in the system and that their rights, insofar as they have not been removed by their being held in custody, are respected, including their right to privacy.

Ms Ferguson: What progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Criminal Justice Inspection (CJINI) report that found unacceptable levels of inappropriate use of care and supervision units in prisons?

Mrs Long: Since the publication of the particular report on a special inspection of care and supervision units, which I commissioned, huge progress has been made on the recording of contact between prison officers and prisoners in the care and supervision units and on access to productive activity. The care and supervision units are an important part of the prison estate, particularly in controlling the flow of illegal drugs and other substances and items of contraband into prisons. It is important, however, that they are properly managed and, again, that people are kept safe and that their dignity is protected while in those units.

Since the publication of the report, there have been two further inspections of the Northern Ireland prison system. In fact, there have been three: one at Magilligan and two at Hydebank Wood — one at the women's prison and one at the college — all of which found no significant issues in that regard, so, obviously, the issues that had existed there have been addressed. Given the sensitivities, we keep that under constant review.

Mr Buckley: The Minister is aware and is, in fact, on record as having suggested that organised drug crime is happening in prisons. I have previously raised that matter in the Assembly. On the question of staffing levels, is the Minister aware of any incidents where prison officers have become intoxicated by inhaling illegal drugs or, indeed, prescribed drugs in prisons? If not, will she furnish the House with those details?

Mrs Long: If not, I have no details with which to furnish the House. However, I take the point that the Member is making.

Our work in the Prison Service and across the estate to reduce the flow of drugs into prisons from outside has been quite successful. The introduction of X-ray body scanners means that we are much more able to control that flow. As a result, we now recognise, as the CJINI reports have recognised, that the premium placed on prescription drugs and medication is much higher. Therefore, it is important that we work with Healthcare in Prison, because, of course, it is its staff, not Prison Service staff, who prescribe and control the drugs in the prison system. It is also important that we look to alternative methods that people might use for contraband. Some Members will be aware of restrictions on book deliveries to prisoners because of the risk of people illicitly impregnating the paper with drugs to get them through the system. We have to be constantly on our guard.

I am not aware of any situation where prison officers have become inadvertently intoxicated on any form of medication that has been given to prisoners. I struggle to imagine how that could have taken place, but, if the Member has a specific incident in mind, I would be grateful if he would bring it to my attention.

Mr Donnelly: Minister, is further recruitment being planned for prison officers?

Mrs Long: Recruitment plays a key role in the Prison Service's ability to deliver a consistent and productive regime for those who are committed to our care. It is encouraging that so many people applied to become prison officers in response to the recent campaign. Between January and March this year, 67 newly recruited prison officers have commenced or completed training at Prison Service College. A further recruitment intake is being planned this year to ensure that the Prison Service has the staff needed in response to population pressures. We work towards target staffing levels in line with an agreed budget. The target staffing level is also kept under review to take into account population changes and, indeed, the complexity of the population. It is fair to say that much of that is budget dependent and, therefore, without proper investment in the justice system and in the prison system, particularly, we will struggle to meet the demands of those being committed to our care.

Mrs Long: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will address questions 2 and 4 together.

For the sake of victims and witnesses, I am pleased that the unnecessary and unwarranted service withdrawal by the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) has finally come to an end. The CBA is finally following the example of its solicitor colleagues and delivering the services that its clients deserve rather than leveraging their suffering. However, the CBA action has caused untold damage to the system, and the ending of that action is long overdue.

Members will be aware that I have taken many steps to address the evolving concerns of the CBA throughout the dispute and have met the asks of the CBA at every turn. My decision to accept in full the recommendations of the accelerated review follows the 16% uplift in fees that I implemented earlier this year, and which I took the unprecedented step of backdating to 2024 at a cost of £11·5 million. I reprioritised my programme delivery plan in response to feedback. I established a working group to consider other fee changes and appointed Judge Burgess to lead that work, as the professions desired, and, when the CBA reneged on our agreement and withdrew full services, I established the accelerated review.

Implementation of the review is yet another act of good faith on my part. From the outset, I have been committed to providing fair remuneration on the basis of evidence to ensure that we provide quality service and that public funds are protected. The accelerated review produced the necessary evidence to support fees that will result in a further £4·94 million annual increase in legal aid expenditure, and I am happy to follow that evidence.

The CBA’s decision to return to service and recognise the significance of the additional investment that I am making is a positive step. However, I trust that it will take the more constructive approach of its solicitor colleagues in future and engage in good faith with the Department without seeking to leverage damage to the system and the victims, so that we can collectively focus on delivering the justice system that citizens deserve.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. The position has turned out to be more positive than it was when I submitted the question. I know that this will not necessarily be your direct responsibility, Minister, but will any special measures be adopted to deal with the backlog of cases so that we can put victims right at the heart of the system again?

Mrs Long: There is no doubt that the CBA withdrawal has created a significant backlog. We were already working hard to address the delays, and those have now been supplemented. Listing is a judicial function, and work on recovery is being led by the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ) for that reason. There will be a phased approach to allow initial focus on cases involving the most vulnerable victims and witnesses. That initial phase will focus on plea and sentencing hearings that are ready to proceed. Those will be listed as soon as possible; it may be possible for them to be listed over the summer period.

Trials that were taken out during the withdrawal of services will be relisted, and an early date will be offered, with priority being given as follows: to cases proceeding under the under-13 protocol and under-16 arrangements; to cases involving rape, serious sexual offences and fatalities; and then to all other cases. Arraignments will be listed in phase 2 in a similar order. To allow further progress to be made, the Lady Chief Justice has also directed that plea and sentencing hearings and arraignments may be listed over summer recess at the discretion of the judge and with the agreement of the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the defence.

We will obviously need to take a fluid approach and review progress to ensure that the necessary resources to support recovery are available. As I said at the time of the withdrawal, however, the resources available to the Department of Justice are already limited, and the money that is being spent on expanding legal aid comes at the expense of other services, including recovery. I simply wish that the withdrawal had never happened, because, as the family and civil Bar can attest to, the outcome would not have been any different had the CBA continued to work through that period rather than withdraw its services.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. Indeed, I thank her for the assistance that she, as Minister of Justice, gave my constituents Kathryn and Aaron McCollum following the tragic death of their much-loved husband and father. Her assistance was deeply appreciated.

Many victims and witnesses have clearly had to face uncertainty and much distress over court dates. How will anyone who has been affected by the Bar strike to date be kept properly informed of relisted cases? Is any longer-term work being done to ensure that such a strike does not happen again in the criminal justice and legal aid system?

Mrs Long: In answer to the first question, we invested additional money in Victim Support NI and other support services so that people who needed particular support during the suspension of court processes could benefit from that. Hopefully, those services will also be able to support people through this period. I encourage anyone who is awaiting information on listing to contact the PPS and Victim Support, because both are a good point of contact. Victims will potentially also have a PSNI family liaison officer who will be able to keep them abreast of developments. Hopefully, between that and the wider approach that the judiciary is taking, some certainty will be brought to what will happen.

On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way. The withdrawal has been incredibly damaging to victims and witnesses, and, ultimately, justice delayed is justice denied for many people. It is therefore important that we find ways of ensuring that a range of options for advocacy is available in Northern Ireland so that we do not find ourselves in that situation again, should the criminal Bar decide to withdraw its services again in future. We are still in the early stages of looking at those options, but there is already provision for, for example, solicitor advocates to work in some of the higher courts. That is something on which we can work with the Law Society of Northern Ireland and others to expand further, as it may provide the system with some more stability, as opposed to where we are at at this time.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the update from the Minister on addressing the backlog. Minister, will you commit to working with the LCJ to address the backlog and to keeping the House updated on progress?

Mrs Long: As I said, the listing of cases is a matter solely for the judiciary. It is something that I cannot control, but I have sought updates from the LCJ, who has now issued a direction on how she intends to take the matter forward. I will keep myself abreast of the impact that that has on the backlogs that have been created, but those backlogs will not disappear in a matter of weeks or months. We are talking about over six months of disruption to the system. On the previous occasion that that happened, it took almost two years for the system to recover. Members should therefore be cognisant of the fact that that relatively small period of disruption will not simply allow the system to recover immediately or in a similar six-month period. Members should bear in mind that new cases will be added to the system throughout that period that will also need to be dealt with.

Mr McMurray: Minister, what options are being considered to ensure that a withdrawal of services never happens again?

Mrs Long: As I said, none of us, including the CBA, wishes to be in that position again. There are a number of things that we can do.

I spoke earlier about the more regular and routine review of legal aid fees and delivery of the enabling access to justice delivery programme. If we can work together on those issues to ensure that citizens get the best possible access and that the taxpayer gets value for money, we will be in a much better position.

I am, however, making enquiries into what we can do to ensure that witnesses cannot be used as a form of leverage in such a situation. The way that some victims were treated throughout the recent period was particularly distasteful. We can deploy a range of measures to that end, including, as I said, enhancing solicitors' rights of audience and the alternative delivery models that I have previously mentioned. We are at an early stage, but I will, of course, keep the House updated. The important thing now is to rebuild some of the trust that has been damaged throughout the period and to, hopefully, move forward more constructively and positively.

Mrs Long: Mr Speaker, with permission, I will answer questions 3 and 5 together, which may result in the answer being slightly longer than usual.

At the outset, I remind Members that immigration is not a devolved matter and therefore does not fall within my responsibilities as Minister of Justice. However, I assure Members that there are established mechanisms through which relevant matters can be considered across government. One example is the UK-wide inter-ministerial group for safety, security and migration, where Northern Ireland is represented by the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and me. My role in that forum is focused on safety and security matters within the justice remit.

It is important to note that, where criminality is identified, regardless of source or context, operational responsibility rests with the appropriate law enforcement agencies. I know that robust arrangements are in place to tackle criminality. I am committed to ensuring that law enforcement has the tools needed. That is why I introduced, by amendment to the Justice Bill, two new offences of directing and participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group.

My Department contributes to addressing community concerns through its wider community safety responsibilities and through supporting local partnership working. Policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) funded by the DOJ and the Northern Ireland Policing Board provide an important mechanism for communities to raise local concerns and help shape practical responses to community safety issues at a local level. My Department also provides support for families and individuals who have been victims of racist incidents or crimes through the Hate Crime Advocacy Service, which is jointly funded by my Department and the PSNI.

Miss McIlveen: Given the genuine concerns of the wider public in Northern Ireland, what measures is the Minister putting in place to specifically address the illegal networks that have been set up to support and encourage the flow of undocumented immigrants coming across the border from the Irish Republic?

Mrs Long: There have been claims and counterclaims about the direction of travel, whether north or south, in cross-border exploitation of the common travel area. I have discussed the issue not only from an immigration perspective but from the wider perspective of organised crime groups who try to exploit any opportunity that they have to traffic goods and, indeed, human beings across borders. Immigration falls outside my remit, but organised crime does not. With the joint agency task force (JATF), the organised crime task force and the work that is done between an Garda Síochána, the PSNI, border security and border security in the South, there are many opportunities for people to coordinate the work that goes on. Much of that will fall outside my remit, but I meet my Southern counterpart, Minister O'Callaghan, regularly on the work of the organised crime task force and the JATF. I have had good conversations with him about ensuring that the border is not allowed to be exploited for illegal means.

The Member talks about the concerns of the wider community. There are, of course, many different concerns in the wider community. Some people are concerned about the rise of racism and race hate; some are concerned about the rise of xenophobia and Islamophobia; and some are concerned about the burning of public services and infrastructure and damage to properties and homes. Some people are concerned about the levels of migration; and some are concerned about the levels of integration in our society. All those problems are best dealt with by conversation and engagement, not by violence on our streets.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, in your answer, you referred to PCSPs and the work that they do on the ground. Is there an opportunity for your Department, through the Policing Board, to provide more funding for PCSPs to enable them to do more of that work?

Mrs Long: The Member will be aware of the dire funding situation for the Department of Justice and the PSNI. Unless and until the Department receives higher levels of funding from the Executive and, in turn, the Executive receive higher levels of funding from Westminster commensurate with our level of need, it will be hard to achieve what the Member suggests. We have to make difficult calls between whether to have more police officers to police the community and engage at the neighbourhood level or to spend money on other projects at ground level. It is a challenging situation. The work that PCSPs do is certainly valuable. I do not want it to be damaged or frustrated in any way, but there is a real challenge when it comes to the funding available and how far we can stretch it.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for clarifying that immigration is an excepted matter, which means that it is the responsibility of the British Government and nothing to do with the House. The Minister will be aware that, in recent weeks, a DUP Member made claims in the Chamber about ethnicity and crime that have since been confirmed as unsubstantiated by FactCheckNI. Does she agree that it is important that, when Members speak about issues in the Chamber, they use accurate and responsible language and avoid conflating topics or tarring an entire section of the community with one brush?

Mrs Long: Yes, I agree. It is incredibly dangerous for us to ascribe responsibility for the crimes of an individual to a group of people with whom they associate. I think that many Members in the Chamber today will be particularly sensitive as to why that is inappropriate. People make their own decisions, commit offences and will be held guilty of the crimes that they have committed. It is not right that that should be used to besmirch those with whom they may previously have had association. It is important that the same dignity and respect that we offer to those who share our skin colour and perhaps religious background be extended to all those who live in Northern Ireland. It is of real concern to me that a young lady who happens to be Sudanese was distraught because she felt a level of guilt, responsibility or association with a Sudanese individual who potentially committed a very serious crime. We need to be careful about our language.

We also need to remember that our job as elected representatives is to inform the public. It is not simply to amplify concerns that they may hold dearly but may be based on misinformation. It is for us to find the facts of the situation, to challenge misinformation where we see it and to provide people with reassurance where appropriate, rather than simply amplify concerns that are often built on social media platforms where truth, frankly, is an unknown quantity.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for her humanity and her leadership. Many of the asylum seekers with whom I work do not fit into the illegal immigrant narrative; indeed, one woman with whom I worked was sold as a Daesh bride and was prostituted every day for two years, with her child often present. With that in mind, will the Minister outline her Department's role in tackling modern slavery and human trafficking?

Mrs Long: That is an area on which I can engage helpfully when I attend those quadrilateral meetings that I spoke about earlier, because we have a policy and strategic responsibility for modern slavery and human trafficking, as well as responsibility for supporting those identified as victims of such in Northern Ireland. The majority of the victims of modern slavery and human trafficking identified in Northern Ireland are migrants who have been exploited outside the UK. Modern slavery and human trafficking are separate and distinct crimes based on exploitation, coercion and control, from illegal migration and people smuggling to the consented facilitation of illegal entry, usually for financial gain. Therefore, it is important that we look to the 2024 to 2027 modern slavery and human trafficking strategy, which I published in July 2024. It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.

Responding to illegal migration remains a matter for the UK Government, but it is important at every stage that we disentangle that from those who come here undocumented and make a claim for asylum, which is not illegal; those who come here with documentation and make a claim for asylum, which is not illegal; those who arrive here from other safe countries and make a claim for asylum, which is not illegal; and those who come here as economic migrants to work in the health service, build their own businesses or serve in other parts of society, which is not illegal. There are very few people in Northern Ireland who fit comfortably into the illegal migration space. It will generally be those who have applied for and been refused asylum and whose appeals have expired. It is for the Home Office, not the Department of Justice, to deal with such situations.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for challenging some of the narratives that are peddled in relation to immigration.

Minister, what steps are you taking to support community safety partnerships in addressing misinformation on illegal immigration and to help build confidence in how local criminality is being managed?

Mrs Long: A number of things. The community safety partnerships receive funding from the Department of Justice and the PSNI. The work that they do and how they invest that resource is a matter for them. They take account of the local situation and the wider policing plan. In areas where there has been a particular focus on issues of migration and tensions around immigration, particularly in areas where, to our shame, we have seen race hate spilling over in recent weeks and months, I would hope that they would use that money wisely to counter misinformation and would encourage them to do so.

This is a much bigger issue than something that can be dealt with at community level. Misinformation is peddled on social media on an industrial scale. It is driven internationally, not just nationally. The facts and figures behind it are often spurious, but they are stated with great confidence by those who do not do their own research. It is incredibly dangerous for people to base their decisions on the figures and supposed facts that they pick up from social media, because it is clear that many of those who own social media companies are not good-faith actors in that space.

Mr Gaston: At a recent meeting of the Committee for the Executive Office, the Migrants' Rights Network complained that, in the second half of 2025, the UK Government increased raids focused on illegal working. When raids increased by 76%, arrests increased by 169%. What is the PSNI doing to stop illegal immigrants exploiting the porous border to enter the UK and claim asylum? How many buses does it stop each week?

Mrs Long: I am not sure, because the Member sits behind me, whether he was here when I answered the original question. The enforcement of immigration is a matter for Border Force, which is an agency of the UK. The PSNI's only role is to act in support of Border Force when it deems that to be necessary. Where buses are stopped, going either north or south, it is by immigration officers from Border Force, rather than officers from PSNI. It is already the case that people who have made false or illegal claims can be repatriated, but again that is a matter for the Home Office, not the Department of Justice or the PSNI. However, when it is brought to the PSNI's attention that illegal activity is happening, it is a matter for the PSNI to investigate that.

There are two elements with respect to those who are working illegally. Those people may have chosen to work illegally. They may have come here to work illegally, and that would need to be looked at. Were they trafficked here or brought here for financial and criminal exploitation purposes? Are they working because they choose to work, or are they engaged, against their will, in modern-day slavery? All those things have to be investigated by the PSNI, because it may not be the individuals who are working here who are the criminals; it may be those who trafficked them here and those who employ them, often paying them less than minimum wage and not giving them any employment rights. Those issues need to be properly investigated. None of us wants to live in a society in which any section of that society is exploited for commercial or financial gain.

Mrs Long: The Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 introduced the early removal scheme for foreign national prisoners. The scheme allows fixed-term foreign national prisoners who are confirmed by Home Office immigration enforcement to be removed from the UK up to a maximum of 135 days before the end of their requisite custodial period. The early removal scheme is a non-mandatory scheme, and prisoners must be willing to leave the country voluntarily and apply for the scheme themselves.

The provisions apply to determinate-sentence prisoners only. That is where the exact length of the sentence is fixed by the court. Prisoners serving an extended custodial sentence, indeterminate sentence for public protection or a life sentence cannot be removed under the scheme.

The Northern Ireland Prison Service has no input into the Home Office’s decision-making process. A warranted immigration officer is embedded within the Northern Ireland Prison Service estate at HMP Maghaberry, HMP Magilligan and HMP Hydebank Wood to manage immigration matters relating to foreign national individuals in custody. Their role includes progressing appropriate enforcement action, including removals and deportations. The scheme is promoted by the immigration officer to every remand and sentenced foreign national prisoner verbally within a month of committal and by the issuing of an explanatory leaflet. NIPS staff will explain the early removal process to any prisoner who is eligible to apply under the scheme when completing planned contacts. This includes at the committal interview stage when foreign national prisoners are asked whether, if they meet the criteria for the early removal scheme, they would be interested in applying for consideration by the Home Office. Information is also contained in a sentence booklet that every prisoner receives when meeting their sentence manager for the first time. Any queries can also be addressed at monthly foreign national forums.

Mr Speaker: We must move on to topical questions.

Mrs Long: There are a few things to say. First, I pay tribute to the PSNI officers, the PPS and the courts, which saw justice delivered for the two victims last week. When information was brought to the police, they handled it appropriately and swiftly, and it is to their credit that they did so. It is also to the credit of the two women involved that they were willing to come forward and subject themselves to such a difficult process as a full trial.

On what the PSNI may or may not have known or, indeed, what previous police services or the Security Service may or may not have known over the years, that is not a matter for me, particularly where it pertains to the Security Service. However, I believe that there are questions to be asked, and I have raised those, as you know, in my capacity as leader of the Alliance Party. As soon as this week, there will be opportunities at the Policing Board for its members to also raise questions about what was known and when. However, there is no suggestion that the PSNI knew of serious offending and turned a blind eye to it, insofar as I am aware.

Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for that, Minister. I agree with your sentiments about the investigating officers and, particularly, the victims of those terrible crimes. They came through that and then had to go through a lengthy court ordeal.

Recognising the operational independence of the PSNI, can you confirm whether your Department has sought any formal assurance that intelligence-handling protocols were properly applied in the Donaldson case and whether you are satisfied that the existing governance framework is robust enough to prevent failures in any future cases? Are further transparency measures needed to maintain public confidence following such a high-profile case?

Mrs Long: First. if there was intelligence gathering, that would fall outside my remit. Again, intelligence, particularly at a national security level, is a reserved matter. However, I am aware that colleagues in Westminster have been raising these issues with the House authorities in Westminster and, indeed, more widely with the NIO and others.

It is important that people distinguish between people's private and public lives. People have a right to their privacy, even where that may speak to a degree of hypocrisy. I understand that there are reasons, known to us all, for that in a society that can be very sanctimonious, very judgemental, very homophobic and very challenging about an individual's sexuality. There can be a prurient interest in people's personal lives that is not appropriate, but that needs to be shaken out from the wider points around criminal offending, and that is the bit of this that it is important to focus on. What people did in their private lives is, in many ways, a matter between them and their god.

Mrs Long: We have had conversations with the PSNI, particularly in light of the cross-party amendment that was brought to the Justice Bill and, thankfully, was passed and will become law. It is useful that the Member's party colleague and my party colleague, under the leadership of Mr McGlone, were able to bring that forward as successfully as they did. The PSNI would welcome the ability to be able to seize those vehicles, where they are being used to create nuisance. At the moment, the challenge for the PSNI is that, whilst it has powers of seizure, it must, on the first occasion, issue a warning. Having to have contact with those who are doing it for a second time creates genuine problems in being able to nip the activity in the bud. What we have proposed by way of an amendment to the Justice Bill, which will allow the PSNI to seize the scooters at the first contact, will be a strong deterrent not only for the young people and the nuisance behaviour but, potentially, for the parents who will have to pay to replace the scooters.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. I very much welcome the amendment to the Justice Bill on this subject, and I thank my colleagues across the Chamber for the good work that they have done on it. What cost is the PSNI carrying for the seizure, storage and disposal of those vehicles? Is that cost creating a barrier to enforcement?

Mrs Long: There is a cost to it. There is also a cost that can be levied to the public in certain situations, such as when damaged cars are left at the side of the road and the police have to seize them and move them. That cost can be passed on. That is something that we will have to look at when we are looking at how we can ensure full cost recovery in all those issues, because, for a long time, such recovery has not been pursued as actively as we would have wished. We are now in a situation where we do not have the financial resources to absorb the extra costs. That will be a consideration, going forward, if there are to be more e-scooters, vehicles and so on seized. However, I hope that the legislation acts as a deterrent not to those who head out to ride a scooter lawfully but to those who do so without a licence, without proper head protection and in a manner that is simply to cause nuisance to local neighbourhoods. They have become a scourge in many areas, and it is important that the PSNI has the proper tools in its armoury to deal with them in a way that will, hopefully, restore public confidence in its ability to address the problem. There is, undoubtedly, a cost that comes with all of that, and that is something that we will have to discuss with the PSNI.

Mr O'Toole: Pass a Budget.

Mrs Long: As the Member to my left has helpfully indicated, a number of those issues are somewhat reliant on us being able to pass a Budget. However, that has not stopped the ongoing engagement of the Department, the PSNI and the Department of Finance on how we are going to respond. Given that some of them are currently before tribunals and courts, it would be inappropriate of me to give further detail.

Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does the Minister recognise that the delays are causing a lot of stress to current officers and those who have served in the past and are impacting on the morale of current officers? What level of engagement has she had on the issue in the past, and what are her plans, in that regard, for the future?

Mrs Long: We have had active engagement, as I said, with the PSNI and the Department of Finance, because, ultimately, we will have to get the money to pay for it. I have said all along that the extent of the potential costs would far outstrip what the Department of Justice could afford to pay from within its budgetary lines. We have been clear about that from the outset. We are somewhat ahead in the process. As the Member will be aware, some of the issues — the holiday pay, for example — are not pertinent to just police officers. They affect other public servants. We happen to be slightly ahead of those other public services, so we want to resolve the issues as quickly and expeditiously as possible, in the interests of those to whom money is owed and in the interests of setting out clear boundaries around what it might look like as a wider settlement for the whole of the public sector.

It is an incredible amount of money. We have already had an allocation of £119 million towards the data breach, and we talking of something in the same order for potential holiday pay, though that is a much more fluid figure. It will depend, a lot, on what the courts and tribunals rule. That is where we are. In all likelihood, it will crystallise, in year. That is why our engagement has been so intense with the PSNI on the business case and with the Department of Finance to get that approved.

Mrs Long: The Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, for which I am lead Minister, brings together Departments, statutory agencies and community partners to deliver a public health, whole-system approach to tackling paramilitarism. EPPOC invests in over 100 evidence-based interventions to address paramilitary harm across Northern Ireland, bringing together robust law enforcement, support for individuals and communities, and early intervention to support young people at risk of exploitation. Alongside those interventions, public awareness campaigns such as Ending the Harm have played an important role in exposing coercive control, challenging paramilitary influence and encouraging people to come forward for help.

That multidisciplinary, cross-departmental approach has seen tangible outcomes. Paramilitary violence and intimidation has reduced, and tens of thousands of people have received support in their communities. The programme has improved collaboration on that issue across the system, as well as having supported new responses to child criminal exploitation and put in place credible pathways for those engaged, or at risk of becoming engaged, in gang violence. Just this month, a custody navigator project started under the programme to support individuals at the point of justice contact by providing clear pathways away from harm and criminality.

More broadly, we are analysing the lessons learned from the decade of delivery and engaging with stakeholders and other Departments to decide how the next Executive will take forward the programme when its current mandate ends in March 2027. They will have to build on the progress already made on protecting people, strengthening communities and preventing future generations from being drawn into paramilitarism.

Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is important work that is being done. Will she provide a bit more detail on the custody navigator project, please?

Mrs Long: Through the Executive programme, we are delivering a wider suite of interventions focused on prevention, early intervention and supporting those most at risk. The custody navigator project provides support at the point of justice contact and is the expansion of the Another Way project into Derry and Strabane. That project works proactively in communities, in particular among younger people who are at risk. Together, the two approaches ensure that individuals are identified much earlier, are offered tailored support and are provided with clear pathways away from harm and criminality.

It is not about a single intervention but about a coordinated system of support, combining enforcement with prevention, safeguarding and wrap-around services in order to break cycles of harm and build safer communities. The work also builds on the excellent work done by youth services and youth workers. We underestimate at our peril the input that youth workers can have to guide young people in a teachable moment and take them away from the clutches of criminal organisations.

Mrs Long: If the Member had been listening, he would know that what I actually said was that, when the numbers are drilled down into, very few people enter Northern Ireland illegally. I did say, however, that some may become illegal while they are here, if, for example, their claim for asylum is rejected and their appeal against that decision is then rejected. That makes them illegal, because they then have to be removed. If 1,000 people are deported — relative to the population, that is a relatively small number — because they have become illegal, that shows that the system is dealing with those who do not have a right to remain.

The problem is that, when that discourse happens in the public arena, migration is conflated with illegal immigration all the time. Those who listen to the loud and angry voices on illegal immigration are not looking at the individuals whose windows they are smashing, whose cars they are burning, whom they are harassing on their way to hospital and whom they are attacking in the street. They are not looking at their immigration status, nor should they be, by the way. I find it just as offensive that people in my constituency are being stopped in the street and having their papers demanded off them, as though it is some kind of SS operation. That is not acceptable.

To be absolutely clear, if people are being deported, it is because the immigration system is doing its job.

Mr K Buchanan: Minister, I will read out the text of my question for oral answer:

Minister, we watched a gentleman having his head nearly removed on the street. That is a problem, whether you think so or not. I referred to it as being like something that I witnessed in the slaughterhouse in my previous job. We have to address it. I am not radical; I am just a normal MLA who talks to normal people in the street. They have concerns, Minister. Please do not judge them.

Mrs Long: As I said, a lot of people in our community have concerns. I have spoken with Stephen Ogilvie's family, who are concerned that the horrific attack on him was weaponised and used to bring people on to the street and to make victims of other people. They spoke passionately to me about the many foreign nationals working in the health service who have taken care of Stephen in his time of need and about the fact that one of the people who rescued him was an immigrant.

Rather than focusing on migration status, we should, as I said, focus on the crime. The crime that was committed was horrendous. Someone has been arrested and charged. The case will be prosecuted through the courts, and justice will take its course. In a civilised society, that is the contract that we make: we do not take the law into our own hands. We do not inflict retribution on innocent people because they happen to have associated with someone who has committed a heinous crime — I am sure that you would agree with that — so let us not do that simply because somebody is of a different skin colour or nationality.

Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In just a few hours' time, the House will go into recess for more than two months. There are two outstanding and grave matters that the public in Northern Ireland want us to deal with, but we are walking away, so I want your advice on Standing Orders. Number one, we do not have a Budget, which will threaten public service delivery over the summer, creating chaos. We may have to come back to pass a Budget Bill. Number two, Mr Speaker, the revelations about Jeffrey Donaldson have thrown this institution, including, it has to be said, your speakership, into grave doubt. I attempted today to ask a question for urgent oral answer of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister — particularly the deputy First Minister — which, I am sorry to say, was rejected. What mechanisms are there under Standing Orders for MLAs to recall the Assembly over the summer, if necessary, in order to ask further questions, to pass a Budget Bill and, if necessary, to express our confidence or otherwise in the Speaker or Ministers?

Mr Speaker: I suggest to the Member, who is the leader of the Opposition, that he learn the Standing Orders. You know the rules full well.

If anybody has any notion that I did anything to protect Jeffrey Donaldson after all that he had done to me previously, they are living in some other world or on another planet. I will be cleared of any accusation that has been made against me by any individuals in this place or outside it, because I have done nothing wrong; I make that absolutely clear. I would never have protected Jeffrey Donaldson in any circumstance where he had done wrong, but, given what he previously did to me in particular, I definitely would not have done so.

We move on to the issue at hand.

Mr Speaker: I call the junior Minister to make a winding-up speech.

Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

At the outset, like other Members, I welcome and pay tribute to all of you in the Public Gallery. Many of you have travelled in order to be here throughout the Bill's stages. I also mention those who cannot be here in person but who are watching online, and, of course, I make special mention of those who are no longer with us. Today is a hugely significant day for all victims and survivors, and it is only right and proper that we mark it as the significant milestone that it undoubtedly is. Today belongs to you.

Just over 12 months ago, when introducing the Bill to establish an inquiry into mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and an associated redress scheme, the First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, said:

Dealing with that injustice was core to the approach of the Bill.

Before concluding deliberations on the Bill, I will bring our focus back to the women and children — now adults — their families and all survivors whose experiences have brought us to this point. I join junior Minister Bunting in reiterating my thanks to every one of those people, without whom we would, no doubt, not be where we are today. I thank you for your courage, tenacity and dedication and for the generosity that you have shown not just in giving your time but in sharing your experiences, which, I know, can evoke complex and difficult emotions for so many.

On a personal note, I want to say how much of a privilege it has been for me to lead on the legislation's passage through the House on behalf of the Executive Office. I hope that it now respects and fulfils the wishes of the women and girls who, for many decades, have suffered and been silenced.

It is a large, complex and sensitive piece of legislation. It is, no doubt, much more complex legislation than it first appeared, and there were many factors to balance. In our view, it is one of the most significant Bills that the Assembly will pass in this mandate, establishing, as it will, a statutory inquiry for those affected by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses and a redress scheme. The Bill, as a whole, is estimated to cost £118 million, and it will provide redress to many thousands of individuals. That represents a significant commitment from the Executive to deliver on the agreed recommendations from the truth recovery design panel. Today, as we mark this momentous step closer to the establishment of an inquiry, I hope that many victims and survivors will feel able to take in this moment and to look around and congratulate themselves for all their hard work, relentless efforts and campaigning that helped us to get to where we are today.

Indeed, it has been a collective effort, involving countless hours of deliberation, consultation, meetings, debates and decisions. As well as thanking every one of the victims and survivors who have contributed, I take the opportunity to also thank the Members of the House past and present and, in particular, the Committee Chair and Committee members, who worked so diligently and carefully to study and examine the Bill, to listen to victims and survivors and to bring to the House amendments to potentially improve the Bill. The House listened carefully and made final decisions to the best of its ability, given the many factors to balance. I think that we can agree that what we now have is a Bill that meets the needs of victims and survivors and is fit for purpose.

The Bill in front of us has largely been informed and shaped by the voices, efforts and experiences of victims and survivors, and I publicly acknowledge and thank them for their efforts. Throughout the passage of the legislation, Members have rightly focused on clauses, amendments and schedules, and those things are important, because they will help make sure that the inquiry that is established is robust, independent and capable of delivering meaningful findings. However, the legislation is ultimately about people. It is about women and girls whose lives were shaped by powerful systems and institutions that exercised profound power over them; it is about women and girls who have lived for decades with unanswered questions; and it is about women and girls who have often felt that their experiences were silenced, overlooked or simply forgotten.

For too many years, the lives of too many of those women and girls and their children, who are now adults, were scarred by their experiences in the institutions, and those scars and wounds only deepened with time. Trauma is sometimes buried so deeply that only the truth can begin to diminish its hold. There is a shameful and ugly truth that we all must confront: it was not just the institutions and the state that played such a harmful role in the lives of many of the victims and survivors; society also failed so many women and girls, as it collectively turned a blind eye to the misogyny, sexism and heartbreaking lack of humanity. It is only by addressing the truths hidden in dark shadows that we can begin to properly shine a light on a society that continues to violate and oppress too many women and girls and to make sure that it never happens again and that, together, we commit to breaking the cycle of harm and violence against women and girls.

The inquiry that will be established by the Bill will seek to uncover facts, examine evidence, hear testimony and build the fullest possible understanding of what happened to those young women and girls and their children in those institutions. It will uncover and better understand the pathways and practices that led women and children into and out of the institutions. For many survivors, however, the significance of the inquiry goes beyond its legal powers or investigative functions. For them, what matters is knowing that there will finally be an independent process dedicated to hearing their voices that is designed not to dismiss difficult experiences but to examine them. A process that recognises that personal testimony is not simply evidence but an essential part of understanding our history. That is why victims and survivors have been so integral to the development of the arrangements. It is why the legislation contains provisions intended to make sure that their perspectives must remain core to the work of the inquiry, and it is why we have sought to build a framework that is capable of operating in a manner that is respectful, compassionate and mindful of the trauma that many women and girls and their now-adult children continue to carry.

For some, the prospect of engaging with the inquiry may feel daunting. For that reason, we listened to victims and survivors when they told us that they wanted us to create a dual investigation, so that individuals had the option to engage with an expert independent panel and provide testimony in a different and more informal setting. The process is now complete, and we very much look forward to the launch of the independent panel's report next week, on 7 July. To those of you who may be doubtful and question whether they should engage in the statutory inquiry that the Bill will establish I say this: please consider it carefully. We understand that some may question whether revisiting painful memories is worthwhile, and others may wonder whether one person's account can truly make a difference. My message to those individuals is simple: your voice is important; your voice matters; and your experience matters. Your contribution could help provide answers not only for you but for the countless others whose lives were impacted on by those institutions. Every testimony, family experience, record and piece of evidence has the potential to deepen our understanding of life in a mother-and-baby-home, a Magdalene laundry or a workhouse. The testimonies will help create a fuller and more accurate account of a chapter in history that has yet to be fully written.

I now move to the second key element of the Bill. The redress scheme is unlike any other. It will give financial redress to victims and survivors before the completion and delivery of the findings of the inquiry. That came about because Ministers listened to the victims and survivors who set out their wish for a statutory redress scheme to provide financial acknowledgement before the work of the inquiry was finalised. The redress scheme provides an inclusive, supported and simple application process that does not require a statement of experience. It does not require an applicant to sign a waiver; payments will not impact on a person's social security payments; and there will be no deductions for any previous payments that a person may have had. Importantly, there will be support from community partners for applications to make sure that the scheme is simple and trauma-informed. I know that Members across the House will warmly welcome all of that.

The standardised payment provided through the scheme will never reflect the entirety of what people endured: no payment could ever achieve that, nor is it intended to. As is only right and fair, some individuals will also be provided with an opportunity to apply for an individually assessed payment following the inquiry, which will go some way towards reflecting the more difficult experiences. That, however, is for another day and another piece of legislation. The creation of an independent redress service, supported by appropriate powers and safeguards, is intended to make sure that applications are handled fairly and consistently. Equally important is the fact that the scheme has evolved in response to the views of victims and survivors. The changes made following the consultation demonstrate our willingness to listen and adapt the scheme to better meet the needs of those it is intended to serve.

It is also important that we remember those who are not here to see this day. Many people campaigned for acknowledgement, truth and redress but did not live long enough to witness the legislation reach its Final Stage today. We owe it to them and their families to make sure that their experiences remain part of the memorialisation initiatives and the historical record that the inquiry will establish. Pleased as we are to stand here today as the legislation passes, it goes without saying that no legislation can undo the harrowing experiences that have happened in the past. No Bill can erase the grief experienced by mothers who were separated from their children, by children who grew up without knowing who they are or by those whose lives were shaped by loss, shame, stigma and silence. What we can do is face that past honestly. We can create a process that seeks the truth wherever it leads, and we can acknowledge the experience of those affected.

We can provide a measure of recognition to people who have waited many years to receive it. That is exactly what the Bill seeks to achieve.

I say to the people who are still considering whether to come forward that your testimony matters. To those who have spent years searching for answers, I say that the inquiry will seek those answers. To all who were affected, I say that the Assembly recognises the importance of the truth and of acknowledging the impact that those institutions had on people's lives. Today is not, by any means, the end of that journey. Rather, it opens the door to an important new part of the journey. We wish to assure each and every one of you that we will continue to work to implement the legislation in full and at as quick a pace as the process provides. Today is an important step towards truth, acknowledgement, accountability and, we hope, a greater measure of understanding for all of those affected.

In closing, I thank our officials, including Martin Carey, and Michaela, Francesca, Stephanie, Pauline and the rest of the truth recovery team for their efforts. Their efforts, dedication and professionalism have been central to shaping the delivery of this essential legislation.

Finally, we hope that those who are gathered in the Public Gallery and those who are watching online feel the significance of this moment, because it belongs to you. We commend each and every one of you and all those whose voices you carry with you. Although this is the Final Stage of this Bill, it is certainly not the end. We will walk with you every step of the way. Today is your day. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Andrew Muir, to move Further Consideration Stage of the Dilapidation Bill.

Mr Speaker: As no amendments have been tabled for debate, there is no opportunity to discuss the Dilapidation Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Dilapidation Bill is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Well done, Mr Muir. You have brought unity to your office on this occasion. Congratulations on that.

Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move

Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr Muir: First, I thank my Executive colleagues for their support in bringing the important Bill before the Assembly. I look forward to working constructively with Members as it progresses.

The Bill is a significant and necessary step forward in how we manage, protect and develop Northern Ireland's fisheries, aquaculture sector and the wider water environment. Its purpose is clear: to modernise outdated law, strengthen accountability, protect the environment and support responsible economic opportunity.

The Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 has served us well, but it was designed for a very different world. Since its enactment, pressures on fish stocks have increased, biodiversity loss has become more evident and the impacts of climate change have become better understood. At the same time, aquaculture has evolved into a more diverse and innovative industry, but, rightly, expectations around environmental governance and sustainability have increased. The Bill responds to those changes in a coherent and practical way, guided by the principles of sustainability, accountability and opportunity. I believe that this is draft legislation that all Members can support.

Part 1 places a clear set of statutory objectives for inland fisheries into Northern Ireland law for the first time. Those objectives are not simply aspirational statements: they form the foundation of a modern fisheries management framework, reflect internationally recognised best design and align Northern Ireland with contemporary approaches to sustainable resource management. Taken together, the objectives provide a clear strategic direction for fisheries policy while allowing the flexibility necessary to respond to evolving scientific evidence and environmental conditions. They also make it clear that environmental protection and economic use are not competing priorities. Instead, they recognise that long-term prosperity depends on healthy ecosystems. The Bill also requires my Department to publish an inland fisheries policy statement that sets out plainly how the objectives will be interpreted and applied. That will not sit on the shelf; it will be reviewed, updated and subject to consultation. Importantly, when decisions depart from that policy, the reasons must be explained publicly. That is a meaningful step forward for transparency and accountability.

On strengthening the regulation of inland waters, the Bill modernises long-standing powers under the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, ensuring that they are fit for today's environmental and industry challenges. That matters because fisheries management today goes far beyond simply catching fish. It involves supply chains, ecosystems, data and compliance, and the Bill ensures that we have the tools to manage all those aspects effectively. It also provides flexibility to respond to changing science, environmental conditions and emerging risks. At the same time, the Bill includes safeguards. Where regulations would amend primary legislation, impose fees or create additional criminal offences, they will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will require Assembly approval. That approach preserves proper legislative oversight while avoiding the need for frequent primary legislation to make technical updates.

On enhancing sea fisheries enforcement, Part 2 strengthens enforcement powers at sea, ensuring that rules can be applied fairly and effectively. It equips enforcement officers with clear, modern powers aligned with the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to board vessels, inspect activity and act when offences are suspected. That is not about overreach; it is about fairness. Law-abiding fishers should not be undercut by illegal, unreported or unregulated activity, and the Bill will ensure a level playing field for all. Effective enforcement is essential to maintain public confidence and ensure that regulations are meaningful. It enables officers to carry out their duties with the tools that they need while operating within a well-established legal framework that includes appropriate safeguards. Without it, even the best-designed system risks being undermined by non-compliance.

On updating penalties and introducing proportionate enforcement, a key feature of the Bill is the modernisation of penalties for fisheries and water-related offences. Many of the penalties in existing legislation are decades old and no longer act as effective deterrents. In some cases, fines are set at levels that do not reflect the seriousness of the harm that can be caused to ecosystems or fish stocks. The Bill addresses that by increasing fines, often to levels of up to £50,000, in line with those in other jurisdictions. That is not about being punitive for its own sake; it is about ensuring that the legal framework reflects the true value of our natural resources and the importance of protecting them for future generations. However, enforcement must also be proportionate, and that is why Part 4 enables fixed penalty notices to be introduced for less serious breaches, allowing issues to be dealt with quickly and effectively while reserving the courts for more significant cases. That approach reduces the burden on our courts, provides a quicker resolution and allows enforcement resources to be focused on more serious cases. The detail of how fixed penalty notices will operate will be set out in regulations and subject to Assembly approval.

On modernising aquaculture, Part 5 brings long-overdue reform to aquaculture licensing. It replaces the outdated fish culture licence with a modern aquaculture licence, reflecting the diversity of the sector, from fish to shellfish to aquatic plants and seaweed. It provides for clear conditions and the ability to transfer licences, where appropriate. It is about enabling growth and ensuring that that is responsible.

Aquaculture provides real economic opportunities, and the Bill will help ensure that those opportunities are realised responsibly without compromising the environment. Importantly, the Bill includes transitional provisions so that existing licences can continue seamlessly as aquaculture licences, with their conditions unchanged. That will give the sector stability and certainty, whilst enabling future development.

To improve licensing and environmental accountability, Part 6 of the Bill will amend fish dealer licensing and introduce a clearer power to recover costs for damage to riverbeds caused by unlawful actions. It is a straightforward principle that those who cause environmental damage should bear the cost of putting it right. The measures will contribute to a more robust and coherent regulatory framework.

A full regulatory impact assessment of the financial impact has been completed. It concluded that the Bill does not introduce significant new financial burdens and that any costs are outweighed by the long-term benefits. I am aware, however, that detailed examination and revisions of the assessment will be required as the Bill progresses. That will reflect evidence provided during scrutiny to ensure that impacts are appropriately assessed. The Bill, rather than creating substantial new expenditure, largely provides a framework that builds on existing enforcement powers. The cost of inaction on environmental damage, loss of tourism and declining stocks is, however, far greater.

The Bill provides that most of its provisions will come into operation shortly after Royal Assent. The aquaculture licensing provisions, however, will be commenced at a later stage to allow time for appropriate preparation and stakeholder engagement. That phased approach reflects the need to balance progress against careful implementation.

The Bill is about building a modern, sustainable and resilient fisheries and aquaculture system for Northern Ireland. It recognises that our aquatic environments are not only economic assets but living ecosystems that support biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience and benefit communities across Northern Ireland. The Bill sets clear objectives, strengthens enforcement, modernises outdated provisions and provides the flexibility to respond to future challenges. At the same time, it maintains appropriate safeguards, ensures transparency and preserves the role of the Assembly in scrutinising significant regulatory changes. I recognise that Members will wish to examine the detail of the Bill carefully, and I welcome that scrutiny. The Bill provides a framework that will help shape policy and practice for years to come, and it is right that it be subject to thorough scrutiny at Committee Stage and beyond.

I commend the Bill to the Assembly and look forward to constructive engagement with Members as we take forward this important legislation.

Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Second Stage debate on the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. The Committee was anticipating the Bill's introduction for some time. In May 2025, the Department advised the Committee of its proposed policy direction, which was followed by two public consultations later that year. The Committee considered the consultation responses in February 2026 and noted broad stakeholder support for reforms, with an emphasis on the need for urgent and resourced action to improve water quality, stronger and consistent enforcement and new powers to regulate fishing rights, with a clear focus on protecting the wider ecosystem.

Earlier this month, the Committee received a pre-introduction briefing from departmental officials and was advised that the Bill is intended to modernise and consolidate the legislative framework by replacing the outdated and fragmented Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. We heard that the Bill is intended to support sustainable and profitable fisheries, underpinned by a resilient marine ecosystem; contribute to wider strategic objectives; establish statutory duties and objectives for the Department; strengthen regulatory and enforcement powers across inland and sea fisheries; update licensing systems; and reflect current environmental standards and policy priorities, whilst aligning with the UK Fisheries Act 2020 and the 2022 joint fisheries statement.

The Committee noted that the Bill will introduce a proportionate enforcement framework and graduated penalty regime that is designed to deter non-compliance. We understand that the approach to inland fisheries prioritises conservation and protection of the environment over maximising the catch and aims to establish a balanced framework that is informed by environmental, economic and social considerations, alongside scientific advice.

The Committee heard that the Bill represents the modernisation of aquaculture from a narrow, licence-driven approach to a more integrated, ecosystem-based regime. Furthermore, we heard that the Bill will introduce a streamlined licensing framework intended to reduce barriers to entry with water quality as a central objective.

The Committee noted that the estimated staff costs of the policy and legislative development are almost £230,000, with a budget for that confirmed up to March 2027. We also noted that existing legislation already provides enforcement powers to authorised officers at sea and inland, so there should be no significant additional financial implications in that area.

The Committee took the opportunity to question officials on several issues and highlight matters warranting scrutiny at Committee Stage but was not limited to those areas. Drawing on our experience of the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill, where a lack of clarity in the definitions in the Bill created much deliberation, the Committee queried the issue of definitions. Officials provided assurance that all relevant terms will be clearly defined in the Bill.

Members queried the shift from a species-based approach to an ecosystem-based approach, including how that will operate in monitoring fish stocks and measuring success. Officials highlighted that, while extensive scientific data exists, recognised gaps remain, particularly in light of recent challenges such as those at Lough Neagh. Work is ongoing to strengthen monitoring and evidence-based decision-making.

The Committee queried how the Bill will address the needs of the broad range of water users — uses range from recreational interests to hydropower — and its alignment with other frameworks such as the river basin management plan. Officials clarified that specific user groups are primarily addressed through other legislation and the Bill aims to integrate fisheries policy into the wider water policy framework. That is being done to support sustainable use for environmental and societal benefits.

Members emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency with cross-jurisdictional arrangements, as fish do not read law and, naturally, move across many boundaries. Officials highlighted that alignment was provided through existing EU-derived arrangements and that coherence with existing regulatory frameworks was identified as a main consideration.

Members highlighted the impact on the legislation of SORPI — the statement of regulatory principles and intent — and the need for strong interdepartmental working, particularly between DAERA and DFI. Officials advised that a move to a more consistent and equitable enforcement regime remains under consideration at Executive level and that coordinated interdepartmental engagement is ongoing to address issues such as waste water and improved water quality outcomes. Members queried the public engagement and education, and officials highlighted ongoing stakeholder engagement, including co-design approaches linked to the river basin management plan.

The Committee reflected on its recent scrutiny of the Dilapidation Bill, noting that a "Modernisation of powers" table had been particularly helpful in clearly setting out legislative changes. Members requested that the Department provide a similar comparative analysis to support Committee scrutiny should the Bill pass Second Stage today.

Overall, the Committee welcomes the Bill and a joined-up system approach to the management of water, the environment and fisheries. Members are acutely aware that water quality remains a significant public concern, particularly in light of issues at Lough Neagh and Belfast lough and pollution in other loughs and rivers. As part of its scrutiny, the Committee intends to explore a number of issues, including the regulatory burdens; whether enforcement will be fair and proportionate; possible restrictions on fishing and land-use activities; and whether sufficient funding and resources will be available to deliver on the Bill's intended aims. I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the Committee's early consideration of the issues. The Committee supports the principles of the Bill and looks forward to considering it in greater detail.

Speaking briefly as the Ulster Unionist spokesman on these matters, I would like to cover a number of issues regarding the principles of the Bill. I do not think that too many in the House would understate the need for clean water. We all agree on the concept of clean water and its value to the ecosystem, whether it is for our farmers and fishers, who provide our food; for industry; or for the growing numbers of individuals who use our inland waters — rivers, lakes and loughs — or coastal waters for cold-water bathing. It is in all of our interests to have clean water. It is all linked: clean water is a health matter for everyone in Northern Ireland.

The Bill needs to clearly identify the challenges and pressures in delivering clean water as part of a wider ecosystem. It is about balancing environmental protection with our food security, and the Ulster Unionist Party will not be found wanting in that space. As the Minister said, they have possibly been viewed as competing demands, but they are not competing demands, because clean water is part of sustainable food production. It is in all of our interests to speak plainly and clearly and with that shared ambition to ensure that any impacts or challenges are faced head-on, because the food sector is evidently our biggest indigenous industry. It is of significant importance to our internal economy, contributing around £7·5 billion and holding up 110,000 jobs. That does not diminish the need and ambition for clean water.

We also want to ensure that anglers are involved in the conversation, because, as we found out last week on a visit to Portaferry and Portavogie in particular, we have indigenous species of fish and shellfish in that area. I note that the Member for Strangford agrees: she understands the value of our fisheries in those areas. There are other complexities. The Isle of Man Government have now done a bit of a circle around that island, which makes it difficult for our fishers from Portavogie, Kilkeel and Portaferry to craft and graft a living from some of the finest seafood that is available on these islands. While the Bill does not sit neatly in that area, it does not sit in isolation either. We need to look at all those things.

Evidence must be made available, because we need to look at the data and the science. It was clear from our visit last week to Portavogie that, sometimes, the evidence is missing. I am not necessarily saying that about the Bill, but I mean when it comes to our seabed. Some of it has not been adequately mapped out. Any regulation needs to be fair and measured against the absolute data that we have.

We also need to learn the lessons of Lough Neagh, because we have not cracked that one yet. There is still a lot of work to be done on Lough Neagh and Belfast lough. That segues into talking about the need for statutory agencies to lead the way. That goes back to the SORPI arrangements. The Minister struck out over a year ago to tackle that thorny issue, but we need to grapple with it. As the Assembly term runs down and the new one comes, we must not miss the opportunity, because, if we do not get off on the right foot and find collective departmental arrangements, we doom it to failure. We need to set the standard for the changes that need to come.

In the Minister's winding-up speech, he might touch on the adequacy of the funding and resources for the Bill, because, while there was a claim that it does not come with a specific, quantified and absolute financial package, I cannot see it being delivered in its totality without adequate funding and resources.

I return to the issue of fair and proportionate enforcement. That point speaks to having data and ensuring that we have the public's confidence in order that we deliver what could be worthy legislation. We need to ensure that the evidence that we produce is co-produced and agreed on, because, when we pass legislation that involves regulation and enforcement, it is vital that the enforcement is fair to people, particularly those who produce our food.

I am glad to see language in the Bill on the sustainability of the aquaculture sector, and I want to lean in a bit on that. Aquaculture pastimes have, perhaps, been underutilised, whether they relate to the angling fraternity or other river and water users. We all use water in different ways, but we have some fantastic indigenous species here. We have seen a decline in numbers of, for instance, Atlantic salmon. Some might argue that they are not indigenous because they swim off into the Atlantic and go to other places, but they come back to our rivers, though, sadly, in smaller numbers. I think of brown trout, rainbow trout and other species that we need to value more and use as a springboard for tourism. A while ago, I listened to a gentleman talking about fishing in Fermanagh. He said that the opportunities for fishing in Northern Ireland are probably some of the best in the world. It is right that we in the Assembly grasp the opportunity in a Bill such as this to expand our offering.

The Ulster Unionist Party looks forward to engaging on the Bill, and we will do so because we share the ambition for clean water as part of a healthy ecosystem, both for food producers and the general public.

This should not be seen as a choice between a healthy environment and a productive countryside: Northern Ireland needs both. It needs clean water, thriving fisheries, sustainable food production and a vibrant angling sector. The Bill should deliver a balanced framework that protects our natural environment while supporting rural communities and the industries that depend on it.

Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Opposition on the Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill, which we will support as it proceeds to Committee Stage. It is important to say that this Bill marks an important modernisation of powers, but it comes in a context that is important to acknowledge. That context is multifarious and touches on all the types of waterways and marine and inland water environments that we are debating in this Bill.

We obviously have the crisis in Lough Neagh. It is a multifold crisis in terms of ecological devastation that has an onward impact on the treasured stocks of Lough Neagh eel and pollan that are an extraordinarily precious part of our culture, our food offering and the produce from this part of the world. Lough Neagh eel and pollan stocks are both depleted and depleting, in part as a result of the ecological crisis. The Minister has had to impose fairly swingeing restrictions on the Lough Neagh eel fishermen, who have been dealing with a crisis in the lough that, in most cases, they have been fishing for generations. That is part of the broader collapse of the Lough Neagh ecosystem. The sci-fi images that we have seen are connected to historical intensification. The soil around Lough Neagh is also connected to long-running problems with Northern Ireland Water. We also have a looming crisis in Belfast lough, where similar but distinct issues are arising.

More generally, we also have challenges that have been created around fisheries stocks in our coastal waters, which present challenges for our coastal communities who want to be able to fish to earn a living, generate income and sustain jobs in those communities. I grew up close to Ardglass and went to school with many kids of people who were employed in the fishing trade in Ardglass. Indeed, when I was about 10 years old, I made a documentary with BBC Northern Ireland about the Ardglass fishing industry. I wonder whether anyone can find it; it was one of the first times that I engaged in being on camera. I know all about it: we have lots of family friends who are engaged in the fishing trade in that part of the world. Members mentioned Portavogie and Kilkeel. Fisheries are not just how people earn their living in those towns and villages; they are core to the DNA of those places. They are where they get their sense of identity from, in a sense, so it is hugely important that we support them.

Clearly, however, the regulatory and enforcement regime for all those watercourses and marine environments is way out of date ecologically and, indeed, economically. As Mr Butler said, it is a false dichotomy to talk about choosing between sustainability and the economic side of things, meaning turning the environmental against the economic. If you devastate and are unable to replenish stocks, and if the ecology declines to such an extent that the stock cannot be sustainably farmed and fished, you do not have an industry by which those communities can sustain themselves. The dichotomy of turning one against the other is false. It is also true to say, frankly, that we are one of the most nature-depleted regions in the world. There is an issue there that pertains to the marine water environments too; it is not just on land. I am pleased to see that this Bill is intended to tighten up the regulatory space in order to protect sensitive species, improve biodiversity and bring greater health to marine and inland water ecosystems.

The Bill does a range of things by way of enforcement. It provides fisheries officers with more modern enforcement powers. It introduces fixed penalty notices for appropriate fisheries and water environment offences. It increases penalties for the most serious offences and allows enforcement action to be more proportionate to the nature of the offence. All too often during the — amazingly — six and a half years for which I have been an MLA, I have heard questions to the AERA Minister about one fish kill or another. It often seems that those things happen with impunity. I would like to hear from the Minister how the Bill will specifically improve enforcement and, frankly, increase the punishment for those who cause things such as fish kills.

The Bill will also modernise the licensing system, as has been said, by replacing the existing fish culture licence with a broader aquaculture licence, that will expand the licensing framework to cover newer forms of aquaculture, including activities such as seaweed farming, while providing flexibility for future developments. Although the Committee will study the Bill in detail, I would like to know whether the Minister thinks that that is part of the broader Farming with Nature agenda, which is much further advanced across the water, where there is a different type of regime. I am not comparing the two. We do not make payments to fisheries or to people engaged in related activity in the same way as we do to farmers, but there is, I think, an association by making a stronger link between the regulatory and policy regime and a broader set of ecological and environmental aims rather than a narrow output. If the Minister were able to state whether there is, in his view, policy consistency with the Farming with Nature agenda, such as it is, I would be keen to hear that.

The Bill will not solve the environmental challenges that exist in Lough Neagh — far from it. As the Opposition, we have been robust in outlining the ways in which the Executive have not gone far enough or fast enough in addressing that crisis. We were robust in opposing those who were not willing to deal with the nutrients action plan, for example, which should have been a core part of dealing with Lough Neagh. Of course, the farming industry needed to be engaged, and the Minister has been doing a lot of that work recently. However, we welcome the Bill as representing progress in that area. It would be helpful if the Minister were specific in his winding-up speech about the ways in which the Bill's provisions will help the delivery of the outcomes in the Lough Neagh action plan, such as they are. We have been somewhat critical about the relative absence of specific outcomes versus rather more general enabling actions or aspirations.

In general, we welcome the improved enforcement and regulatory mechanisms in the Bill. We are pleased, in broad terms, to support it at Second Stage. We welcome the move towards an approach to fisheries management that is ecosystem-based rather than narrowly species-based. We would like to hear from the Minister on whether he sees commonality with other areas of environmental and conservation policy in which the need to recover our, frankly, devastated ecosystem can be balanced with the legitimate economic and community interests of those who earn their living from land, sea and inland waterways. We are keen to support the Bill at Second Stage. We are actively looking at where we can improve and enhance it through amendment. My colleague will scrutinise the Bill at Committee Stage, which will, we hope, proceed without undue delay so that the legislation can be passed before the end of the mandate. I look forward to engaging in more detail, but, at this stage, we are happy to support the Bill and look forward to discussing it in Committee and beyond.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. Sinn Féin recognises the need to modernise the legislation governing our fisheries and water environment. Much of the current framework is decades old and does not reflect the environmental challenges that we face today or the need to protect biodiversity while supporting our fisheries and aquaculture sectors.

We support the Bill's broad principles. Protecting our waterways is not only an environmental priority; it is vital to our rural communities, our economy and our tourism sector and to future generations here. However, we believe that a number of issues will require careful scrutiny as the Bill progresses through its Committee Stage.

I will address the economic impact assessments first. Approximately half of respondents to the Department's consultation on the policy proposals expressed the view that the impact assessments accompanying the consultation did not adequately consider the potential impacts of the proposals. That is a significant concern and should not be overlooked. I look forward to hearing, as the Bill progresses, how the Department intends to address those concerns. When stakeholders raise legitimate issues through a consultation, Departments should be prepared to undertake further analysis, where necessary: that strengthens legislation and builds confidence in the process. Sinn Féin will explore that issue further during the Committee's scrutiny of the Bill.

The Bill strengthens enforcement powers and increases penalties for a range of offences. Those who deliberately pollute our waterways should be held accountable, but enforcement alone will not resolve the underlying causes of poor water quality. If we are serious about restoring our rivers, lakes and waterways, we must continue to invest in waste water infrastructure. Simply moving money from one public body to another through fines will not, on its own, deliver cleaner waterways: prevention must remain our priority. I welcome the commitment from the Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, to work collaboratively with Minister Muir on that issue. The Infrastructure Minister has already allocated more than £500 million to NI Water, which represents almost 40% of the Department for Infrastructure's non-ring-fenced budget. That demonstrates a significant commitment to upgrading waste water infrastructure. Protecting water quality requires that Departments work together to combine strong environmental regulation with the infrastructure investment that is needed to prevent pollution before it occurs.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I will touch on cross-border cooperation. The policy memorandum refers to mechanisms to address east-west divergence. That is welcome, but, as the Bill progresses, we will want to see what proactive action DAERA intends to take to ensure that there is North/South alignment. We have said in the Chamber, time and again, that our waterways do not recognise borders. River catchments and stocks are shared, and significant areas are regulated by the Loughs Agency. We look forward to hearing more about the engagement that has taken place, and that will continue to take place, with counterparts in the South and with the Loughs Agency to ensure that the legislation supports a coordinated approach to protecting our shared aquatic environment.

Sinn Féin supports the modernisation of fisheries legislation but wants to ensure that it is underpinned by robust scrutiny, meaningful stakeholder engagement, continued investment in waste water infrastructure and effective cooperation across the island. If we achieve that balance, we can deliver legislation that protects our environment, while supporting our fishing communities and future generations.

Miss McIlveen: The DUP broadly welcomes the Bill. As has been said, it provides an opportunity to modernise legislation that, in some areas, has remained largely unchanged for decades. The Bill strengthens the protection of our fisheries, improves the regulatory framework for aquaculture and enhances the management of our water environment. No one would deny that those are important objectives. Our rivers, lakes and coastal waters are among our greatest natural assets.

Worthy of note is the fact that, although our aquaculture sector is small in comparison with that in other jurisdictions, it makes a really important contribution to local employment and food production, particularly in rural and coastal communities, such as the community in my constituency of Strangford. A modern legislative framework is required in order to provide certainty while enabling sustainable growth.

Although we support the overall direction of travel, I think that is appropriate to reflect on the concerns that have been raised and ensure that the legislation is proportionate, practical and capable of delivering its intended outcomes. A recurring theme is the importance of balancing environmental protection with the realities facing those who work in the fishing and aquaculture industries. No one disputes the need to protect our waterways. Clean rivers and healthy fish stocks benefit everyone. Regulation, however, must be evidence-based and proportionate. Placing unnecessary administrative burdens on businesses that are already operating in very challenging economic circumstances needs to be avoided. The aquaculture sector supports high environmental standards as it is. Businesses depend on healthy aquatic ecosystems. There is, however, a need for accompanying clear guidance and support and for regulatory consistency and prompt decision-making. Delays, uncertainty and excessive bureaucracy will undoubtedly discourage investment and undermine confidence in the sector.

There is also a need for assurances from the Department that the powers in the Bill will be exercised in a transparent and proportionate manner. I have made the point previously about the use of secondary legislation, and the Bill contains a number of enabling powers that will ultimately determine how many of its provisions will operate in practice. There can be good reasons for taking that approach, particularly where technical detail is involved, but there is also a real need for there to be appropriate Assembly scrutiny. Subordinate legislation should not become a substitute for proper democratic accountability. Consultation and engagement must be undertaken before regulations are introduced, and I cannot overstate the need for stakeholder engagement.

I will now talk about the Bill's proposed enforcement powers. Effective enforcement is clearly necessary if any legislation is to have credibility. Illegal fishing, environmental damage and deliberate pollution must all be dealt with appropriately. With strong enforcement powers, however, comes an equally important responsibility to ensure that those powers are used fairly, consistently and proportionately. Some of the higher levels of fines, for example, will exceed what some fishing vessels make in a year, and that needs to be considered. Public confidence depends not only on effective enforcement but on enforcement being exercised fairly and consistently.

There is widespread concern across Northern Ireland about the condition of many of our lakes and rivers, and there are a vast number of factors that contribute to water quality challenges. The Bill represents one way of addressing those problems, but legislation alone will not resolve them. Improving water quality requires coordinated action across Departments, investment in infrastructure and meaningful engagement with farmers, landowners, local councils and environmental organisations. It also requires honesty about where responsibility lies. Too often, discussions about water quality focus exclusively on agriculture, while ignoring long-standing deficiencies in waste water treatment capacity. If we are therefore serious about improving our aquatic environment, every source of pollution must be addressed. New legislative powers are meaningful only if the Department has the resources, the expertise and the personnel necessary to implement them effectively. That applies right across the board: to licensing, inspections, monitoring, scientific assessment and enforcement.

I recognise both the importance of protecting our natural environment and the importance of supporting productive industries that provide employment, food security and economic opportunity. Those are not, and should not be seen as, competing priorities. Good environmental stewardship and economic prosperity can and should go hand in hand. It is a balance that needs to be struck correctly, requiring pragmatism over idealism. The DUP has consistently argued that environmental policy must be practical, proportionate — a word that I have used quite a lot in this speech — and based on sound science. We believe in protecting the environment because it is the right thing to do, but we also believe in supporting businesses, farmers and fishermen, because they all contribute so much to our rural economy. If implemented sensibly, the Bill can achieve both objectives.

Whilst concerns remain about the extent of delegated powers, the practical implementation of regulatory provisions, departmental capacity and the need for continued stakeholder engagement, we can continue to address those issues as the Bill progresses. The DUP is content to support the Bill at this stage. We look forward to scrutinising it in the Committee.

Ms K Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. It is timely and important. Miss McIlveen, a fellow MLA for the Strangford constituency, has just spoken. We have the longest coastline of all constituencies across Northern Ireland: we have the Irish Sea and, of course, the beautiful Strangford lough. That means that the Bill is extremely important to me and my to my colleagues Mr Harvey and Miss McIlveen.

The Bill modernises an outdated legal framework and brings it into line with the environmental and economic challenges that we face. In doing so, it supports commercial and recreational fishing, while placing sustainability and the protection of our inland waters at its core. I heard Mr Butler talk about the balance. That balance is essential for me and the Alliance Party. Environmental protection and economic growth must go hand in hand, as Miss McIlveen highlighted. Healthy ecosystems are not a barrier to prosperity; they are a foundation of it. The Bill also contributes directly to the Programme for Government's commitment to protect Lough Neagh and our wider environment. Given the growing public concern about water quality and pollution, that focus is necessary and welcome.

I recognise the collaborative approach that has been taken in developing the Bill. It has been co-designed with the fishing industry, angling groups and environmental organisations. That engagement strengthens the Bill and reflects the responsibility that we all share to protect our natural resources. A while ago, we saw that commercial bottom trawling had all but decimated the horse mussel population in Strangford lough. It has since been changed to a special area of conservation. That limits a lot of activity in the lough, which is not a bad thing considering that horse mussels are coming back. We all have a shared responsibility, and I am delighted that those partners have helped to co-design the Bill.

At its heart, the Bill is about improving how we manage our inland waters. Sustainable fish stocks are critical not only for biodiversity but for the long-term future of the fishing sector. If managed properly, fisheries support local jobs, sustain rural and coastal communities, contribute to food security and open up access to wider markets.

The Bill reflects the realities of the post-Brexit landscape by aligning protections here with those in other UK jurisdictions and the UK Fisheries Act. That consistency is important for standards, enforcement and international confidence in our products. The Bill is built on pillars: the management of inland fisheries and the protection of the marine environment, both of which have been widely consulted on and have strong support. I look forward to hearing how the AERA Committee considers that through its consultation period.

The key strength of the Bill is the introduction of clear policy objectives alongside a requirement for an inland fisheries policy statement. That will improve transparency, accountability and long-term planning. Equally important is the shift to an ecosystem-based approach. Moving beyond managing individual fisheries, the Bill recognises the interconnected nature of our rivers, loughs and seas — an approach that is very much in line with Alliance's commitment to evidence-based environmental policy. The inclusion of a national benefit objective is also significant. It ensures that fisheries policy will support not just the environment but local economies, jobs and communities, particularly in rural and coastal areas such as in the constituency that I am delighted to live in and represent.

The provisions on aquaculture are another positive step. By clearly defining the sector and enabling the licensing of emerging activities, such as seaweed farming, the Bill supports innovation while maintaining environmental safeguards. I thank the Department and the Minister. Last year, I met the Department and we discussed that. The opportunities for seaweed farming in Strangford lough are wonderful, and the opportunities from seaweed that Queen's University has identified are incredible. We are lucky to have those opportunities on our doorstep, as long as there is licensing and it is properly looked after.

Strong policy must, of course, be backed by effective enforcement. The Bill strengthens enforcement powers, increases maximum penalties and introduces fixed penalty notices for some minor offences. That creates a fairer and more proportionate system while ensuring that breaches are taken seriously. I have seen fish kills and pollution in waterways in my constituency, and I want to ensure that everyone involved is prosecuted fairly. Fixed penalty notices are a practical tool. They allow for timely action on lower-level offences without over-burdening the courts while still acting as a meaningful deterrent. If only everybody were acting properly, we would not need to have those deterrents, but we are where we are, and the Bill hopes to improve upon that.

Importantly, the Bill strengthens our response to water pollution, including sewage and waste water. That is an issue of real concern for communities across Northern Ireland, and it is right that we take stronger action.

The Bill represents progress for fisheries, aquaculture and the water environment. It modernises our approach, strengthens environmental protections, supports sustainable industry and improves accountability. For those reasons, and in line with Alliance's commitment to protecting the environment while supporting sustainable economic growth, I am pleased to support the Minister and the Bill, and I welcome the opportunity for the Bill to go forward to the Committee for further consideration.

Mr T Buchanan: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words at Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. It is overdue legislation, which touches on three interlinked systems: commercial fisheries; growing the aquaculture sector; and the wider water environment, with an ambition to modernise regulation while supporting sustainable economic activity in coastal and inland communities.

Northern Ireland's fisheries and aquaculture industries are facing pressure from sources such as stock levels in the Irish Sea and rising compliance costs for small boats. The Bill is an opportunity to bring coherence to a patchwork of outdated provisions and create more of a statutory footing for regulators and the industry. I note that quite a bit of work in the Bill falls to the Department with regard to monitoring, enforcement and scientific assessment, which will require adequate resourcing.

The Bill must strike the right balance between encouraging investment and protecting sensitive freshwater habitats. With many fishing families operating small businesses, any new licensing or reporting requirements must be fair and proportionate. Regulation to protect the environment must do so without crushing the livelihoods of our small fishing industry. It must also support community-based fisheries, while ensuring that local voices are heard in licensing and environmental decision-making, recognising that environmental protection and economic sustainability are not competing goals but go hand in hand.

Hydro schemes and hydropower to produce clean energy that will contribute to decarbonisation targets must be catered for in the Bill, with a clear vision for their future expansion. Those are not abstract infrastructure projects but local assets that generate clean renewable energy while supporting employment in rural areas. Across our waterways, small-scale hydro schemes create local skilled employment, support local supply chains, generate stable renewable energy and provide long-term economic benefit to rural areas that often struggle to attract investment. Those schemes show what is possible when environmental protection and economic development work hand in hand. However, the Bill must give hydro operators clarity and confidence, through a sustainable licensing framework with long-term regulatory certainty, to enable them to invest and upgrade, modernise and improve fish pass technology. Hydro schemes are already delivering for rural communities, and with the right vision in the Bill, they can continue to deliver for many decades to come. The future of hydropower in Northern Ireland must be one of balance and clean energy generation alongside thriving river ecosystems.

While many of the new powers simply clarify or regularise existing rules, there is more work to be done on other areas of the Bill. I look forward to the Bill's scrutiny at Committee Stage and hope that it will result in something deliverable that will have the intended effect.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Minister, I am grateful to the Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and to Members from all sides of the Chamber for their consideration of the Bill and their contributions to the debate, which have been valuable and useful. I will respond to a few of the issues that have been raised in the debate.

The Chair of the AERA Committee raised questions about the adequacy of funding for the Bill. The regulatory impact assessment indicates that there will be no cost to businesses as a result of the Bill. As a result, no additional bid for funding has been made. The marine environment and fisheries fund will be available to provide financial assistance with the delivery of any new policies arising from the Bill, and it is important that we continue that support. What I have outlined about the regulatory impact assessment should, hopefully, also address some of the concerns that Aoife raised in her contribution on the issue.

Matthew, you raised a number of issues, most of which I will try to capture, if that is possible. You were right to highlight the state of our rivers, lakes and loughs in Northern Ireland and the impact of that not just on the environment but on the economy more broadly. Perhaps that exemplifies the fact that economic growth and the environment must go hand in hand: without the environment, we cannot have economic growth. We have seen that in the impact on eel fishing; I will meet the Lough Neagh Fishermen's Co-operative later this week about the challenges that its members face. It is important that we support them in facing those challenges but also that we respect science and evidence in making the interventions that are needed to restore water quality not just in Lough Neagh but in other areas such as Belfast lough. That is a concern for me, and it is why we need stronger regulation and enforcement for waste water and to do more on water quality more broadly.

The Member referenced fines and penalties relating to fish kills specifically. Every time that a fish kill is reported to me, I feel concern that it is wrong and that it should not be the norm for that to occur a number of times in the spring and summer of each year. You said — I agree with you — that legislation alone will not fix everything, but the Bill is an important tool in the wider interventions that we seek to make, be they related to the sentencing review that the Department of Justice is carrying out, which will include environmental crimes, or to the duty that we all have to report pollution when we see it.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. It is a bit cheeky of me to ask him this question, because he may not have the information. His officials are here, but presumably they cannot participate in the debate. Does the Minister know whether we have more fish kills per hectare or per watercourse than other parts of these islands? I imagine that we do.

Mr Muir: Just before I took up this role, one thing that I was taught by someone who is very learned and had been doing this for many years — he is no longer a Member — was never to quote statistics in the House unless you are entirely sure.

Mr O'Toole: You must ask him again.

Mr Muir: I will write to you with regard to your query.

The other issue, as I said, is reporting pollution incidents so that they can be effectively investigated. There is a duty on everyone to do that promptly. A public awareness campaign will start in the autumn to help people understand how to report incidents and how important that is. It is important that we give people knowledge about the role that they can play in tackling pollution.

The Member also raised the issue of how Farming with Nature and agrienvironment support schemes intersect with the Bill. The Bill is about fines and penalties for water pollution and many other things. Fundamentally, however, the approach that we take in addressing water quality in Northern Ireland is based on four pillars: education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement. Moving towards enforcement means that we have collectively failed, so we want to provide education and incentivisation to ensure that pollution situations do not evolve in the first place. Farming with Nature is part of that incentivisation.

As a result of EU exit, which has caused many issues in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom, the agrienvironment support schemes under the ESF were scaled down. I am seeking to re-establish those schemes and roll out that support. Alongside and related to that is the support that we can provide to farmers through the sustainable catchment programme. It has been proven in the North and the South that on-farm advice, alongside support for tree planting, fencing, riparian buffer strips and other nature-based solutions, can have a significant, positive impact on water quality. That is why I was delighted to announce last week that we have secured, through the Shared Island Fund, over £49 million to roll out the sustainable catchment programme in the Blackwater catchment and, in future, we will roll it out in as many other catchment areas in the Lough Neagh area as possible within the funding envelope that we have. It is critical that we do that.

Matthew also asked — I am seeking to address all the points that he raised — how the Bill intersects with the Lough Neagh action plan. There is a specific action in the Lough Neagh action plan to review fines and penalties. The Bill seeks not just to do that but to legislate for it. That is how we are following through on those commitments.

The Member also asked how the legislation fits with the wider desire to balance recovery of the environment with the economic aspirations that we, rightly, have for Northern Ireland. The Bill seeks to put an ecosystem-based approach at the heart of this and have a proportionate attitude to the issues. Hopefully, that effectively addresses some of the issues that he raised. What we are seeking to do through the Bill is to modernise the legislation on enforcement for inland and sea fisheries and to provide flexibilities. At the moment, we do not have fixed penalty notices for water pollution offences. We have the unnecessary criminalisation of individuals as a result of our having to take that through the courts rather than being able to use fixed penalty notices. The provision of fixed penalty notices will be an effective way forward, subject to the secondary legislation, to allow us to address that issue.

I hope that I have covered some of the issues that Aoife Finnegan raised in her contribution about the economic impact assessments and the consultation. Officials will continue to engage with Committee members on that.

On the issue of penalties and Northern Ireland Water, I approach life in the spirit of ensuring fairness, openness and transparency, and that is what I seek to provide through all the actions that we are taking to tackle water pollution. I do not think that it is right or proper that there is a separate regulatory regime for Northern Ireland Water. I seek the support of my Executive colleagues to end that so that we tackle water pollution on a fair and equitable basis.

In Michelle McIlveen's contribution, there was, I would say, a lot of common purpose in the issues that she set out, such as the need to have clarity. That is what we are seeking through the scrutiny of the Bill. The follow-on from that will be devising those statements and getting them out. We will seek to do that through consultation. It is important that we do that so that whatever we do works on the ground.

I get the Member's concerns about secondary legislation, but we are seeking to have primary legislation that gives us the flexibility to provide secondary legislation and provides us with the necessary scrutiny through the affirmative process. We are seeking to strike a balance on that.

Miss McIlveen said what I have just said about the need to have a balanced approach to agriculture and waste water pollution. It is important that we do that, because everyone has a role to play. I commend farmers in Northern Ireland for the work that they have done and their commitment to addressing the issue. It is important that Northern Ireland Water also step up.

The same Member mentioned the issue with resources in the Department. That is absolutely key. We have significant vacancies in the Department. It is important that we fill those so that we have the resources to deliver for all of Northern Ireland.

Kellie Armstrong talked about Strangford lough and the unique aspects of her constituency. It is important that I acknowledge and agree with what Kellie said about environmental sustainability and economic growth going hand in hand. That is what we need to achieve. As she said, the legislation is based on evidence-based policy. That may not be the vogue in some places, but I think that it is still really important, and it is important that whatever we do is underpinned by sound science. The Member mentioned the issuing of fixed penalty notices and rightly linked that to the Lough Neagh action plan, which is where it comes from.

Tom Buchanan raised the impacts on hydropower. The requirements in the parts of the Fisheries Act 1966 that have the most impact on the work of hydropower operators are not changed by the introduction of the Bill. That is because those areas fall under the remit of technical conservation measures, which are better outlined in secondary legislation. Any future changes to those parts of the existing Act will be made by regulations and subject to appropriate engagement with stakeholders. Hydro operators are engaged with the river basin management planning process to ensure that their views are at the table in the discussions that are pertinent to their work. Tom, if you have any specific issues about hydro operators, I am happy for you to send a request, and we can arrange a meeting with officials.

I thank the officials for their work. Some of them are sitting in the Officials' Box, but many others have worked on the Bill to bring it to the Second Stage. I also thank Members for their constructive contributions to the debate on the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. I acknowledge that it was originally the "Fisheries Bill", then it was the "Fisheries and Water Environment Bill", and now it is the "Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill"; maybe it will get an acronym in due course. I thank everyone for their contributions, their support and the questions raised.

I commend the Bill to the Assembly. I look forward to engaging constructively with Members, especially those who sit on the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, as the Bill progresses through its stages.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Members should take their ease for a few moments while we prepare for the next item of business.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call the Minister of Justice to open the debate on the Bill.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to bring the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill before the Assembly today, although I have been before the Assembly a number of times today, and perhaps the Assembly may wish that we were somewhere else.

It is an unfortunate fact that any one of us may become a victim of or a witness to a crime. Until we are faced with that situation, it is difficult to predict how we might react or the impact that it might have on us. As Justice Minister, one of my priorities has been to invite victims and witnesses to share their lived experiences of the criminal justice system with me. Listening to such accounts is essential in enabling us to identify and understand necessary improvements. I am constantly awed by the people who meet me, often recounting some of the worst experiences of their lives but doing so to seek change and to prevent the same experience befalling someone else. That takes courage, and it should be rewarded with action on our part.

The provisions in the Bill are, therefore, informed directly by what victims and witnesses have told us. I thank all the individuals who shared their experiences, as well as all those who campaigned for change and have ever taken the time to meet with me or to contact my Department. The Bill owes a debt of gratitude to them; it is a further step towards improving the experience of the criminal justice system for all victims and witnesses of crime and ensuring that their voice is properly heard.

I recently listened to Joanne Barnes, the CEO of Nexus, when she spoke to the media. She said something about the nature of the justice system that is worth sharing as we consider the Bill. She stated:

Many of the provisions contained in the Bill have that very aim. None of us can promise a victim-centred justice system because there are multiple rights to be balanced, including those of the defendant, but we can certainly strive for a more victim-focused, sensitive and trauma-informed system, where trauma can be minimised, fairness is at its core and the experiences of people who go through the system can be improved.

The Bill contains 30 clauses and is divided into three Parts. Part 1 provides for the establishment, appointment and functions of a statutory Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime for Northern Ireland. The commissioner's office will become an arm's-length body (ALB) of the Department of Justice, in line with other Northern Ireland commissioners' offices. Although my Department will make the appointment, the commissioner will operate independently in the discharge of their statutory functions. The Bill deliberately separates appointment from functions, duties and powers, and the commissioner is free to scrutinise, challenge and advise the Department and others without interference.

Before I go any further, I will formally acknowledge the exemplary work that has been carried out by the current Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, Geraldine Hanna, who has been in post since 2022. Geraldine's experience has informed the development of the proposed statutory commissioner's role and responsibilities. I am hugely grateful to her for her dedication and commitment to improving the criminal justice system for victims.

The Bill establishes an overarching principal aim to direct the commissioner's functions, namely:

That ensures that all activities will be exercised through the lens of victims and witnesses' interests. The commissioner will be expected to promote an understanding of the rights of victims and witnesses and an awareness of matters relating to their interests. The commissioner will also be required to review the adequacy and effectiveness of the law and practice as it relates to the interests of victims and witnesses. To assist in that, the commissioner will seek the views of victims and witnesses and encourage them to communicate with the commissioner's office, ensuring that any research, reports or recommendations that are produced are grounded in lived experience. I have often said in the Chamber that, although we talk about how things ought to be done and are intended to be done within the system, the reality often deviates significantly from individual victims and witnesses' own experiences. It is therefore important that we look not only at the provisions that we already have in law but at how those are put into practice.

The commissioner will also be supported in that work through advisory arrangements, with membership of advisory groups being determined by the commissioner in order to ensure flexibility and relevance. Victims and witnesses have frequently told me that they felt forgotten about, that communication was lacking and that the perpetrator appeared to be the priority at various points in the process. The purpose of the Victim Charter is to ensure that victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. The commissioner will be required to review the operation and effectiveness of the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter and to publish a report on their findings. The commissioner will also be required to monitor compliance with the Victim Charter by charter service providers. Charter service providers, as defined in the Bill, will be required to provide the commissioner with statistics and records of complaints relating to the Victim Charter and to cooperate with any requests. Through that oversight, the commissioner will be able to identify where victim entitlements are not being met by providers, such as where there is a lack of information or there are insufficient updates. The commissioner may make recommendations as a result of their monitoring functions and report on those in their annual report.

The role of the commissioner is deliberately designed to be one of independent scrutiny, transparency and influence, rather than one of enforcement. The commissioner's ability to request information, assess compliance and report findings publicly, including naming non-compliant charter service providers, creates a strong accountability mechanism. The Bill provides that, in time and after consultation with the commissioner and providers, the Department may, by regulation, extend the compliance and statistics provisions in the Victim Charter to the Witness Charter. That reflects a deliberately phased approach. The initial focus is on strengthening oversight and transparency through the Victim Charter, where systems, data and monitoring arrangements are more developed. The regulation-making power will ensure that the same framework can be extended to the Witness Charter once learning from the implementation has been embedded and it is clear that the approach can be applied proportionately and effectively.

When it comes to the definition of a "charter service provider", we have been guided by the list in the Victim Charter. In response to concerns that obligations to provide statistics to the commissioner may be extended to other bodies that engage with victims and witnesses, I say this: there is no policy intention to extend that definition to non-core criminal justice agencies. Any proposed changes in future will be consulted on, and proposals for regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The commissioner may not exercise any functions in relation to an individual case. That is important to avoid duplication of the services and processes that already exist to support, advocate for and resolve individual criminal cases. The commissioner's role is deliberately positioned at a higher strategic level, focusing on improving the system for all victims and witnesses rather than on intervening on individual matters. However, that does not prevent the commissioner from listening to or learning from individual experiences that are central to identifying patterns, trends and systemic issues.

Clauses 16 and 17 require the commissioner to prepare a strategic plan and an annual business plan. The strategic plan will set out how the commissioner proposes to exercise their functions during their term in office. Annual business plans will set out how the commissioner proposes to exercise their functions during the year to which it relates, with timetables, estimated costs and expected outcomes. The commissioner must prepare and publish an annual report to include an assessment of the extent to which the commissioner's objectives and priorities were met. Charter service providers will be under a duty to publish a response to any recommendations within 56 calendar days of the date of publication of the commissioner's annual report. Where a response is not published, the charter service provider must provide an explanation to the commissioner. That is an accountability deadline and seeks to balance providing organisations with sufficient time to consider the recommendations and ensuring that timely action is taken. There is a possibility that an amendment may be required at Consideration Stage, as officials are working with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC ) to develop provision to ensure that charter service providers are also required to respond to recommendations made by the commissioner in any report other than the annual report as and when required.

I will cover the provisions in schedule 1 briefly now, as they are linked. They provide for the status, tenure of office, commissioner's salary, staffing, delegation of functions and procedural arrangements. The commissioner will have an independent legal status as a corporation sole distinct from the Department of Justice, as the sponsoring Department. The tenure will not exceed five years, with eligibility for one further term only. The commissioner will have a duty to keep proper accounts and, each year, prepare their annual accounts, which will be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Schedule 1(2)(6) provides for the circumstances in which the Department may remove a commissioner. The removal provisions are standard and important accountability safeguards that appear in legislation for other statutory commissioners. They exist to protect the integrity of the office, not because we expect it to be used routinely. The removal grounds are narrowly defined and relate to objective circumstances such as misconduct, incapacity or failure to discharge duties. That provides an essential accountability safeguard without allowing for removal for policy disagreements. I should mention that the Interpretation Act might provide a catch-all for instances that we have not anticipated. Officials are liaising with OLC to explore whether it is necessary to make explicit reference to that. If it is deemed necessary, we will seek to make such an amendment at Consideration Stage.

In relation to provisions for suspension of a commissioner, I understand that the Executive Office is working to develop a consistent policy across similar legislation for all other Northern Ireland commissioners. I consider that it would be prudent to await the outcome of that exercise and, if necessary, amend schedule 1 at Consideration Stage. However, it may be that TEO will be able to include this commissioner in its remit, as its legislation will arrive after this legislation is considered.

Schedule 2 contains minor and consequential amendments to existing legislation, including adding the commissioner to schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, ensuring that the commissioner cannot also hold membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That relates to a reserved matter, and the Secretary of State has given his consent.

Overall, the statutory framework establishes a balanced and proportionate model that strengthens the voice of victims and witnesses, promotes good practice and drives systemic improvement through oversight, engagement and transparent reporting.

Part 2 contains provisions that will make changes to criminal justice procedure and how evidence is used in cases involving aggravation by hostility, sexual offences and charges involving the death or serious physical harm of a child or vulnerable person.

Clauses 24 and 25 will make provision for the extension of special measures to witnesses and the protection of witnesses from being cross-examined by the defendant in person in cases involving aggravation by hostility, which are also referred to as "hate crime offences". In his review of hate crime legislation in Northern Ireland, Judge Marrinan expressed serious concerns that many victims are discouraged from giving evidence if special measures are not considered and where perpetrators, alleged or otherwise, choose to exercise the right to cross-examine their victims in person. That can cause a victim significant distress and can amount, on occasion quite deliberately, to a continuation of abuse and re-victimisation. Our proposed way forward will create a legislative assumption that hate crime victims are to be treated as being eligible for assistance on the grounds of fear and distress, should they desire such assistance, and will impose a prohibition on a defendant cross-examining a victim. That will give the victim greater certainty from the outset that they would not have to face the accused in court. Together, the provisions will help victims to give the best evidence in court and reduce the number of victims who disengage from the criminal justice system.

I turn now to victims of sexual offences who have told me of experiencing the feeling that they are the ones on trial. It is often not until they are in the criminal justice system that victims become aware that they are not a party to proceedings, with all the rights that being a party brings, but are, for the purposes of a criminal prosecution, a witness for the prosecution. They report feeling unsupported, having no independent legal advice or representation to assist them with making decisions and to understand the processes. Yet, they are faced with the defendant having solicitors and counsel to advise and support them.

Victims have refused or delayed availing themselves of therapeutic services that may support their recovery, because they are terrified that any notes that the counsellor might make will be used at trial to discredit their claim. Other notes and records, such as medical and educational records, or evidence of previous sexual history may also be requested by the defence to be disclosed in a process that is known as "third-party material disclosure". The thought of sharing with strangers their most personal records has been enough to cause some victims to withdraw altogether from the criminal justice process. It feels like a further violation after a sexual offence that has already violated them.

Those issues have been raised with me repeatedly by many victims whom I have met since taking up post in 2020. I have been determined to improve things, so clause 26 will introduce significant changes. It provides that, when pre-trial applications for disclosure or to admit evidence of the complainant's sexual history are made by the defence, the complainant must be given the opportunity to make oral or written representations to the court about that application. They will be entitled to be present at any hearing of the application and will be entitled to be legally represented. The rules of the court will also require the service of notice of the application on the complainant. Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence. We know that there are often fishing exercises that go beyond the required information, and that in itself can be incredibly damaging.

Members will be aware that the introduction of sexual offences legal advisers and child sexual offences legal advisers has already gone some way towards better supporting those who are making their way through the criminal justice system in serious sexual offence cases. I believe that, coupled with the Bill, that will be hugely important in giving people their voice and some agency in a case that is intimately linked to their well-being.

Part 2 also makes provision to limit the power to dismiss charges involving the death or serious physical harm of a child or vulnerable person. Clause 27 will address a legal gap that will arise when committal reform in Northern Ireland is implemented in relation to the change from a no bill application to an application to dismiss. Therefore, it is a technical legislative fix. It would apply in cases where there are charges in relation to the death of a child or vulnerable adult in order to avoid the situation where defendants could avoid trial for murder or manslaughter and face a lesser charge instead. It will also mean that the power of a judge in the Crown Court under section 14 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 on application to dismiss direct committal could not be exercised in relation to the offence of murder or manslaughter, unless it is also exercised in relation to the section 5 offence of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult.

Part 3 contains general provisions that relate to regulations and orders, commencement and the short title.

Before I close, I would like to mention two other important matters that have been proposed for potential inclusion in the Bill. Caoimhe's law comprises proposals for an offence to prevent the unauthorised recording and sharing of photographs of road traffic collisions. In correspondence with the Justice Committee, I confirmed that, while the Department did not have the capacity or the resources to develop legislative provisions in respect of Caoimhé's law during this mandate without jeopardising other priorities, I am committed to supporting the development of any such proposals in accordance with the Department's responsibility to provide advice on the introduction of any new or amended offences and penalties in Northern Ireland. I have since met Caoimhé's mother and the group that is campaigning for Caoimhe's law. I would be happy, if we perhaps get the opportunity when we meet the Committee, to set out in more detail the way that I have agreed to take things forward, as it will be difficult for the Committee, given the volume of work that sits ahead of it, and for the Department, given the volume of work that we are engaged in with legislation, to progress it here. Given that it impinges directly on telecommunications and social media, it might be better for us to make the case to Westminster to progress it. In addition, Westminster is not up against the end of a mandate. Potentially, that makes it a more viable option for delivery.

Secondly, in response to concerns raised about the use of good character references in recent sexual and domestic abuse cases, I requested that their use be included for consideration as part of the Department's review of sentencing policy, with a view to legislating in the next mandate, if appropriate. However, I have not ruled out using this Bill as a vehicle, if a simple legislative change that would have an impact in this space can be identified. I have asked my officials to give that urgent consideration.

I want to be clear that, on both of those issues, I have absolutely heard the concerns raised and share the ambition of the campaigners to make real change. However, the nature of such change, the complexity associated with it and the legislative capacity to effect those changes are factors that I have to bear in mind. I say that to be honest and not to raise expectations beyond what can be delivered.

That concludes my remarks covering the substantive policy content of the Bill. As you have heard, the provisions of the Bill are based on what victims and witnesses have told not only me but Sir John Gillen, Judge Marrinan and the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, Geraldine Hanna, about what we can do, in part, to significantly improve the experience of the criminal justice system for those who, unfortunately, find themselves becoming a victim of or a witness to some of the most heinous crimes that can be committed. I want to make sure, first, that victims and witnesses feel confident to report what has happened and, secondly, that, when they do, they will be informed of their entitlements as a victim or witness, treated in a trauma-informed manner and kept abreast of progress and will feel supported and able to engage and participate all the way to the conclusion of the criminal justice process.

I very much look forward to working with the Justice Committee and Assembly colleagues to ensure that the provisions of the Bill can be enacted within the mandate. I know that colleagues may have amendments that they wish to propose, but I ask them, when doing so, to bear in mind that we are working within the time constraints of a shortened mandate. I ask for their support in keeping the Bill focused on its current provisions, with any substantive amendments that would require policy development and consultation being dealt with through a future legislative vehicle. It would be a further assault on victims and witnesses if the Bill were to fall due to lack of time and important changes were not implemented because amendments could not be agreed. I therefore ask for the assistance of Members in the House and members of the Justice Committee: should you have ideas for amendments, make me aware of them at the earliest opportunity. As I have with the Justice Bill that has just completed its Consideration Stage today, I will endeavour to work with you ahead of the Consideration Stage to ensure that any amendments can be agreed and that there is consensus in tabling them. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): As Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Second Stage debate on the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. It is the last of the three Bills that, the Committee was advised, were to be introduced by the Minister in this shortened mandate.

There is little point in repeating what the Minister has just said regarding the content of the Bill. Should it pass its Second Stage, it will be referred to the Committee, and we will be able to go into the detail and scrutinise the provisions of the Bill at that stage. We have, in fact, already undertaken some pre-legislative scrutiny, and I start by thanking the Minister and her officials for that early engagement.

The Committee has a packed agenda as the end of the mandate approaches. Therefore, early and honest engagement is always welcome, especially when it relates to primary legislation, which is, after all, why we are here in the Chamber.

In March 2024, when the Minister first briefed the Committee, she indicated that the Bill would be a hate crime and victims Bill and that it would be smaller than had been intended due to the reduced time available in the mandate. The Committee heard that a priority for the Bill would be to put the commissioner designate for victims and witnesses of crime on to a statutory footing. When the Minister was asked about the possibility of trying to make the change to place the commissioner on a statutory footing sooner, potentially via the Justice Bill, she advised of the work that needed to be done — for example, consulting on proposals and learning from other appointment processes — and said that she did not want to rush that process. She also pointed out that it would mean adding to the number of amendments to the Justice Bill that were already planned, about which concerns had already been raised at that early stage. After the past few weeks, I think that we can all agree that not tabling a further amendment to that Bill was the right choice.

The Minister described the Victims' Commissioner as a "critical friend". The Committee has engaged with the commissioner designate on several occasions during the mandate and always found her evidence beneficial. We therefore look forward to scrutinising the process of making that office a statutory one and, hopefully, to continuing that engagement in the future. The commissioner designate came to the Committee in October 2024 to give evidence on the victim survey, the results of which were published in September that year. During the session, the commissioner designate referenced what she viewed as "vital legislative changes" in the Bill that we are discussing. She acknowledged that there had been some concern that her wanting the legislation to progress may have presented a conflict of interest or made it seem that she had stepped outside her remit. She placed on record that she did not see any conflict of interest in her:

in the future.

In May 2025, the Committee considered a Department of Justice report on the outcome of its consultation on proposals to enhance the support and representation of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system, which would inform the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. In October 2025, we received a formal pre-legislative briefing from officials on the forthcoming Bill. The Committee heard that the Bill would provide the commissioner with the scope to develop their own strategic priorities, objectives, programme of work and anticipated outcomes. They will have the powers to work with other providers and bodies to ensure the best outcomes for victims and witnesses of crime. I think that we can all agree that that is a laudable aim. No doubt, all Members have spoken in the House about the need to better ensure that the voices of victims are heard and listened to in the justice system.

Officials also spoke about the hate crime provisions, advising that Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime had:

The Bill makes provision to offer those protections and provide clarity to victims that they do not have to face their perpetrator in court.

Members asked questions about a range of matters, including the independence of the office, the ability to review the performance of any future commissioner, the costs of establishing the office and the balance of the rights of victims or witnesses with those of the accused, who have not yet been found guilty of any crime.

When the Committee received an oral update from departmental officials on the victims and witnesses of crime strategy in February, members asked about the Bill, given the clear link between the two matters. We were advised that the Bill would be introduced in June and that work on the final drafting of the provisions was ongoing. Members asked how the strategy will impact on the work of the commissioner and vice versa. We also sought clarity on what the impact would be if the Bill did not gain Royal Assent during the mandate. Members heard that, should the Bill not pass, the commissioner would likely continue in designate status and would therefore function as they currently do. However, that could have an impact on other parts of the Bill, and, while interim measures could be put in place as mitigations, the overall strategy would be negatively affected.

Members also sought further information on the protections for victims of domestic abuse and sexual offences. Officials explained that the Bill would legislate on the disclosure regime not to prevent an application for disclosure but to set out a process whereby the defence would have to show the relevance of the information that it was requesting. That is an important protection. The House will be aware of the perception that a victim's sexual history or information about their private life can be used in court to discredit or, in some cases, humiliate them, causing further trauma. As a Committee, we will want to make sure that the provisions deliver on behalf of the victims whom it seeks to protect, balancing that with the accused's right to a fair trial.

As part of its scrutiny to date, the Committee received evidence from officials on Thursday 25 June, after the Bill's introduction. In the written and oral evidence received then, the Committee was advised of potential amendments that the Minister may table at Consideration Stage, including an amendment to remove the commissioner that is being considered in liaison with OLC. An amendment to suspend the commissioner could be tabled to align with work being undertaken by the Executive Office to look at having a consistent policy across Northern Ireland commissioners. We were also made aware that there may be other amendments on reporting obligations for bodies that work with the commissioner and on data-sharing in urgent or emergency situations. The Committee's role is to scrutinise the Bill as introduced. We will endeavour to consider any amendments that become apparent as the Bill progresses, although, obviously, the scope to do so in detail is somewhat limited.

The Bill is another important piece of legislation for the people of this country. While it is clearly not as broad as the Justice Bill and is probably not as emotive to many as some of the Sentencing Bill's provisions, it nonetheless contains important protections and measures for victims and witnesses. It is hoped that, if they are in the unfortunate position of having to interact with the justice system, the Bill's provisions may support them through what can often be a difficult journey.

It will come as no surprise to Members that I really look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill. I know that my colleagues on the Committee also look forward to considering it in detail at Committee Stage, subject, of course, to its passing Second Stage today. We give the commitment that we will work with the Minister and departmental officials honestly and earnestly to make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose and as good as it can be.

I will now make remarks as an individual MLA and as justice spokesperson for the Democratic Unionist Party. First, I record my appreciation and acknowledgement of the work of the current Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, Geraldine Hanna. I have known Geraldine for some time. Like her, I am steeped in justice-related matters, especially around domestic violence. She was always a great attender of the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence, and she has carried that work forward into the commissioner's role. Geraldine is a champion for victims and witnesses. She is dominant in that role at the minute, but, when we look at the Bill, we will have to consider the future, when Geraldine is not in position. That is why it is important that we have heard her voice throughout the work leading up to the Bill's introduction. It will do us good as legislators, as an Assembly and as a Committee to hear her voice when her opinions are sought.

There is no doubt that we need to do better for victims and, as are classified in most cases, witnesses.

That in itself causes some victims and witnesses bother, because they are in a system that they are not part of, which means that they do not get the support that they require. That can sometimes leave them feeling retraumatised, as though they have been put through the wringer again. They have already had to cope with the crime that made them a victim, but they then have to go through a court process that retraumatises them because of their memories of everything that they went through. It is really difficult for them. We therefore need someone to be fully resourced and supported to promote victims and witnesses' interests. The Bill is designed not only to promote and support the interests of victims and witnesses but to promote an understanding of their rights and to raise awareness of matters relating to their interests.

Clause 3(2) states:

Clause 3(3) states:

That person, fully resourced and supported, therefore needs to get right to the heart of governance and democracy in this place in order to advise the Government and promote the interests of victims and witnesses.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member's giving way. Even with a commissioner designate in the role at the moment, a wise decision that I made was to include her on the Criminal Justice Board (CJB). As we look at how the criminal justice system will develop and evolve over time, and as we look at the kinds of decisions that we make in that regard, it is really important that victims and witnesses be at the heart of the discussion at all times and be considered rather than overlooked. As the Member said, it is hugely important that victims' voices shape what we do.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. She was absolutely right to take that action, as it means that victims' voices are right at the heart of the matters under discussion. It is now obvious to us that that should have been done years ago, but it is good that it is being done now. We should all be proud of the part that we are playing in producing such legislation.

Legislation is what it is. It is always there to protect the people, but it does not directly address them. Rather, it creates offences that people are then judged to have committed or not. The difference with this Bill, however, is that it places victims and witnesses at its heart. It complements the two other recent Bills from the Department of Justice, namely the Justice Bill and the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. One can see from the wording and scope of those Bills that some of the clauses lean on one another. There has therefore been a step change as we have gone through first the Justice Bill, then the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill and now the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. That is really important. Credit where credit is due to the departmental officials. They got the sequencing right, as did the Minister. We had a very concentrated period in which to scrutinise the first two Bills, as we will with this Bill. I have criticised many things about the Justice Bill, but it was wise of the Minister to take the three steps that she did, and I commend her for doing so.

While it is in my head, I give my commitment as DUP justice spokesperson to working with the Minister and the Department to ensure that we produce the best possible legislation. I cite the work that we did in partnership in the Chamber and in Committee on the Justice Bill. We had eight days — over 40 hours — of debate during its Consideration Stage. It was really important that we had that, as it proves that the House can be effective at passing legislation. That is all the more important with this Bill, as it has victims and witnesses at its heart. I really do look forward, therefore, to working with the Department, the Minister and Committee members on it, as well, of course, with the House at Consideration Stage.

I will speak to part 2. It is important that we have special measures and that victims of sexual crime or crimes of a hostile nature will not have to be cross-examined by their alleged perpetrator. That can be an offence in itself, if you like, because of the trauma that the victim will have gone through. You can see how that would impede someone's coming forward and why somebody would not want to be in that position again. Victims will not want to be in the same room as the perpetrator. They do not want to see them across the street, so you can understand that they would not want to be in a big, stuffy courtroom with strangers asking them questions. We need to legislate for that. It is important that no one can be cross-examined by the perpetrator in that way. There are other functions that can be utilised to have the court process as it should be. The court process should be adversarial and robust — that is how we do justice in this country — but there need to be special measures to protect victims and witnesses.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way again. He will be aware of the success of special measures in domestic abuse contest cases. We now have successful conviction rates of about 92% in such cases, either by guilty plea or at the end of a case. That dramatic increase is due to the fact that people are now willing to turn up and give evidence because they no longer have to go into the courtroom and risk bumping into either the accused or the accused's supporters in that environment. That is hugely important. People being able to give evidence remotely and feeling more protected represents a sea change in what we do but in no way prevents the accused from getting a fair trial.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention. Nevertheless, there are concerns that I want to address. The Minister and the departmental officials will know that, even from the range of questions that I have asked. We need to make sure that we get the balance correct. Nobody has been convicted or found guilty of an offence at that stage, so a defendant — the accused — must have all the tools at their disposal to ensure that they get a fair trial. It is important that we ensure that, amongst the safeguards that are in place, all exculpatory evidence is always disclosed. I do not know how to get the balance right, but we will have to put our minds to it to make sure that, with the new disclosure and application processes, all relevant evidence is in front of the people who make the decisions.

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: The Member is always very generous with giving way. It is helpful, however, to answer the questions as we go, rather than to stockpile them for the end of the debate.

It will always be for the judge to decide the extent of disclosure. Providing the witness in a sexual assault case — or the victim, in cases that are finally proven — with a voice in that decision rebalances an existing imbalance. For example, where a judge would normally make the decision about what is required under disclosure, that application would be made by the defence. In some ways, the Public Prosecution Service has very little skin in the game when it comes to the extent of disclosure or to limiting the disclosure, other than in the time that it takes to go through it. The victim, however, actually does have a lot at stake if the disclosure is a fishing expedition and goes too wide. Their concerns being heard is one of the things that will help a judge to reach the right conclusions. From my point of view, this is about simply rebalancing the scales a bit compared with where we are at the moment so that the views of the accuser are taken into account when it comes to disclosure. Ultimately, however, the decision will still rest with the judiciary, which is the right place for it to rest.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention, because it is very useful. What we do not want, and what we have to try to stop, is people's information about their private life being used to discredit them in some way and to humiliate them in other ways, thereby causing further trauma. That is what we are trying to defend against and get away from. Of course, we have to ensure that there is balance in the justice system and on the right to a fair and an appropriate trial for the accused. That is really important. As the Minister said, decisions will be taken by the judiciary, but we have to make sure that there is consistency of approach right across the various courts in the court system. Each case will be judged on its individual merits and circumstances, but we will need to make sure that the laws that we pass here are applied correctly and consistently across the board. Some sort of review mechanism might be needed, where we can consider how effective the new disclosure application processes are. That might be something for the future as we look through the Bill.

I will go on to the Minister's utterances on Caoimhe's law and on character references. Although she will appreciate the difficulties and the burdens placed on the Committee regarding workload, as with the workload in her Department, and that it will not be possible for the Committee to pick up that burden on its own, as the DUP justice spokesperson, I am sure that the Committee and its members will work with the Department and the Minister to try to get the best outcome possible and to ensure that we advance these issues. We will work, and we will certainly not be a burden or an obstacle when it comes to progressing these laws. We as a party commit to working in good faith with the Minister and the Department in trying to advance a lot of the amendments and any others that come up. I give her the guarantee that, if we have any brainstorming sessions where we look for amendments, we will certainly get to them as early as we possibly can so that the Department and the Minister can have sight of them and make a good assessment of those amendments as they come and as we think of them.

This is another good day in the life of the Assembly as a legislature. Again, I emphasise that the Bill has victims and witnesses at its heart, so it is a good day. I will take great pleasure and honour in working on and scrutinising the Bill in the Committee. I will see where I can table amendments to it to make it even better legislation.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: If the Member is responsible for most of the amendments that are tabled, will he be happy for me to also compare their thickness with that of the blue paper that is in front of us today?

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that. Throughout the Consideration Stage debates on the Justice Bill, we had good humour. That has been a marked change during the years that I have been Chair of the Committee. I have really enjoyed the engagement that we have had with the Minister and the Department in all of the processes and debates. In that spirit, I will work with the Minister throughout Committee Stage and at the further legislative stages to get what we all want, which is good legislation. I can give you a commitment now, Minister, that I have nothing in my head at the minute, so at the next stage you will not be able to say that I brought half a Bill, as I said to you, Minister, at the Second Reading of the Justice Bill.

The debate will be good-natured and robust. The Bill will be scrutinised, the Committee will do its work diligently, and we will get to a point where we can have a Consideration Stage that is just as productive as the one that we had on the Justice Bill.

Mr McGlone: The SDLP welcomes the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill and the opportunity to debate it, alongside the Chairperson — or should I say, "Mr Amendment" — at its Second Stage. Although the Bill may be narrower in focus than the Justice Bill, which, happily, we saw pass today, with its numerous amendments, it is an important Bill that affects how we and the courts deal with victims and witnesses of crime, particularly sexual offences and crimes aggravated by hostility.

The Minister is to be congratulated for succeeding in her aim of bringing the Bill to its Second Stage before summer recess, although that will likely mean that there will be ministerial amendments to be introduced further down the line. The SDLP welcomes the provisions for the long-overdue establishment of a statutory Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime. That is a significant step forward in the development of our justice system. It will also be an affirmation of the work of the commissioner designate, whose tenure was extended beyond its initial three years to allow for the legislation to be passed and the appointments process for a successor to be completed. We commend the current Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, Geraldine Hanna. She has performed admirably in her role since being appointed in the midst of a period of Executive chaos. The Justice Committee recently heard important evidence from the commissioner designate in relation to family courts and victims of domestic abuse and their children. Putting the office on a statutory footing will ensure that the commissioner's role is legally recognised and accountable to the public and the justice system. The Minister outlined a number of the measures in the process of accountability. Statutory status will also allow for more robust representation of victims and witnesses in legal proceedings, thus ensuring that their rights and needs are prioritised. It will help the development of policies and guidelines and enhance public trust in the justice system by demonstrating the Assembly's commitment to addressing the needs of victims and witnesses.

We also welcome provisions in the Bill to address issues that have been highlighted repeatedly over many years, including by the Gillen review and the commissioner designate. Measures to enhance privacy and protection for complainants in serious sexual offences cases, and to strengthen safeguards around disclosure, will encourage more victims and survivors to come forward and improve public confidence in how such cases are dealt with by the justice system. Too often, courts have become places where the victims in such cases have been made feel that they are the person on trial.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate my colleague's giving way. Unfortunately, I was not here for all of the Minister's remarks — like her, I have been in the Chamber for a lot of today, so I had to pop out and attend to some other business. I presume that the Member will agree that these provisions could be more properly included in the Sentencing Bill. He talked about the plight of victims in serious sex offences. He will be aware of the reporting around the recent conviction and sentencing of a Mr William Lloyd-Lavery, formerly employed in this Building. In that instance, references were shared that were really very insensitive and, subsequently, comments were made by individuals in relation to that. Those kinds of sentencing remarks add to the hurt of victims of crime, particularly sexual crime. Is that something that you think should be looked at? I presume that it is something that we could look at in the Sentencing Bill.

Mr McGlone: I see that the Minister wants to comment further on that. Yes, Naomi.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, before you make your remarks, are we content that that is not a live case or that there is any likelihood?

Mrs Long: I am content that what I am going to say does not impinge on anything live.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): OK. I am content that you can continue, then.

Mrs Long: Thank you. I feel the Member's pain about being in the Chamber too much today. The issue that he raises is one that I raised in my opening remarks. I said that it is a complex area of law, because it weighs the rights of the defendant and the victim. By the way, good character references can be introduced as part of the trial or as part of the sentencing. We are looking at it based on the case law that is available to us. For example, there is case law that says that character references are virtually worthless in cases of rape, and there is other case law to say that, in serious offending, they should carry very little weight. We are looking at whether it is possible, at this stage, for us to do something as an amendment around good character references at sentencing. If we were do anything around good character references during trial, that would require a much more considered approach through engagement with the sector to ensure that the balance of rights was properly struck. We have not ruled out doing that as an amendment, if we are able to find a simple solution.

Mr McGlone: OK. I thank my colleague — indeed, the Minister — for responding. It is, as the Minister said and my colleague highlighted, a sensitive area. People who are approached to give a reference should think long and hard about the implications of the references that they give: where they might wind up; the circumstances in which they give them; whether they have been provided with full and detailed information about the case; and the sensitivities of the victims in a case when the reference is for the person who is before the court and has been charged with the offence.

Courts should not provide an opportunity for those charged with an offence involving aggravation by hostility to abuse victims and witnesses even further. Limiting the power to dismiss charges involving the death of or serious physical harm to a vulnerable person will enhance the fairness and integrity of those criminal proceedings.

We welcome the objectives of the Bill in all those matters, and I look forward to continuing its scrutiny as a member of the Justice Committee, subject, of course, to its successfully passing Second Stage today. That said, we are disappointed that the Minister decided, as she outlined earlier, not to bring forward the necessary legislative proposals for Caoimhe's law, but she has said that she will provide more detail to the Committee, and I look forward to hearing that. The development of those proposals has the support of all parties, and, as far as I recall, the unanimous support of the Justice Committee. I accept that the Minister's Department, as she has stated repeatedly, does not have the capacity or resources to develop those legislative provisions during this mandate. There has, however, been some confusion between the Justice Minister and the Department for Infrastructure over who said what to whom and when about the development of the proposals. The fact that the Justice Department remains best placed to develop legislative proposals that are robust and comprehensive on that issue is extremely important, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that at the Committee.

It is not appropriate to leave the entire responsibility to the Justice Committee or its individual members. The reality is that it is victims and their families who would be most affected by Caoimhe's law, including those who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. Many of us have heard from and met them, and they want to see action. They want to see provisions promised in the Assembly brought forward. The Minister's decision not to bring them forward at this stage will be a disappointment to them. I hope that the Minister will reconsider her position or at least be in the best position to provide some support for the development of legislation on that in conjunction with the Committee. We know that the Minister is not averse to proposing amendments to her Bills. In this case, I am certain that all members of the Justice Committee would be happy to accommodate an amendment from the Minister, and I look forward to working on that with the Minister, the Department and colleagues on the Justice Committee.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the opportunity to speak at Second Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. I will begin by acknowledging the importance of the Bill in placing the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime and that office and its functions on a permanent statutory footing. That will strengthen recognition of the vital work undertaken by the commissioner's office, safeguard its independence and secure accountability and sustainability. I place on record our thanks for the hugely significant and important work that has been undertaken by Geraldine Hanna, the commissioner designate, since her appointment in March 2022, following her role as CEO of Victim Support.

The Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill instructs the commissioner's office to prepare a strategic plan as soon as reasonably practicable after their appointment to review the effectiveness of the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter at least every three years and to provide annual business plans and reports. We have a duty to ensure that all victims and witnesses of crime receive the dignity, protection, communication services and support that they deserve.

The Victim Charter and Witness Charter should not be tick-box exercises but should be the foundation of action and the highest standard of support services. All charter providers must place the utmost importance on providing victim-centred services that make the system easier for victims and witnesses of crime to navigate. I therefore welcome the provision that the commissioner:

and the fact that the Bill cements the commissioner's right to:

Victims and witnesses of crime are entitled to be treated fairly, professionally and with respect in all their interactions with the justice system; to be kept regularly updated, including being provided with relevant information in a timely fashion; and to have their needs considered. Part 2 is therefore hugely important in its strengthening of the special measures for victims and witnesses of crime in cases involving aggravation by hostility and sexual offences. It will amend the Criminal Evidence Order 1999 to prevent direct cross-examination by the defendant in cases involving aggravation by hostility and will also amend article 30 of that Order, on procedure on applications relating to a complainant's sexual history.

The Bill will strengthen protections for complainants in serious sexual offence cases in which pretrial applications for a witness summons are made. That relates to court summonses that compel a complainant to attend court to give testimony or to produce vital documents, such as their medical history or counselling or other private records. We all know of particularly significant cases in the past decade that sparked intense debate on that element of scrutiny of private life in the legal system. Unsurprisingly, that prompted much-needed review and re-evaluation of how current legal processes work in practice, including the influential Gillen review, which provided an extensive look at the law and procedures involved in serious sexual offences here. Sinn Féin very much welcomes the fact that the Bill is the continued evolution of that work to strengthen the rights of victims and witnesses of crime, including the right of complainants to an opportunity to make oral or written representations to the court about any application, to be present at any hearing of the application and to be legally represented at any such hearing.

The judiciary must be supported to strike a careful balance between ensuring that the defendant receives a fair trial and protecting and upholding the rights of complainants. No person should face the horrifying ordeal of having their sexual history or private information unfairly or very publicly dragged through the courts. How we treat victims and witnesses of crime is of paramount importance. It is important because being a victim or a witness of crime is often a traumatic experience that requires dedicated support to recover from. It is important because all victims and witnesses of crime should be subject to a fair and supportive legal system that fully engages with them. It is important because we need to ensure that all future victims and witnesses feel capable of and confident about reporting crimes so that they can give their best evidence and so that we can bring offenders to justice.

I look forward to further engaging with Justice Committee colleagues throughout Committee Stage and to supporting the Minister and the Department in fulfilling their work under the Gillen implementation programme. We must deliver full-scale reform across our justice system to support, protect and actively improve the overall experience of victims and survivors. We must scrutinise the Bill through that lens.

Ms Egan: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am proud to contribute to the Second Stage debate on Minister Long's Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. As the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum states, it aims:

It is imperative that victims and witnesses be supported, represented and safeguarded throughout their justice journey. Alliance welcomes the introduction of the Bill, in its three Parts, as a way to achieve that.

Being a victim of or a witness to a crime can be one of the most traumatic and challenging periods in one's life. It is therefore vital that, when entering the justice process and throughout it, people have confidence that it will be as fair, trauma-informed and comprehensive as possible. It is for that reason, as we work to improve the experience of everyone impacted on by crime, that I thank Minister Long and her officials in the Department of Justice for their efforts to introduce the Bill as quickly and diligently as possible. It is clear that, when consulted on, the Bill's content overwhelmingly tested well with the public, particularly in the exercise that closed early last year on its proposals. The Justice Committee received a lot of pre-legislative interest in the Bill and its potential to deliver for victims. As, hopefully, the Bill moves from this stage to the next, I look forward to engaging with each organisation and individual of interest in our call for evidence.

Part 1 of the Bill places the appointment and remit of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime on a statutory footing, making it clear that the commissioner must monitor compliance with the Victim Charter by charter service providers. It will also require criminal justice organisations to provide statistical victim information. Alliance wholly welcomes that. Its benefits are clearly evidenced by the current commissioner designate role occupied by Geraldine Hanna. Minister Long's proactive step to create that role before the legislation was introduced served the dual purpose of giving victims and witnesses as much of a voice as possible in the here and now and testing some of the responsibilities that could end up in primary legislation.

The commissioner designate role has been a clear success. Like others, I thank Geraldine for everything that she and her office have done so far. She and her team have embodied why the role is so important. Like many of us here, I have engaged with them on numerous occasions, in particular about the experiences of domestic abuse victims in the family court system. There has to be kindness in such a role, given that you come across many people in the most vulnerable moments of their life, and that kindness is definitely delivered. When I speak to victims who have engaged with the commissioner's office and ask them about their experience, their answer is always one that is grateful in nature. They highlight the importance of having someone independent who listens to them and engages with their experience. They feel supported in a way in which victims and witnesses would not otherwise feel. That is why putting the commissioner role on a statutory footing is so important. It will create a constant reminder and a voice for victims and witnesses and a vehicle to embed those perspectives in policy and service development across our criminal justice agencies.

Part 2 is also very welcome, because it legislates on criminal evidence and procedures that will improve the experiences of victims and witnesses across their justice journey. Clauses 24 and 25 add offences that involve aggravation by hostility, otherwise known as "hate crimes", to the list for which witnesses are eligible for special measures. The clauses also amend the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 to ensure that no person charged with an offence involving aggravation by hostility can cross-examine a witness who is the complainant. That is a great development in our protective laws for victims of crime.

As is noted in Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation, victims and witnesses not having special measures can dissuade victims from giving evidence out of fear of having to face the perpetrator or the defence in a traumatic and distressing way. As the Minister referenced in her opening remarks, creating a legislative assumption that hate crime victims are to be treated as being eligible for assistance on the grounds of fear and distress will give them deeper assurance that they will not be put into a traumatic and distressing situation in which they are forced to engage with their perpetrator in court.

Clause 26 will put into statute deeper protections for complainants in proceedings for sexual offences. That will improve the exercise of when pretrial applications for disclosure or admission of evidence are submitted, giving victims more opportunities to be part of the judicial decision-making process. That is a really welcome addition to the Bill, particularly as we often hear from victims who feel as though their wishes are not respected or even heard. When we talk about a victim getting their day in court, it is sometimes forgotten that they are often treated as a witness for the prosecution rather than as someone who has their own legal counsel. When the defence counsel requests records that contain extremely sensitive and personal information, such as the medical and sexual history of a victim or witness — that is questionable to begin with — it is only right that the victim has a right to put forward their own representations.

Clause 27 addresses a future legal gap caused by the implementation of direct committal, limiting the power to dismiss charges involving the death or serious physical harm of a child or vulnerable person.

Part 3 provides for the creation of regulations and orders, including the commencement of the provisions.

We cannot go back in time and rewrite some of what victims and witnesses have experienced in our courtrooms or at any other point in their justice journey, but we can look to the future and support the provisions with their experiences at the forefront of our decision-making. I look forward to engaging on the Bill during the Committee Stage to ensure that, on completion, we have a Bill that delivers a better and increasingly trauma-informed justice system.

Mr Burrows: I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue, because our justice system in Northern Ireland is tilted towards the interests of suspects and perpetrators over and above the interests of victims and the general public. I hope that the Bill will go some way to recalibrating and reorienting our justice system back to being what it should always be, which is victim-focused. The balance has got out of kilter, and I will come back to that. It is absolutely right that a Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses is placed on a statutory footing to champion processes, culture and safeguards and to understand the lived experiences of victims.

There has been much talk about special measures and changing parts of the legal procedure, and such change is well overdue. There is always a balance to be struck between the rights of an unconvicted person who has been accused of a crime and the rights of the victim, and we need to get that balance right. We should never forget that there have been miscarriages of justice in our country down through the years. It is important that a person who has been accused of a crime — remember that they have to be accused to a reasonable standard of doubt — has protection and that they are able to get full disclosure, where appropriate, and to have the victim's account cross-examined appropriately, because their liberty, reputation and future life are at stake. However, we need to make some changes. I agree that we should support the changes outlined re the cross-examination of victims. It is invasive for someone to be cross-examined by the person who has caused them grave trauma and great hurt — the person who has victimised them. Cross-examination can be done by legal counsel, which is sound.

On disclosure, victims of sexual offences should not have dragged into court, as the result of a fishing expedition, tittle-tattle and salaciousness about things from their private life. That is so important. That is a chill factor for people in making and sustaining a complaint. The victim must have a voice to ensure that the disclosure process is properly informed and that irrelevant material is not brought in, while we maintain a suspect's right to get any information that is relevant to finding out the truth. The justice system should support and be empathetic to victims, but it is there to get the truth. We need to caveat everything that we do with that, but I entirely agree that there should be real restrictions and a victim's voice in the disclosure exercise.

I come to character references. William Lloyd-Lavery was mentioned: it is despicable that two character references were given to that man. We need to separate for the public the two types of character reference, which are fundamentally different. One is given prior to conviction, which is useful for a court. Any defendant should be entitled to say, "I know people who can say that I would not act like that and have no propensity to act like that". That is entirely different. However, post-conviction character references for sexual offences are obscene, because the person who gives such a reference does so knowing that it will be read out when someone has just been convicted of a sexual offence. Their character is neither here nor there. Those references are obscene. I condemned utterly David Campbell for giving that reference.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: I will give way to the Minister in one second.

I said that, if he had still been a member of my party when he gave that reference, he would not have been a member of my party the day after. I also find it disturbing that the chief executive of the Law Society would give a character reference to someone convicted of a sexual assault. Frankly, that person should not still be in post. That is my view.

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. The added complication, of course, is that, with domestic and, in particular, sexual offences, the offender will often have groomed an entire community, not just the individual victim, to believe that they are above reproach, would not have conducted themselves in such a way and would be incapable of such an attack. Therefore, the value that you can attach to a character reference, even in a trial situation, is rather limited because it is not as though someone is going around the community advertising that they are a paedophile or rapist. You will not know that; they will keep that concealed. They will not be public about being involved in domestic abuse or violence. The whole purpose of how they operate is to create a facade of trust and confidence and then to abuse people behind it. Therefore, the idea that someone who knows you in public has any idea of what it is like to live with you in private or of how you behave in private is of really questionable evidential value.

Mr Burrows: I agree entirely. Pre-conviction references in what would be classed almost as clandestine crimes — crimes that are committed out of public sight — are practically valueless because what the public or your work colleagues see is entirely different from how you behave at home or online. Therefore, they have really limited value. Frankly, I do not know why anybody would give a post-conviction character reference because, a, its value is so limited and, b, they trash their own character.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the strength of the Member's words on the Lloyd-Lavery case. Certainly, what happened in that case was that the reference, in a sense, compounded the hurt of the victims and their families because, whatever the outcome of the judge's considerations, it trivialised and dismissed the real pain that they had suffered.

Mr Burrows: I agree. I rang one of the victims on the evening after the conviction and apologised. Even though I had no role over Mr Campbell, I said that I was ashamed that that man, Lloyd-Lavery, was ever employed by the party or by an MLA and ashamed that the man who gave him a character reference was a former chair of our party. That is the way in which I dealt with that. The Member is right: it compounds the trauma.

The Justice Minister is right about those who commit sexual offences in particular: they are groomers. My school had Dr Lindsay Brown, the RE teacher. He was a pillar of society. He volunteered for every youth event, gave money to charity, was the most overtly pleasant person and made himself indispensable to the community, yet he was abusing my friends. Look: those people have two faces. Character references really need to be fully examined.

In summary, I support the Bill in principle. We need to champion victims and witnesses. We need to ensure that we recalibrate our justice system so that it gives the right protection to victims and witnesses. A lot of things can be done without the expense of even impinging on a suspect's rights. It is often about how things are done; for example, the make-up of the court, the room that you can sit in, the way in which you are communicated with and the support that you get. A lot of it does not affect the suspect's ability to defend themselves but is about the support that the victim gets through that adversarial process. It is adversarial for good reason, but there are really important things that we can do when it comes to process, the system, dealing with cross-examination, disclosure and character references. I hope that we have a victims and witnesses commissioner who is the loudest and strongest voice for victims.

Finally, I will say this, and it is not a criticism of those who are in human rights groups, quangos and interest groups. In my experience, they tend to have been almost infiltrated by a lobby that is very much on the side of perpetrators' rights. They are continually advocating for the rights of the perpetrator, and I rarely hear them talk about the victim. This Bill is a necessary counterweight, and I look forward to supporting it and supporting the Minister in getting the legislation precisely right.

Ms Egan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Burrows: Yes, I will give way before I finish.

Ms Egan: I am genuinely curious to hear which organisations you are referring to. None come to mind.

Mr Burrows: The Children's Commissioner says that the age of criminal responsibility should be 16 without exemptions, so a 15-and-a-half-year-old could shoot dead three children and not even be arrested: I find that despicable. It totally puts the rights of suspects — the murderer or the sexual abuser — way above the rights of every child that they have abused or hurt. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has just made an intervention on the very issue of minimum age of criminal responsibility, and the victims issue came right at the very end: "Oh, but we now need to think about victims". Victims should be at the centre. I can keep going. We could talk about the United Nations.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I would rather that you did not, Mr Burrows. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much.

Mr Burrows: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. I am proud to be from a party that consistently supports the best available human rights advice on all matters. I fail to understand why anybody would boast about having a position that is at odds with human rights advice, but that is for the Member to consider in the time ahead.

I thank the Minister and all those in the Department for getting the Bill to Second Stage.

Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: No, I will not give way. You have rambled on for long enough in this place.

When it comes to the early clauses of the Bill, I, like others, put on the record our appreciation of the work of Geraldine Hanna and our support for the intent of Part 1 of the Bill, which puts the role that she has been carrying out impeccably thus far onto a statutory footing in supporting victims and witnesses of crime. As others have remarked, what she has been doing is enlightening and provides a real voice for victims here. We all support that.

On Part 2, as we move through the clauses, we are in support of victims of hate crime being entitled to and qualified for special measures. Given what we have seen unfold across the North in recent weeks, it is important that we acknowledge that they are people with particular vulnerabilities who are particularly sensitive and, with that in mind, consider our language. As a party, we support looking at the EU victims directive, which sets out some qualifications when it comes to the people who would be entitled to that support.

Moving on to the specific protections for those who have been the victim of sexual abuse and assault, we can all cast our minds back to the case that led to the Gillen review, when we saw so much victim blaming and rape culture pervading the narrative following that court case because of how the victim was treated.

In short, we support the Bill at Second Stage and look forward to working with other members of the Committee to watch it progress through the House.

Mr Bradley: I will speak as a DUP member of the Justice Committee on the Second Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. For me, the Bill is not simply about creating another office or changing another piece of legislation; it is about people. As MLAs, every one of us has sat across a desk from constituents whose lives have been turned upside down by crime. We have listened to victims of burglary who no longer feel safe in their home and to victims of assault whose confidence has been shattered. We have listened to victims of hate crime, to families grieving the loss of a loved one and to witnesses who did the right thing by coming forward but found the process daunting and, at times, overwhelming.

One of the comments that I hear most often is not about what happened but about how people felt afterwards. They felt forgotten, left in the dark and like just another case number moving slowly through a system that they did not understand. That should concern every one of us. Justice should not end when an offender is charged. Justice also means ensuring that victims are treated with dignity, kept informed and supported throughout what can be months or even years of court proceedings.

I welcome the intention behind the Bill. The proposal to establish formally the post of Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime, which is efficiently held in designate form by Geraldine Hanna at the moment, has the potential to provide victims with a stronger voice and ensure that public bodies are held to account for the services that they provide. However, the work of the members of the Justice Committee is only beginning. The legislation has not yet been subjected to detailed scrutiny. We owe it to victims and witnesses to ensure that we get this right. We need to examine whether the proposed commissioner will have sufficient powers to make a real difference, whether agencies have the resources to deliver what the Bill requires and whether the changes will lead to practical improvements rather than simply to additional bureaucracy. Good intentions alone are not enough.

I would argue that victims must never become an afterthought in our justice system, whether that be when considering road traffic offences, violence against women and girls, child criminal exploitation, hate crime or sentencing reform. Behind every statistic is a real person whose life has been changed for ever. The justice system exists, first and foremost, to deliver justice. It must punish those who offend, but it must also care for those who have suffered because of offending. If the Bill helps victims to understand their rights, receive better communication, access the support that they need and have confidence that someone is championing their interests, it will be a positive step forward.

As the Bill progresses through Committee Stage, I will approach its policy objectives with an open mind. I look forward to hearing directly from victims' organisations, witnesses, legal professionals and criminal justice agencies. Where the Bill can be strengthened, it should be strengthened. Where concerns are identified, we should address them. Victims deserve more than warm words from the Assembly. They deserve a justice system that listens, responds and stands beside them at a most difficult time in their life. I look forward to playing my part in ensuring that the legislation achieves exactly that, if it passes at Second Stage.

Ms Finnegan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I echo other Members' comments about Geraldine Hanna, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, and her team. I was very privileged to be involved in the research, and the subsequent report highlighted what victims and survivors go through when in court, how that re-traumatises them in many ways and the changes that must take place. I know that a lot of work went into that.

Clause 26 strengthens protections for complainants in proceedings involving serious sexual offences. The Gillen review was a landmark moment in reforming how serious sexual offence cases are dealt with. Catalysed by the infamous rugby rape trial, it exposed uncomfortable truths about how victims were treated, and it challenged us to build a justice system that delivers justice without compounding trauma. Undoubtedly, progress has been made, but, from the conversations that I continue to have with constituents, victims, survivors and advocacy groups, it is clear that the work is far from finished.

For victims of sexual violence, the trauma does not end when the abuse ends. For many, it begins again when they enter the criminal justice system. Survivors speak of the court process as a second ordeal and one in which they face victim-blaming, victim-shaming and outdated myths that have no place in any courtroom. They are asked why they had not reported it sooner; whether they had been drinking; what they were wearing; or whether previous relationships somehow diminish their credibility. No victim should ever feel that they are on trial, yet, for too many survivors, that has been their lived experience.

We also know that one of the greatest barriers to reporting sexual violence is the fear that deeply personal information will be exposed in court. Counselling records, medical records and other private information can become the subject of legal argument, leaving victims feeling as though every aspect of their life is under scrutiny. For someone already carrying the trauma of sexual abuse, that prospect can be overwhelming. It is one of the reasons for many victims never coming forward and for others withdrawing before their case reaches trial. That should concern every one of us. Clause 26 is therefore a welcome and important step forward. By allowing complainants to make representation before their private records are disclosed and by providing independent legal representation during those applications, the Bill recognises that victims have rights too: rights to privacy, dignity and respect.

Sinn Féin welcomes those proposals but will scrutinise whether they go far enough. The Committee will need to ensure that the legal tests governing disclosure are sufficiently robust to prevent unnecessary intrusion into a complainant's private life, while preserving the defendant's right to a fair trial. Justice must always be fair, but fairness cannot come at the expense of a victim's dignity. It cannot mean forcing survivors to relive their trauma or allowing myths and stereotypes to undermine their credibility.

The justice system should never become another source of harm. The true test of the legislation will not be how many clauses it contains; it will be whether more survivors feel able to come forward, whether fewer victims abandon the justice process through fear of re-traumatisation, and whether those who seek justice leave our courts believing that they were treated with dignity, compassion and respect. Every survivor who reports a sexual offence demonstrates extraordinary courage. Our responsibility is to ensure that the justice system honours that courage, not with suspicion or humiliation but with protection, respect and justice. That is the standard that survivors deserve, and it is the standard that the Assembly must strive to achieve.

Mr Kingston: As a DUP member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill moving to Second Stage. As other Members have mentioned, we are currently handling three substantial Bills at Justice Committee: the Justice Bill, the amendments on which we completed voting on earlier today after seven days of debate; the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill, for which we are currently engaging with witnesses at Committee; and now, this important Bill, which aims to strengthen support for victims and witnesses of crime.

In particular, the Bill provides for the appointment and functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime for Northern Ireland. The post has existed in designate form for four years, with Geraldine Hanna in post since 2022. We welcome the fact that, through the legislation, the post will be formally established and regulated.

The principal aim of the commissioner is to promote the interests of victims and witnesses. The commissioner is intended to have a strategic role rather than to become involved in individual cases. Indeed, clause 8 states:

However, it adds that that:

That will be an important balance. The commissioner and their officials must be available to engage with victims and should listen to their concerns from a perspective of system-wide oversight.

We recognise, however, that the commissioner is not to be an appeal mechanism for when, for example, the outcome of a trial is considered to be unsatisfactory, such as when an unduly lenient sentence is handed down. There are separate mechanisms to deal with that, such as through the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Court of Appeal. The commissioner will be required to keep the operation and effectiveness of the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter under regular review.

The Bill also seeks to strengthen special measures that relate to offences involving aggravation by hostility, which are commonly known as hate crimes. That ties in with the work that the Committee is already undertaking on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. The special measures include ensuring that an alleged perpetrator is not allowed to cross-examine the victim of the alleged offence, including in sexual crime cases.

We heard comments from the Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster in praise of her party's support for victims' human rights. If that is the case, perhaps her party will stop glorifying the actions of victim makers in the IRA, as it regularly does. Perhaps she can call on members of her party who have knowledge of acts of violence carried out by the IRA that created victims to come forward with that information.

DUP Committee members will listen to the views and concerns of all those who attend the Committee's evidence sessions. We are aware that the trial process often focuses more on the defendant who is charged with an offence than it does on the victims of the alleged crime. Victims must be at the heart of the justice system, not peripheral to it. The commissioner must be a champion for victims and witnesses, and we will support the establishment of that post if it carries out that function.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I mentioned at the beginning of the debate, progressing the Bill is a priority for me. I thank all Members who contributed to the debate for their constructive and positive engagement. In general, the engagement that we have had on the Justice Bill and, hopefully, that we will have on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill can be an example of how we can work together across party lines. Although we may not always agree, we can usually reach a point of disagreement in good temper at least. That has been really helpful throughout today's debate, as it allows us to have the kind of exchange of views that will improve the legislation, as well as the performance of the House on behalf of those who elect us. I therefore welcome the tone of the debate. As the Bill moves through its various legislative stages, I hope that we can continue in that spirit in order to ensure that the legislation reaches the statute book as soon as possible and that we deliver improvements to victims and witnesses of crimes' experience of the criminal justice system.

Many Members said that they are supportive of the provisions in the Bill as introduced but that they may wish to see, for example, other matters dealt with in it or elements of it changed. That is now entirely in the hands of the Committee, but, as I said at the beginning, given the short time frame that we have, it would be helpful if Members could engage with the Department and me on any amendments that might be tabled so that we can ensure that there is as little scope as possible for any harm to be done to the Bill and can have a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve.

It is important that I speak about a number of issues that were raised during the debate. We must distinguish between hate incidents and incidents that are taken forward as hate crimes. There is a distinction, particularly when it comes to people availing themselves of special measures. I want to provide clarification, because the issue was raised.

For an offence to be classed as being aggravated by hostility and charged as such, thus allowing the special measures that are set out in the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill to be triggered, there has to be sufficient direct evidence that the offender was in fact motivated by hostility or that they had demonstrated hostility, rather than the victim simply perceiving that to be the case. That is a higher threshold than the one that the PSNI uses when looking at hate incidents. If the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an offence was aggravated by hostility, it must treat that as a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence, which enables a higher penalty to be imposed within the existing ranges.

Members will be aware of that from their scrutiny of the Sentencing Bill.

If the aggravator is not proven, a conviction for the basic offence is still available. That is an important part of the sentencing element of the hate crime Bill. Special measures will be for cases in which the PPS and the PSNI have reached the conclusion, based on the evidence available to them, not only that they should bring the charge for the offence but that they have sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was motivated by hostility and hatred.

It is important to understand the reason for special measures. Judge Marrinan's review found that hate crime often involves a campaign of abuse in which the perpetrator may be known to the victim, and that criminal harassment and intimidation of that victim can occur over a prolonged period. Many victims may therefore be discouraged from giving evidence in cases where perpetrators, alleged or otherwise, choose to exercise their right to cross-examine their victims in person, so it is important that we address that as part of our overall provisions. Obviously, that can cause victims significant distress and can amount, on some occasions, to deliberately continuing the abuse to which someone has been subjected. The review also noted that better-supported mechanisms for victims, including greater use of special measures, should help to increase reporting of hate crime, which, we know, remains under-reported.

We do not want to create any suggestion that the legislative assumption in clause 24, which is that witnesses to offences involving aggravation will be eligible for assistance when giving evidence, means that they will automatically be granted it by the court. There is a distinction between automatic eligibility, which the Bill will confer on victims where there is aggravation, and the court's automatic granting of assistance. It is right that it should be for the court to decide whether the application should be granted when it considers what impact that will have on the trial and on the evidence available to it as the case is prosecuted. As Members know, that entitlement already exists for a number of cadres of victims. We are simply adding a further group of victims who will be eligible. That falls into line with the recommendations that Judge Marrinan shared in his 2019 report.

I turn to the issue of complainants in serious sexual offence cases and, in particular, the issue of disclosure. Disclosure is undoubtedly an important part of the justice system. It is important that people can seek disclosure, but we are aware from research and feedback on victims' experiences that complainants in serious sexual offence cases are more likely than any other victim of crime to be exposed to requests for access to their most private and personal information, whether that be medical or counselling records or other personal information such as their sexual history. The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process. Ultimately, irrespective of somebody's sexual behaviour prior to an incident, the only thing that determines whether they have been raped and whether the accused will be convicted of rape is whether there is evidence that that event happened. What the person was wearing, their intentions when they left home that evening and how many previous sexual partners they have had are irrelevant. That is not the issue at stake; the issue is whether there was consent for the activity that took place on that occasion.

So often, that fishing exercise to put the victim or the complainant under scrutiny is dangerous. While there is guidance in place on such procedures at present, defence representatives may apply for all notes and records relating to the complainant, without specifying how they are relevant to the case or how they might assist in the defence of the accused. That can, in some cases, be a means of deterring a victim from seeking the therapeutic support that they need to aid their recovery. It could also deter a victim from pursuing legal action, in the same way that, previously, the ability of counsel, for example, to say that it would withhold its decision about whether to require a preliminary hearing in the courts around issues of the trial could often be used as a means of deterring people from taking cases. We removed those hearings in person in order to avoid victims of serious sexual assault and rape having to give evidence twice. It is another way in which the system precludes people who have a genuine case to make from coming forward.

Independent legal representation originates from recommendation 40 of the 2019 Gillen review of the law and procedures in serious sexual offences. Sir John met many victims who said they felt that they had no voice in proceedings and that they were put on trial. We have seen that, because the defendant is of course under no obligation to take the stand, but the witness — in such cases, the complainant — has no option but to do so, should the defendant decide to resist the charges. They are often subjected to extended scrutiny.

As I said at the beginning, there is no way in our combative system for us to prevent, for example, counsel questioning the veracity of the claim made by the victim and suggesting that they may be lying, which is hugely traumatic for victims, but we cannot get around the fact that the claim has to be tested in court to the point where there is no reasonable doubt. However, when that testing extends beyond that and seeks all sorts of details about a complainant's history, medical conditions and so on, that is an intrusion that people often feel is a further violation. Unless it is pertinent to the defence, it should be resisted.

Sir John Gillen was very clear that the perceptions expressed to him were that defence counsel, in pursuing the defence of consent, routinely utilise rape myths, seek the disclosure of the complainant's medical and sexual history and question their motives in coming forward. He felt that that needed to be addressed. In order to address the concerns about the extent to which victims are able to exercise their voice in that area, it is right that they should have independent representation. As we all know, the Public Prosecution Service does what it says on the tin: it prosecutes cases on behalf of the public, not on behalf of the individual victim. Therefore, it is important that the individual victim is able to say that they believe that what is being requested is not relevant to the offence or their complaint and, furthermore, is intrusive. That provides the judges with an opportunity to consider that. We have been in touch with the office of the Lady Chief Justice about that matter. It is looking at it very carefully.

The aim of what we are doing is to limit the use of expansive and non-specific requests for deeply sensitive material and ensure that there are adequate notification requirements when third-party material about a complainant is sought by the defence. The best way to do that is to include it in Crown Court rules, so that the practice direction is clear about that. However, we do not want to jeopardise the right of the defendant to a fair trial or prejudice their ability to have such information. For example, if there is an exchange of texts in which somebody admits that the encounter was consensual, it is right and proper that those are brought into evidence for consideration.

On disclosure —

Mr Frew: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Yes.

Mr Frew: Will the Minister explain a wee bit more about how that would come about, who would call for that and how the judge would be made aware of that evidence?

Mrs Long: It is often the defence, which may be concerned that there has been previous discourse that suggests their client is not guilty, and so will ask for text messages in the days or weeks following. The problem is that they may say, "Well, I want all their text messages for the past three years". Is that proportionate or fair? That is the distinction that judges will have to make. It allows the individual to say, "It might be reasonable for me to hand over text messages after the event, because those text messages might be relevant, but is it necessary for me to hand over text messages from before the event that might prejudice people against the kind of person I am or put me in a bad light?"

It is similar in the case of medical and counselling records. Members from across the House have spoken powerfully today about how traumatic it is to go through a sexual abuse trial, having to stand in a public forum and talk about the most intimate violations that a person can ever experience — it is a tragedy. There are now much more restrictions on who can be in the court and when and why and all the rest. That is a massive step forward from the rugby rape trial. The court is still a public forum, however, and it is still profoundly humiliating. I said to a victim, "But it is just the judge who will look at your counselling notes to see whether they are relevant". They said, "Yes, but even a judge reading my counselling notes is a humiliation". It is about the fact that they are being exposed. They are telling the most intimate and private things to somebody with the point and purpose of trying to improve their mental health, and then that is being weaponised against them. That is a real violation of the normal privileges that one would expect in a therapeutic environment. There is, of course, a challenge whenever somebody discloses, in a counselling session, that what they have said is not the truth. There has to be some balance. That is why it is so important that there is a hearing on both sides of the evidence. We suggest that the complainant will be able to have their case heard in front of the judge at the same time as the defendant, and the judge will then be able to say where the balance should be struck to allow for a fair trial to take place. That is really important.

We want to improve transparency and ensure that all relevant evidence is made available and that the rights of both parties in the case are properly upheld and protected. The provisions do not place rights or restrictions on defendants to make an application for disclosure. As part of a fair trial process, they may seek information to support their defence, and it is right and proper that they are supported in doing that. It will allow the complainant to respond and to be given prior notice of the detail of the application so that they can get independent legal advice on where that sits with their article 8 rights. The provisions also ensure that, should a complainant want to object to the application or seek to limit what is being requested, they will have the right to make representations to the court, attend the hearing of the application and be legally represented. That would not automatically happen.

I believe that the judiciary is best placed to balance the rights of the complainant with those of the defendant throughout the trial process, including at pretrial application. Each application will still be considered by a judge, either on papers or at any other hearing where it is required, and they will be able to make representations to the judge. It will then be for the judge to make a ruling on what is appropriate. We do not want to change disclosure processes at the investigatory stage, and it is important to note that we are not doing that: the police and the Public Prosecution Service are still expected to abide by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Police and prosecutors have to seek all relevant material in the pursuit of reasonable lines of inquiry, whether that points to or away from the accused, record it in a disclosure management document and share it with the defence. That will not change. The Bill will simply allow for greater involvement and protection of complainants. The defendant's right to a fair trial and the court's central role in balancing those rights will stay the same.

I will move on to the area of good character evidence, which I know is hugely contested. I accept what everyone has said about good character evidence. People know that I feel passionately about this. I simply do not accept that the way a person presents themselves and are accepted to be in public — the facade that they create in public — has any bearing on how they may conduct themselves in private. It is important, particularly in cases of sexual offences as well as of domestic and sexual abuse more generally, that we recognise that perpetrators and predators often groom not just a victim but a community to believe that they are an upstanding and trustworthy individual. That is often how they gain access to vulnerable people to abuse. I therefore have real qualms with good character references being used, whether that is during the trial or the sentencing.

There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victims. That group said that somebody of previously good standing in the community who had not been not violent or come to the attention of the police but had been subjected to 30 or 40 years of abuse in a domestic setting and had cracked under the pressure and committed a crime, by either attacking the attacker or taking the attacker's life, would not be able to bring good character references into the discussion to substantiate what they were saying. That is an angle that, I confess, I had not considered. That is why rushing to take decisions in that space without doing proper due diligence, particularly at the trial point, is a risk. There is a balance to be struck. However, when it comes to the sentencing, as a number of Members said in the debate, somebody has been found guilty of a serious offence. You know when you are giving the reference that you are doing so for somebody who has been found guilty. It is no longer an innocent person whom you are trying to defend. You are, essentially, saying that the person should get a lighter sentence because they happen to have been a nice person when you met them. I find that difficult to reconcile with what we know about predatory behaviour. However, there are already —.

Mr Frew: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: Yes, I will, surely.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way. She has hit on something really intriguing. She gave the example of somebody who was of good character all their life and cracked. That person will also have been found guilty at that point at which a character reference is submitted. On the basis of what she has just said, would they be deserving of a good character reference when they have been found guilty?

Mrs Long: That is the issue. It depends, I think, on the nature of the offence. I am referring to cases where there is a domestic abuse motivation. A clear-cut example is where somebody has been convicted of a serious sexual offence and people come forward and say, "I would never have believed it". How many of us know people, work with people and share space and time with people whom we would not believe were capable of such offences? If we thought that they were, we would want nothing to do with them. We have to balance all of that out. In such cases, there is a real risk of that person getting more lenient consideration due to a character reference.

As I said earlier, it already says in case law that, for rape and very serious offences, the weight given to good character references and the extent to which they will influence sentencing are negligible. The phrase used is, I think, that they are of "almost no importance" in rape cases. The other side of that is that case law says that the weight given to a character reference should diminish with the seriousness of the offence. So, if it is a relatively trivial first offence, such as throwing a brick through a window, and a good character reference says that, although they should not have done it, some leniency should be shown because it was so out of character, that would carry a degree of weight. If the offence is something such as rape, murder or some other serious offence, the judge will give such a reference only very slight weight. However, the point remains about the harm that is caused to the victim when someone is willing to stand up to try to get the perpetrator a lighter sentence or to paint them as a good character despite knowing that they have committed such a heinous offence. That is the harm that we are trying to avoid.

I have asked —.

Mr Kingston: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will indeed.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for giving way. Is the issue of character references addressed in the Bill or will it be dealt with in an amendment that she intends to table?

Mrs Long: The answer is neither, but it is a hole in the Bill that was raised in the Chamber today. That is why I am explaining the balance that we are trying to strike in what we can and cannot do. We may be able to do something around good character references at sentencing for serious sexual offences, for example. We may be able to do that in a meaningful way in an amendment to the Bill. What I want to guard against is any attempt to go further into what can be done at trial and, indeed, with other offences post-conviction. There is a risk that we do not get the balance right, and considerable policy work would need to be done. I have already referred that to my officials as part of the sentencing review that, as you know, I launched at the same time as the Sentencing Bill. I have asked them to look at that for potential legislation in the next mandate. However, if there is a simple fix that could be part of the Bill, which would make even some progress in this space, I will be willing to consider it. I have asked them to expedite consideration of that specific issue. If I do not bring forward an amendment, it will not be because I do not care about the issue. Rather, it will be because I genuinely believe that, if we rush it and get the balance wrong, we could end up doing harm rather than good. We need to be balanced.

I turn now to Caoimhe's law, briefly — something that the eagle-eyed Member for North Belfast will note is not in the Bill but has been discussed as a future addition. That is about legislation to prohibit the sharing of photos of road traffic collisions, and it arises from the fact that, increasingly, when serious incidents take place, people, without consideration for the victims or their families or the first responders — be they members of the public or the employed first responders — video it and place it on social media where it will be in perpetuity. In Caoimhe's case, her mother raced against Facebook in order to tell Caoimhe's brother that Caoimhe had been killed in a car accident. None of us would want to see any person find out that their sister had died in a fatal car accident by opening Facebook. It is obscene. We need to look at that.

I do not have the capacity in the Department to bring that forward. We would have to go to consultation, and it would be a long, drawn-out process, because it is novel. I had suggested that I would be willing to work with the Department for Infrastructure. However, on reflection, whilst the Department for Infrastructure has some vires around road traffic accidents, the picture is wider. If someone is killed or injured in a road traffic collision, for example, and that is videoed, that is grim, but people are injured in other ways in public — people who have epileptic seizures in public — and are filmed for fun. I have witnessed that; it is put online. There are also people who are subject to serious assault, and those videos are put online. It can cause real trauma and harm. It can also cause a real problem for the people who want to intervene or those who want to work with the individual to try to resuscitate them, for example. We know from speaking to first responders that that is an issue. It is, therefore, a much wider issue than road traffic collisions. It is a much more detailed piece of work.

I have made suggestions, and Mr McGlone suggested that it would be helpful if I could outline some things. I met the group that is campaigning on the issue, and I spoke to Caoimhe's mother and the other mothers who have been affected by it. I will give you an example that was given to me. The son of one of the mothers who met me was killed in a fatal car accident. He was a young man of 17 — a newly qualified driver. Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate. It was an accident that happened as a result of an inexperienced driver having a genuine accident. He lost his life, but, because of the online commentary, the family was caused untold stress. The campaign group's work is important in raising awareness of the impact of what people say and do online in such circumstances. What people post online and the commentary that they make online is hugely dangerous and damaging to people who have already suffered immeasurable loss. I appeal to people and say, "If you have a phone and see a critical incident, do not film it. Phone the police. You are not there to make a movie. You are there to try to be a responsible bystander. By posting things online, you are posting things that will be there in perpetuity and which people will see forever".

Mr Burrows: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will.

Mr Burrows: That is a good point. It is despicable that people do that for entertainment, but there can be some nuances. An incident could be unfolding, and people could be giving first aid or intervening, but the fact that somebody has recorded it and can give the footage to the police can be useful. However, it should never be videoed for titillation or entertainment.

Mrs Long: The Member makes exactly the point that I was about to come to. It is one thing to film an incident, be it a violent assault, the scene after a car accident or people's behaviour in and around that, for evidential purposes and then pass it to the police. To put it up on social media, however, can impede the police investigation and potentially undermine the opportunity for a conviction. The PSNI was clear about that following the recent assault on Mr Ogilvie, when it asked people not to share online content because of the potential risk of not obtaining a conviction but also because of the trauma that people exposed to that footage could suffer.

Mr Frew: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs Long: I will indeed.

Mr Frew: The Minister makes a valid point, and we have ironed it out in the debate. The offence should therefore really be about posting the footage on an open forum rather than recording the incident.

Mrs Long: Correct, and that is where that cuts across our devolved responsibilities in the Department and telecommunications and social media, which are reserved matters. There is such a small amount of time left to include such a provision in the legislation, and there is also the pressure that the Committee would face to scrutinise it. In addition, the matter will probably fall more to my Department than it does to the Department of Finance, and we do not have the capacity to legislate for it in a timely way. There is also the complexity of its being not only about filming road traffic accidents. The use and abuse of footage gained for purposes other than evidential ones and without the consent of those in the footage is a much wider issue.

Some countries are looking at allowing footage to be recorded without the consent of individuals only if it is in the public interest, which would be to report it to the police, and it could be used only for that purpose or where it satirises, so people could video people such as us and make fun of us, as they do anyway. We would not want to interfere with their ability to laugh at us. [Laughter.]

That is one of the issues that is complicated. It is therefore my intention to write to colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ask whether they might look at legislating for it. I know that they are looking at doing it in the South, and it would be good if we were to have a concerted and coordinated effort in that space across these islands to raise awareness of the harm that can be done but also to look at whether we can stop such footage being shared online by way of a salacious "I know something you don't know" approach that people take in the aftermath of accidents. For example, the police know when someone is killed in a car accident whom that person is but will not disclose the name until the family has had an opportunity to be informed and to inform immediate relatives. Social media has none of that decorum. Whoever videos an accident or hears a name will put it online. Sometimes, it is not even the right name, and people open social media and read that their sister, brother or cousin has been killed, when they have not. There is real trauma involved there, so we need to look at that. My suggestion, for what it is worth at this stage and given the restricted time available, is that we work together to try to get Westminster to take forward such a provision. It does have validity and value, but the posting of videos online is the core issue rather than the taking of the videos.

I am encouraged by the support for the Bill that Members have shown today. In drawing my remarks to a close, I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. It was a useful and constructive discussion about what is in the Bill and also about why some things are not. When it comes to the Committee considering the Bill, that is important. I anticipate that the Committee will find the content of the Bill interesting. It is perhaps less dry than the Justice Bill that we debated at length over recent weeks, in that it is very much focused on individuals and their experience of the system, and I hope that they see value in the important matters that are included in the Bill.

I commend the Bill to the House for its approval at Second Stage and wish the Committee well in its task ahead. Before we break for the summer recess, and as this is our last opportunity to be in the Chamber, I wish Members a pleasant, restful and restorative summer break in their constituencies, where, no doubt, they will be beavering away unseen, as always. Meanwhile, I look forward to meeting the Committee this week to discuss a few other issues that we want to clear up before recess.

With thanks to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I hope that you are correct and that we are not back here for a recall sitting next week.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Justice.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Education to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Not moved.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Consideration Stage of the Bill has not been moved, so there is no opportunity to debate the amendments.

Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate. I call the Committee Chairperson to open the debate on the Bill.

Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a real privilege to move the Second Stage of the Bill. As far as I know, this is the first occasion on which the Education Committee has introduced a Bill, so it is gratifying to see it reach Second Stage.

The Committee's journey with the Bill began when it undertook Committee Stage scrutiny of the Minister's School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill last year. It is important to note at the outset that that Bill was not, as was suggested on many occasions, just about the cost of uniforms. It was undoubtedly concerned with cost to a great extent, but clause 2 of that Bill stated:

That is a really important phrase. On that basis, it was entirely right and appropriate that, in its evidence and deliberations, the Committee went beyond the issue of cost, as, in many ways, the Bill directed and required if we were to do our scrutiny properly. On cost and on comfort and practicality, the Committee agreed and tabled a range of amendments to address the issues raised in evidence at Committee Stage. One amendment attempted to address the issue of the choice to wear trousers, but, as we are aware — I will not speak to this in detail — a number of amendments were not selected for debate and the Committee was therefore left to reconsider its options for enhancing the Bill.

As the Committee began to discuss the issues, it was agreed that, as with a private Member's Bill (PMB), any attempt to legislate, if that was what we were going to do to address what we considered to be gaps in the Minister's Bill, would need to be narrow in focus to give us any reasonable prospect of delivering a Bill and doing so in this mandate. The many stakeholder responses that the Committee had heard conveyed a strong and consistent message on the choice for girls and, in fact, all pupils to wear trousers as part of their school uniform. That ended up being the area of narrow focus that the Committee decided to look at to try to enhance the Minister's School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill.

Many Members will be aware of the powerful campaign that was run by two then primary-school pupils, Rhea and Astrid, who campaigned for the right to wear trousers and eventually secured that change to uniform policy at school level. However, the Committee formed a clear view that we should not place the burden of delivering such change on individual pupils, relying on them to run campaigns at school level, and that, particularly given the Department's legislation that had recently been passed, it was an issue for us, as legislators, to address. The Bill was floated as an idea and has now reached Second Stage.

The process that we undertook drew significantly on the evidence that we heard during the Committee Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill, but the Committee also put out a survey seeking views on the new proposal to give every pupil the right to wear trousers as part of their school uniform should they choose to do so. We held a range of oral evidence sessions as part of the Committee's preparation for the Bill that is before us. We engaged with the Youth Assembly, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY), the Children's Commissioner's Youth Panel, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC). There was close to unanimous welcome for the proposed Bill because it is seen as helping to deliver equality and choice in a practical and pragmatic way.

From a legal and rights perspective, the Human Rights Commissioner advised the Committee that there was, in fact, a strong argument that it could be seen as unlawful sex discrimination not to allow girls the right to choose to wear trousers and that article 10 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women requires a state to:

The Committee felt that the Bill fitted into that equation neatly.

The Committee's Citizen Space survey ran from 12 December 2025 to 20 February 2026. We received a large number of responses, and, almost entirely, they comprehensively endorsed the Committee's proposal in the Bill. There was a total of 3,695 responses. On the central question of whether pupils should be afforded the right to choose whether to wear trousers — that is an important element: it is a choice, not a compulsion — as part of the school uniform, 98·21% of respondents indicated that they were in favour. On the question of whether any exemption from the proposal should be permitted, 91·85% said that no school in Northern Ireland should be left out of the provisions.

On the basis of that feedback and the other evidence that we received, two draft approaches to developing the Bill were considered. The first was to create a separate, stand-alone Bill with a stand-alone right for pupils to be afforded the choice to wear trousers and to set that out in law. The second proposal was to amend the existing School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Act (Northern Ireland) 2026 to, first, set out that right and then to require it to be included and reflected in the statutory guidelines that were already prepared by the Minister. The Committee went for the second option. We felt that the legislation brought forward by the Department was the most appropriate vehicle to deliver the policy intention.

The Bill that we are debating today has five clauses and no schedules. Clause 1 is the key provision in the Bill. It inserts into uniform guidelines the following statement:

It goes on to require that uniform guidelines:

That second part is important. In the scrutiny of the Minister's Bill on school uniforms, we got a little tied up over how we could build in provisions on PE, but, when we got to work on this Bill, we found that there is a simple formulation that will ensure that participation in sport and PE, which, we should remember, is a statutory part of the curriculum, is covered by the provisions.

We ultimately decided that it was not necessary to define "trousers", although we had an interesting legal briefing, during which there was some entertaining discussion about how we might do that. "Full-length, two-legged garments worn from the waist down" was floated, but we decided that that might obscure the intent. We therefore felt that a common-sense understanding of the meaning of "trousers" was probably more appropriate.

The Bill refers to:

depending on the activity. That was to ensure that the need for appropriate clothing for sporting activities was reflected.

Ultimately, it is a permissive Bill. It is simply focused on creating a universal right to have the choice to wear trousers and enshrining that in the guidance. It seeks to give absolute clarity to every school in this jurisdiction that all pupils can, should they choose to, wear trousers as part of the school uniform and that no permission to do so needs to be sought.

Once enacted, the Committee is confident that the legislation will dovetail with the Department's guidelines. It will require them to be amended, and it will trigger the reissue and publication of the revised guidelines in time for commencement on 1 August 2027, which is detailed in the Bill. I anticipate that there is the possibility that the Ad Hoc Committee may need to look at the commencement. When we were scrutinising the Minister's Bill, we found that there were a range of issues around reasonable time frames for schools and when they needed to publish prospectuses. The current commencement date in the Bill is set with the intention of the change being delivered for the next academic year, starting in September 2027. However, if the Ad Hoc Committee finds that another commencement date will deliver the aim in a way that is more manageable for schools, that is for it to discuss. We were clear as a Committee that we saw no reason for the commencement to be delayed until any academic year beyond September 2027.

I will make full disclosure about the Committee Bill process. There were initial apprehensions about coordinating and delivering the project on time, but the Bill team's work was impressive. I will be honest: some of the initial apprehensions came from me. As the Chair of the Committee, I was concerned about embarking on a process that would get timed out. I was concerned that we might not complete the task that we had started. I was conscious of the frustrations expressed after the outcome of the previous Bill, where there was a sense among the public, the pupils who had given us evidence and the Committee that the Bill had not delivered in the way that it had the potential to. I was cautious about starting a process that we could not complete, which would raise expectations. However, it is a great credit to all the officials involved that they have moved the Committee rapidly and thoroughly through all the required steps to bring us to this point, which is a big achievement. The officials require significant credit for that.

We received advice from the Bill Office on the legislative procedure to deliver the Committee's policy intent. We received research advice from the Research and Information Service (RaISe) on comparative best practice, advice from the Assembly's Legal Services and iterative engagement with the drafter as the Bill progressed, and that was all delivered promptly and, in many instances, ahead of time. In particular, it is appropriate for me to thank Barbara Love, Niamh Devlin and Maeve Corrigan for working together with the Committee Clerk to define the work and complete it in time to get us to the point where the Bill will now, hopefully, receive the endorsement of the House to move to an Ad Hoc Committee Stage, with the strong hope that the Bill will complete its passage in this mandate.

The Committee considered whether there would be a reasonable excuse for exemption from the central tenet of the Bill to be considered. We considered the evidence received from independent schools, particularly the Free Presbyterian Education Board of Presbytery, which had requested an exemption based on its school ethos, which privileges distinctions in dress between boys and girls, males and females. The Committee considered the matter and discussed it in detail. The Committee took legal advice and ultimately decided against an exemption on the basis that the Bill offers a choice to pupils, rather than restricting them or requiring them to act in a particular way. It is a permissive Bill rather than a restrictive one.

I will conclude my remarks as the Chair of the Committee, by saying that it is an important function of law and for legislators, when they make law, to reflect the values and norms of the society that we live in. Over the time since many school uniforms were designed, the societal norms have changed, and most people who gave evidence to the Committee were incredulous about the inflexibility of some schools about uniforms. That was a consistent theme in the evidence during the ministerial Bill and the Committee Bill. Law is most effective when it is clear, accessible and simple and when the public can clearly understand what the legislation does and translates to in their lived experience. The Bill does all those things. It sets it out clearly to all schools that every pupil can choose to wear trousers or equivalent for sports, should they wish. I commend the principles of the Bill to the House.

I will now make some remarks as an Alliance MLA. I will try not to cover any of the technical information that we have gone through and talk more about the principles of the Bill. MLAs talk an awful lot about listening to young people, particularly in the Education Committee, and that is undoubtedly a good thing and the right thing for legislators to do. However, the complaint that we often hear from the young people whom we propose to engage with is that we may engage, but they are not convinced that we really listen. They are not convinced that their views are factored into the policies and legislative decisions that we take in tangible ways.

I am not suggesting — this is rehearsed in the Education Committee quite regularly — that engagement with young people means that we take their views and, without scrutiny, apply them to everything that we are doing. As legislators, we are always balancing competing views, voices and priorities. However, I really feel that there is a risk of losing young people's confidence in our political processes if they consistently feel ignored and cannot hear their voices or views reflected in any of the outworkings of the decisions that we take in this place.

The Minister's School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Act — it was a Bill when the Committee looked at it — is one of the clearest examples that I can think of where young people took their role in engaging with legislation very seriously but ultimately felt that the Minister and Department had effectively disregarded their views in their entirety.

I set out the processes for Committee amendments in my remarks as Chair and will not repeat them. I know that I cannot speak to them in detail in this context. However, I will note — this is not in relation to the amendments that we tabled — that, at any time during the amending stages, the Minister could have brought forward his own amendment that took account of the clear evidence that we were hearing from young people. Alternatively, and I think that the Committee would have been open to this, he could even have given us assurances on the record that he would put in place statutory guidance addressing the concerns that young people were raising. However, he chose not to do so. I note that he is not in the Chamber to respond. I am not quite clear in my mind as to why he is not here. The Bill interacts directly with legislation that he introduced and impacts directly on the functions of his Department. Perhaps the Minister will issue a written ministerial statement to explain that to me.

Understandably, young people were baffled by and, indeed, angry at that decision and approach. It was principally for that reason that the Committee took this Bill forward. The reasons why the change is required are so obvious to most people — certainly, to most people who gave evidence to the Committee — that they almost do not need to be set out. However, as some people, including the Minister, do not think that the change is necessary, I will cover some of them, really for the sake of completeness.

The first point is that women can choose to wear trousers in any other aspect of life, including working life. Therefore, I see no reason why we should put additional restrictions on the choice afforded to our young people. We would not place those restrictions in workplaces or, I would add, on the teachers who teach in the schools that those children and young people attend. The approach is outdated and speaks more to the interests of preserving tradition or gender stereotypes than it does to delivering a modern, progressive approach to educating our children.

When it comes to participating in PE, the evidence that we heard was clear: girls almost unanimously advised the Committee that they would be far happier and far more comfortable taking part in sport if they had the option to wear shorts, leggings or tracksuit bottoms. However, in many schools, that option was still not provided to them.

We heard evidence on period dignity for girls. So many young people talked about feeling anxious and uncomfortable having to wear a skirt when they were on their period, with some even choosing not to attend school on occasions for that reason. Surely, if we could take action to address even that, it would be a reason to take forward the Bill's provisions.

We heard about some of the sensory issues that children experience. We heard about how some primary-school children in particular struggle to learn comfortably when in a restrictive skirt or forced to wear tights. In my view, those children should not have to go and seek special accommodations to be allowed to wear something different as their uniform, although many schools are very flexible when they do. Affording the choice that the Bill introduces avoids the scenario where anyone has to become a special case and make a pitch to a board of governors on why there should be flexibility. The Bill creates an inclusive environment from which everybody will benefit.

A whole range of other evidence was heard on comfort more widely: warmth in the winter, being able to engage in active travel to and from school and making it easier to participate in a play-based curriculum or outdoor learning at primary level. We heard about all those things in detail. I do not feel as though I need to go into any more detail than that. It is 2026, and I do not accept that this proposal is controversial.

That is why there is some frustration around the issue. As I mentioned, I admit that, when the discussions about a Committee Bill started, I was a little sceptical, not only because of timing issues but because my strong sense was that the Minister was the person who was accountable. He could resolve this with the stroke of a pen. He could, should he choose to do so, change the guidelines and have them in place before we break for summer recess.

Mr Baker: Will the Member give way?

Mr Mathison: I will, yes.

Mr Baker: Does the Member agree that it shows the importance of the Education Committee and what we have done here, given that, clearly, by not even showing up today, the Minister has shown that he was never going to do this? He has sent a very clear message to all those young girls out there that he just does not do equality.

Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for the intervention. Yes, it is disappointing that the Minister is not here today. I will be fair to him: he was clear that he was not going to do it. That was his position from the outset. However, if he had been prepared to do that, it would not have taken up Committee time, Bill Office time or Legal Services time, and it would not have incurred the costs associated with drafting a Bill. I say all that in the context that I believe that it was still the right thing to do, but, for some reason, there seems to be an ideological commitment to the preservation of the independence of schools, and the Minister chose not to do that.

The explanatory and financial memorandum that comes with the Bill includes part of the Minister's correspondence to the Committee, and, based on that, it appears that he does not have any particular objection to girls having the choice; rather, he seems to think that, by requiring schools to consult on uniform policies, which his Bill required, young people's views will somehow naturally be adopted by those schools. That quite clearly did not happen with the consultation on the Minister's own Bill: when young people were asked, their views were ignored. Unfortunately — I say this with regret — I have no confidence that pupils will be unanimously heard at school level either. Many schools offer really sensible, flexible uniform policies, and I want to put that on the record. Many schools do that really well, but others, regrettably, do not. To me, only legislation will guarantee the behaviour change that we need. It is not good enough for a Minister to say to young people, "But I give you permission to go and campaign. You run the campaign. Look at Rhea and Astrid: didn't they do so well?". He could give them that right tomorrow but is simply choosing not to.

I do not accept the argument that there is some sort of sanctity around the independent right of schools to set their own uniform policy with no central direction being required. That just does not cut it for me. The right to afford all pupils a simple choice to deliver comfort, equality and dignity is one that I would far rather deliver than making sure that the traditional values of a particular school are preserved. That is the simple choice that the Bill provides: do we care more about schools preserving their traditional values and the image of their school that they want to project, or do we want to deliver simple equality and dignity for all pupils? That is a straightforward question that, I hope, every Member in the House can answer sensibly today by supporting the passage of the Bill.

I sincerely hope that the Bill, with its simple and straightforward provisions, can make its passage through the Assembly and receive support today. Young people have made their views crystal clear to us as legislators that this should have been delivered already, so let us actually listen to them this time and make this small, simple, progressive change for our children and young people a reality.

Mrs Mason: I, too, welcome the fact that this important legislation has reached its Second Stage. Like the Chair of the Committee, I thank the Committee for its hard work, and I thank the Committee Clerk, the Bill Office and the legal team for getting us to this point.

It is really important, however, that we remember that the origins of the Bill lie in the failure of the Education Minister to properly deal, through his own school uniforms legislation, with the issue of guaranteeing every pupil the right to wear trousers in school, if they choose to do so. The Minister has repeatedly claimed that the matter has been dealt with, but it is very telling that he did not deem it important enough to be here today to listen to the debate; perhaps he knows that he will not like what he hears. The reality is that his legislation stopped far short of guaranteeing girls the right to wear trousers to school, so it lacked any effort at allowing equality for all pupils no matter what school they attend.

It is also worth putting on record our repeated calls for the Minister to update the uniform guidelines to guarantee girls the right to wear trousers in school. As has been said, all of this could have been done with the stroke of a pen, but, no, for reasons that I really cannot begin to understand, he has refused to do so. He has not given any valid reasons as to why. Perhaps that is why he is not here today: he does not have any valid reason to go against this.

Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that the Minister's School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill was poor legislation and a missed opportunity? We have the issue of all pupils being allowed to wear trousers, but there were also issues that the Committee would like to have dealt with to ensure that affordability was addressed in the Bill. The Committee's amendments were not accepted. Had there been enough time left in the mandate, the Committee would have introduced a much more wide-ranging and stronger Bill, rather than one that deals just with the issue of all pupils being allowed to wear trousers.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree. He makes an extremely important point about affordability. That and addressing special educational needs and sensory needs were, as the Committee unanimously agreed, issues, yet they were not to the fore in the Minister's Bill.

The Minister has the power to issue clear statutory guidance to guarantee every pupil the right to wear trousers. He has chosen not to do that. In the absence of leadership and action from the Minister and the DUP, MLAs from the progressive parties have come together to deliver the change that so many have been calling for. What probably annoys me most is that we have missed an opportunity here. When the Assembly returned, I had intended to introduce a private Member's Bill to make school uniforms more comfortable for pupils and more affordable for their families. The Minister, however, indicated that he planned to address the issue himself, so I was unable to progress that legislation. I did not need to do it, because he was going to do it all. It is deeply disappointing and frustrating that that commitment has not been realised.

It is absolutely remarkable — let us be honest: it beggars belief — that, in 2026, a debate on whether all pupils should have the right to wear trousers to school is even necessary. I cannot believe that we are even having to talk about it. The Education Minister's failure to stand up for our girls has led us to this point. Across the North, many girls still do not have the automatic right to wear trousers to school. Instead, they find themselves having to seek permission, request exemptions or rely on the goodwill of individual schools. I have heard the Minister use that as an excuse for why this legislation is not needed. The reality, however, is that that is not equality, it is not dignity and it is certainly not what most people would expect in a modern education system.

Not every child has the confidence to approach a senior figure such as a principal or a member of a board of governors, especially about something as personal and sensitive as this. The reality is that their request could still be turned down. The result is that pupils can still face barriers, whereas a straightforward legal entitlement would have resolved the issue once and for all.

Picture this: one of our daughters is sitting in a classroom during her period. She is worried about leaking through her skirt. She is anxious about standing up. She is uncomfortable and bloated all day in her school skirt. She is counting the minutes until she can get home. I have been there myself. No girl should have to choose between her education and her dignity, simply because a school rule states that she must wear a skirt. Would the Minister not want to give that child her dignity?

In the Committee, we also heard stark stories from young girls — Astrid and Rhea's stories in particular stood out — about getting nettle stings on their legs during PE sessions. Seriously? It is a question of common sense. It is about dignity and equality. It is about ensuring that all pupils can wear a school uniform that is comfortable and practical.

Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. Her comments remind me of the absolutely ridiculous circumstance that we have in the winter, when girls are walking about absolutely freezing in their skirts. I travelled to my school on a ferry, as many pupils still do today — well, perhaps not today, because they probably finished school today. My skirt would whip up and flash my underwear. I would have soaking wet legs because the school did not allow us to wear tights, as they were not suitable.

Those are the sorts of things that girls put up with day and daily. It is absolutely right that girls should be able to wear something that not only provides them with dignity but keeps them warm — I know that we have had some good weather — at times when Northern Ireland is not warm, and they have the spray of waves, freezing cold rain or snow hitting their legs. Do Members understand how demoralising it is for young girls when they see everybody else — all the boys — walking around wearing trousers while they are freezing?

Mrs Mason: I thank the Member for that intervention. I could not agree more. On the flip side of that, in warm weather, many girls do not want to wear socks because they fear their skirt blowing up, so they choose to wear tights or shorts underneath their skirts. Therefore, on the flip side, when we experience warm weather, girls are sitting there in their tights.

We have heard stories about the fact that, as school blouses are normally white, girls do not want to take their jumper off in the heat. We also heard about children not being allowed to wear their own coat over their blazer at school. As the Member stated, all of that could have been rectified with the stroke of a pen.

Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Mason: I will, yes.

Mr Sheehan: The last point that you made reminded me of one of the witnesses — a young girl — who came to the Committee. During the winter, she wore her own overcoat, but she had to take it off 100 yards from the school gate because she was not allowed to wear it into the school. Come rain, hail, snow or whatever, she had to take her overcoat off and walk the rest of the way to school without it on. That was another area that the Minister could have resolved in his legislation. He did not do it. He did not want to do it. That was a disgrace, and we ended up with very poor legislation.

Mrs Mason: I thank the Member for that, and, again, I could not agree more. Would any of us accept not being able to wear a coat in the pouring rain or the freezing cold when we walk in here? I do not think so.

A girl should not have to ask for permission to wear trousers. I repeat: a girl should not have to ask for permission to wear trousers. It is just crazy that I should even have to say that. A family should not have to overcome obstacles and navigate unnecessary bureaucracy to secure what should already be a basic right for their child. We now have an opportunity to put that issue beyond doubt and bring our school uniform policies into the 21st century. Sinn Féin is really proud to support that change and will work with everyone across the Assembly to make sure that it happens.

Mrs Middleton: I welcome the opportunity to outline our party position. While we believe that schools should have autonomy on a range of issues, including uniforms, we will not stand in the way of the Bill progressing. We have been consistent that we trust schools to make decisions in the best interests of our children, and we acknowledge that some parents and children may express their wish to have a flexible uniform policy as a blanket policy for Northern Ireland. It is important to note that our party does not object to female students wearing trousers if they so wish. In fact, some schools already allow for that. Some schools have flexible policies in place, and, of course, we commend those schools for that.

It is our position that our schools should be afforded autonomy when it comes to their policies, including their school uniform policy, as set by the board of governors and school leaders. To expand on the point, it is our position that pressing all schools —.

Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way?

Mrs Middleton: I will not take interventions at this time. I mean that very kindly.

To expand on the point, it is our position that pressing all schools to offer trousers as part of the uniform policy for girls may remove a school's ability to create, maintain and review its uniform policy. We are cautious of any legislative move that appears to remove the ability of a school's board of governors to manage its own affairs. Whilst, as stated, we will not object to the Bill, we would like to continue to emphasise how important we feel it is that schools have autonomy. We do not wish to see that removed or a premise laid down to allow for other decisions to be removed from a school's remit altogether. That having been said, I recognise the intentions of the Bill. We look forward to further scrutiny of and consultation on the Bill. We hope to see some of the matters around autonomy being addressed, and we look forward to working respectfully and productively as we move forward with the Bill's content.

Mr Burrows: I am somewhat alarmed: this morning, I was a DUP lackey, and now I have been banded into Sinn Féin's progressive alliance. I am not sure which I prefer, but I will move on to the detail of the Bill.

Mr Sheehan: You are welcome, Jon.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please.

Mr Burrows: I will, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome the Bill. It is absolutely right that, in this democracy, any girl who wants to wear a pair of trousers to school in Northern Ireland can do so. Many people found out recently that I have a master's degree in human rights law, but I rarely quote the council of this, the declaration of that or the committee on this. I just think that it is right, for all kinds of reasons, that, if a girl wants to go to school in a pair of trousers, she can do so. It is more practical. It can be warmer. It can be better for her dignity, and it can be because there are sometimes issues the like of upskirting. If a girl wants to wear trousers, she should be allowed to do so. I am pleased to support the Bill.

The Education Minister should have included the measure in the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. That would have achieved it far more efficiently, but it was not done. The work that I did on recognising the right for children to go to school in a plain, unbranded coat, which will start from September, is also a significant move forward. Our children deserve to be able to go to school feeling comfortable, warm and safe. That is their choice. I say that as someone who believes in school rules and school uniforms and that the school should be able to set a school code on good order and basic things that children should have to follow, but allowing girls to wear trousers is a fundamental thing to do with what is right and wrong.

I say this as a man: I find it really difficult that a man can say to a girl in school, "No, you are not going to wear trousers. You are going to wear a skirt". I find that entirely counter-intuitive. I do not take an ideological or party political position when it comes to education. I often support the Minister, and I often say that I think that he has got it wrong. The case is compelling that it is right that any girl in Northern Ireland who wants to wear trousers to school should be able to do so. For that reason, I am glad to welcome the Bill, though I am not so sure that I welcome my joining Sinn Féin's progressive alliance, but we will leave that for another day.

Mr Sheehan: Too late now, Jon. It is too late.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cara Hunter. Cara, maybe you want to join a progressive alliance as well, while we are at it.

Ms Hunter: I am happy to be here. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I fear that I will repeat a number of points that have been made this evening. As a relatively young woman — I am 30 now — I am absolutely baffled that we have to debate this issue. It is truly astonishing. If I did not have notes in front of me, I would have no words to say. I am so shocked that we have had to have such a fight to bring the matter to the Chamber and get it sorted. Something as simple as girls being able to wear trousers in their place of education is such a small but meaningful thing. It is shameful that, in 2026, we are still having that debate.

Let us break it down and see how it looks. It is essentially about older men in positions of power dictating whether young girls have to stay in skirts or can have the capacity to wear trousers. That really does not sit right with me, and it never has. In fact, I find it profoundly ironic that the Department of Education, which has an obligation to talk about ending violence against women and girls, still holds to a process like that, which echoes profound inequalities. It is totally unfair. So many Members have articulated so well the experiences of young girls going to school, including getting nettle stings on their legs or feeling ice-cold. That impacts on the quality of and access to education, and it is totally unfair. We talk in the House about ending violence against women and girls, but we must highlight equality as an important aspect in those discussions and in this debate as well.

At Committee, we heard such compelling evidence from young people about why girls should have the choice of wearing trousers in school. Outside of the young people themselves, the conversations that we had with Menstruation Matters, particularly on the dignity piece about young girls and periods, really resonated with me. Periods are a fact of life, and trousers, as most of us will know, are infinitely easier to wear during that time of the month. Whether you are a young woman or whatever age you are, when you are having your period, you do better at your job or at school if you can focus and feel more confident. It really is that simple.

We often talk about the importance of safeguarding and protecting our young people. We have heard stories from across the North about upskirting and downblousing. That is why it is so important to echo today that, despite the simplicity of this change, it will be so meaningful in protecting young girls and their dignity in a number of ways. We also often hear directly from young women that they simply want to be comfortable. They might have some sensory needs, and they just want to be able to focus on their learning, as they should, as young people in our classrooms.

We are not here to question the Speaker's ruling, of course, but I must offer my opinion that I was deeply disappointed that we, as a Committee, had to regroup and bring this forward again today. We are now being told that schools have the power to decide. That sounds reasonable until we ask one simple question: who will carry the burden? It is not the Minister or the Department. It is a young girl. Often, her parents are put in the position where they are expected to come together with others to challenge a school policy, lobby governors and fight through complaints procedures simply for a child to wear a pair of trousers. That is in 2026. I find that ridiculous.

Mr Baker: I thank the Member for giving way. It is a fundamental right to give girls this choice, rather than allowing them it. Does the Member share my frustration with the DUP's position and that of the Minister? They have created a contradiction here. They are even shutting down the debate today by the Minister's not being here.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his intervention. Ultimately, the Department of Education and the Minister will tell our young people, "Aspire to be the best that you can be. Get out into the world. You can do and be anything — but you cannot wear trousers". That is lunacy. It is lunacy and hypocrisy of the highest order.

I have to be frank: not only as a politician but as a woman, I am disappointed that the Minister is not here today. The best way to have this kind of conversation about equality is to be open and frank and to have accountability and transparency. I am deeply disappointed, and I would like further clarity about why the Minister is not here on the last sitting day for the next two months. I would like answers, and so would my constituents, including those who are parents and young people.

I find it extraordinary and depressing that this did not pass previously and that we have had to regroup. As the Chair of the Education Committee rightly said, this could be done at the stroke of a pen. It is nonsensical that we have to do it this way. We all know what the right answer is; we need to legislate for it effectively. Children should not have to be campaigners for rights that the House has the power to guarantee for them. It is grossly unfair. We rightly expect our young people to come to school ready to learn, not to become advocates or negotiators for something basic that is, as the Member to my left rightly said, a fundamental human right to wear trousers. It is nonsensical.

We are talking about children. They are in our classrooms to learn. We listened to them; we heard how important this is to them; and I have to say, on behalf of the SDLP, that I am truly delighted that this is moving forward today. I thank the Bill Office and the staff and teams who put it together. It is not about undermining schools and their right to make decisions; it is about setting a minimum standard of dignity, comfort and equality that should apply to every child, regardless of how they identify. That is crucial. No child's education should depend on whether the board of governors happens to agree with them. If we believe that girls should have the option of wearing trousers, as I do, we should have the courage to say so in legislation rather than leaving children and families to fight the battle school by school and accepting that the ethos and culture of a school will dictate the rights of young girls. It is almost humorous to me that we find ourselves here.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Hunter: Certainly.

Mr Brooks: I recognise that the Member is being genuine, as all Members have been as they have laid out their reasoning, and I have some sympathy with that. However, Northern Ireland is being portrayed almost as an outlier. Does she accept that such legislation is not present in England or in the Republic of Ireland and that, therefore, we are not an outlier in that respect?

Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his point, but, respectfully, I am not here to talk about other jurisdictions; I am here to talk about the rights of my constituents in East Derry and people right across the North. I am unaware of whether other regions have or do not have such legislation, but, if they do not, why not make the Assembly an example of the type of equality that can be achieved? I thank the Member for his intervention, and I respect the DUP for not voting against the Bill today, which is important.

I wholeheartedly back the Bill. It is brilliant that the Committee has moved forward with it. I really hope that young women across the North will see that something as simple as this can be achieved. I see it as a failure of the House that, in 2026, we still have to debate the issue, but I am optimistic that, on this one occasion, what is happening today is a good thing. Alongside my fellow Committee members, I really welcome the opportunity to make progress with the Bill.