Northern Ireland Assembly, 23 June 2025

313 contributions from 50 members. The official report.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I inform Members that the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Bill received Royal Assent on 18 June. It will be known as the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 2.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received notification from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that, due to unforeseen circumstances, they are unable to respond to questions for oral answer this afternoon. The Business Committee will be asked to reschedule the Executive Office Question Time slot when it meets tomorrow. However, in order to allow business to continue until 2.45 pm, when we will take questions to the Minister for Infrastructure, a motion has been added to a revised Order Paper to suspend Standing Order 20(1). That motion will be taken after Members' statements.

Members' Statements

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I highlight my call on the Department of Health to investigate the possibility of replicating the pay-related social insurance (PRSI) scheme in the South for those in the North who suffer from medical hair loss.

Whilst we are all aware of the pressures that our public services face, brought on by over a decade of savage austerity policies from Westminster, we should recognise the devastating impact that medical hair loss can have on a person's confidence, mental health and overall quality of life.

In the South, if a person suffers from a medical condition such as alopecia or hair loss brought on by chemotherapy, their GP can sign a PRSI health certificate that allows them to claim up to €500 towards the cost of a wig, hairpiece or scalp treatment. Stress can have a major impact on hair loss, so the support would benefit those who already suffer hair loss from a medical condition.

The scheme provides funding to patients who have lost their hair through illness, including alopecia, and cancer treatments to pay for wigs, hairpieces and scalp treatments with a specialist of their choice. I tabled a motion at council level, as I found it astounding that patients in the North are forced to pay so much for a hairpiece or face a lengthy waiting list for a wig.

The reasons that were given previously by the Department for its decision not to support a contribution scheme for the care of individuals with medical hair loss are extremely poor, full of unsubstantiated assumptions and a remarkable lack of empathy. As someone who lives and works in a border community, it further highlights the nonsensical nature of partition, because patients who live minutes away from each other cannot access the same equality of healthcare. Therefore, I have again written to the Department of Health to urge it to look into the possibility of introducing such a scheme so that men and women in the North have the same sense of dignity and equality of care that is offered to those in the South so that they can live their lives comfortably and confidently.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Speaker for calling me to make a Member's statement about my public consultation on the Bill that I propose to introduce on an individual statutory duty of candour. It is very important to me, but I believe that it is also very important to the people of Northern Ireland. Over the past weeks and months, we have seen the number of stories that have broken about scandals in our health service. I think of the bullying and harassment of staff, the scandals around care and neglect, the mistakes and the attempted cover-ups. A time will have to come when that practice stops. I believe that an individual statutory duty of candour is incredibly important to give people the confidence that their health service works for and protects them when they need it most.

It is critical that the Minister introduces legislation, but, in the absence of that, I will introduce my private Member's Bill. I believe that I have the support of the House to do so, but it does not have to be like that. The Minister of Health can bring forward his own legislation, which we would support, so that the people whom we serve will be best protected in healthcare settings. I believe that it is a right for our people and that the vast majority of people who work and practise in our healthcare settings deserve and want an individual statutory duty of candour. I will pursue that to the very end so that they get it.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

On Saturday, I was delighted to attend Learning Disability Pride 2025 in Carrickfergus, in my constituency of East Antrim. The day was filled with creativity, joy and community spirit. It was a vibrant and inclusive occasion, celebrating individuals with learning disabilities and raising awareness across the wider community. I pay tribute to the organisers and everyone who took part in delivering such a positive, uplifting and thoroughly enjoyable event.

The day began with a spectacular carnival parade, which set off from Carrickfergus Rangers Football Club and made its way along the seafront to the castle. The streets were alive with music, dancing and laughter, as schools, community groups and organisations, such as Access Employment Ltd (AEL), Mencap, the Greenisland Bears and many more, proudly took part. The creativity shown by the costumes, performances and displays was a true reflection of the energy and talent in our learning disability community.

As the celebrations carried on into the afternoon, the harbour car park came alive with vibrant activity. Uplifting performances by members of the local learning disability community were followed by live music from the host, Q Radio's Amy McGuckin. A colourful array of local food and craft stalls also added to the festival atmosphere. The weather was with us, and the energy was infectious, creating lasting memories for all who attended. The day's programme featured many inspiring moments. We were privileged to hear the Hill Croft School's Makaton choir perform, listen to Caleb from Caleb's Cause deliver a heartfelt, specially written poem and welcome the official ambassador for the event, the model and advocate Kate Grant, who made history as the first model with Down's Syndrome to win an international beauty title.

Beyond the celebrations, the event also shone a light on the extraordinary work being done by so many organisations to support people with learning disabilities to live rich, fulfilling and independent lives. It was a pleasure to meet some of them on the day, including AEL, which provides vital training and employment opportunities, and Bears FC, whose 60 players train regularly and compete in a dedicated league, offering not only sport but friendship, confidence and community. A particular highlight of the afternoon was the surprise visit from the Red Arrows, captivating the crowds as they soared across Carrickfergus in a flawless diamond formation, trailing colourful smoke across a bright blue sky. This remarkable event has grown each year in size, ambition and impact, and I have no doubt that it will continue to go from strength to strength. The event is inclusion in action and a shining example of what our communities can achieve when we come together.

I place on record my sincere thanks and congratulations to the Learning Disability Pride organisers for their dedication in bringing this uplifting celebration to Carrickfergus once again.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am getting an increasing amount of correspondence from individuals who are concerned about our justice system. I cannot mention them all, but I want to mention one that I think is important. It is the case of convicted murderer James Meehan. Convicted in 2009 for the murder of Jim McFadden in Londonderry, he absconded while on bail but was caught again and sentenced to 14 years in prison. In 2022, he absconded again while on day release and was at large for 16 months in the Irish Republic. He then went on a lengthy legal battle. Everybody knew where he was; everybody knew his address, but he remained at large. When we finally got him back to prison, he was sentenced to an extra nine months. It is ridiculous. The lesson learned is: do not let them out if they are going to do a runner. Do not think it for one minute. In December 2024, on pre-release, he disappeared again, and he is still at large. The Gardai know where he is, and the PSNI knows where he is. He is in Kells in County Meath, and nobody is going to feel his collar and stick him in jail. His victim's family in Londonderry are suffering unbelievably because the murderer of their father is still at large and nothing can be done to put him behind bars. The reality is that he should never have been out on day release in the first place. It should have been, "One strike and you are out". Danielle Bradley and her sister witnessed the murder of their father, and they want justice. This guy, when he is returned to prison, needs to get more than a paltry number of months to serve. It is truly ridiculous.

It is time, if we can, in this place to start putting the victims first and not the perpetrators. The moment that James Meehan proved himself to be an individual who would abscond as soon he was given time to do that, we should have said no. It is not the Prison Service's fault; it adheres to legislation. We need to change the legislation. When he disappeared the second time, absent for 16 months, we should have really taken note of this individual and never let him out the door again so that he served his full sentence. In fact, absconding should have been an aggravating factor. My thoughts remain with the family of Jim McFadden: Danielle, her sister and her mother. They now live without a father, and this man goes to the pub at large, and we do nothing about it.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I rise to make a Member's statement about the website Tattle Life and the impact that it has had on the mental well-being of people in Northern Ireland. For the avoidance of doubt, I declare an interest as a paid consultant for an AI firm providing advice on the ethics of AI. Obviously, this statement is not about AI but about online harm.

This is a very topical issue, and I wish to talk about online harms, libel and slander and how they have had a real-life impact. No website is worse for that action — it is infamous — than Tattle Life. I want to raise in the House the issue of a brave couple from Northern Ireland, Neil and Donna Sands, who became the victims of a very modern kind of abuse: tech-facilitated harassment on that website.

They were harassed, ridiculed and stalked online by strangers hiding behind fake usernames, and that was fuelled by a website designed to monetise gossip and human suffering — a website built on toxicity and a culture of cruelty.

Many of us had never heard of the website until last week, but, sadly, many of us, as public figures, feature on it as well. However, for the Sands family, it has been their living nightmare for years. Over 45 pages of anonymous abuse posted about them and completely false — false claims, personal details and threats. One post chillingly read:

"I can see you. I'm looking at you right now."

It was not just idle gossip; it was targeted harassment. It was libellous. It was slander. It happened online but had real consequences offline. Donna Sands said that it pushed her to breaking point, and that is the reality of tech-facilitated abuse.

The founder of the horrific, bullying website was making over £320,000 a year in ad revenue, profiting directly from the destruction of other people's reputations. It is a site where anonymous trolls can target people with lies, accuse them of crimes and infidelity and tarnish their overall reputation. The site is thought to have generated over £1·8 million in profit. However, last week, something historic happened in Northern Ireland: the Sands couple won a defamation case worth £300,000 — the largest amount ever awarded in Northern Ireland. A site once seen as untouchable was finally held accountable. That is justice, but it came far too late and at far too great a cost. It needs to be a wake-up call to those who find joy in anonymously putting down others online that they will be held accountable and that just because the abuse is online does not mean that it will be tolerated.

Let us not wait for another family to be torn apart by a website such as Tattle Life. Let the Sands case not be just a headline. Let it be a turning point when Northern Ireland says, "Enough is enough". I thank Neil and Donna for their bravery in taking this awful case to court and showing that we need to build an internet that protects people and does not profit from their pain.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Bhí Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh ó Kneecap os comhair Chúirt Dúiche Westminster faoin Terrorism Act an tseachtain seo caite. Cúis imní dúinn uilig an cúiseamh éagórach sin. Sheas Feisirí de chuid Shinn Féin i gcuideachta na gcéadta eile taobh amuigh den chúirt le tacaíocht a thabhairt do Liam Óg.

Is cinedhíothú é an rud atá ag tarlú in Gaza, agus ina ainneoin sin, tá Rialtas na Breataine ag coinneáil leis ag soláthar arm agus tacaíocht mhíleata do Iosrael, soláthar a fhágas go bhfuil sé comhpháirteach i gcearta an duine agus an dlí idirnáisiúnta a shárú. Ach tá Liam Óg, ar ceoltóir é, tá sin á chúiseamh as sceimhlitheoireacht as labhairt amach i gcoinne na gcoireanna sin. Netanyahu is cóir bheith os comhair na cúirte, chan Kneecap.

Tá muinitir na hÉireann ag seasamh go diongbháilte i gcoinne na gcoireanna atá Iosrael a dhéanamh in Gaza, ar an Bhruach Thiar agus ar fud an Mheánoirthir. Níl sa chás i gcoinne Liam Óig ach bealach le hiúl na ndaoine a thógáil den fhíorchoir. Cúis náire é nár cuireadh ateangaire ar fáil do Liam Óg. De réir cosúlachta, ní raibh teacht ag an bhreitheamh ar ateangaire. Seasaímid le Kneecap; seasaímid leis an fhírinne; seasaímid leis an cheartas.

Saoirse don Phalaistín. Lig saor Mo Chara.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

[Translation: Last week, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh of Kneecap was before the Westminster Magistrates’ Court under the Terrorism Act. That charge is unjust and extremely alarming. Sinn Féin MPs stood with hundreds of others outside the court in solidarity with Liam Óg. What is happening in Gaza is genocide, yet, all the while, the British Government maintain arms exports and military support to Israel — actions that make them complicit in violations of human rights and international law. Yet Liam Óg, an artist, faces terrorism charges for speaking out against those crimes. It is Netanyahu who should be brought before the courts, not Kneecap. The Irish people have stood against Israel’s crimes in Gaza, the West Bank and the Middle East. The case against Liam Óg is a distraction to draw attention away from the real crime. It is an outrage that no Irish interpreter was made available for Liam Óg. Apparently, the judge could not find one. We stand with Kneecap; we stand with truth; we stand with justice. Freedom for Palestine. Free Mo Chara.]

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Today, I pay tribute to Mr Alex Jones from Bangor, who sadly passed away at the weekend. Alex was an incredible character and a much-loved personality. His personality was truly infectious to all who knew and loved him. He was a proud chairman of the Somme Memorial Flute Band in Bangor. He was heavily involved in his beloved local football club, Bryansburn Rangers Football Club, and, as an ex-serviceman, was also a proud member of the Bangor branch of the Royal British Legion and much more. He had many friends in the Bangor and north Down area, across Northern Ireland, in Scotland and beyond. I express my sympathies to his wife, Mandy, and his sons, Scott and Kristopher. Alex was a great personality and will, indeed, be missed by so many across the land.

I also pay tribute to Mr Robin Masefield CBE. Many of you will have heard the name. He was a distinguished civil servant who committed a lot of his time and many years to service.

When he retired, he became known as "Mr Helen's Bay". He was a passionate community champion in his beloved Helen's Bay, where he lived, through his work as the secretary of the Helen's Bay and Crawfordsburn Residents Association over many years. He was committed and a real community champion. He was a highly intelligent man who was never afraid to roll up his sleeves and get involved in community life. He was involved in the u3a and in Holywood Shared Town. He was also an accomplished author, penning many books, particularly of local historical interest, including books on the history of Palace Barracks, on the 150th anniversary of the railway between Holywood and Bangor, on Grey Point Fort and on many other local subjects that he championed and for which he was a proud campaigner.

I extend my sympathies to his wife, Rosemary, and his wider family circle. Robin Masefield will always be remembered fondly across North Down and beyond.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I mark a significant milestone for a charity that has had a profound impact on the lives of children and families right across Northern Ireland, as Action for Children celebrates 25 years of delivering vital services here. That is a quarter of a century of dedication, care and advocacy being provided to some of our most vulnerable children and young people.

Action for Children was founded in London in 1869 and has grown to be one of the largest voluntary providers of children's services in the UK. In Northern Ireland since 2000, it has provided practical and emotional support to over 15,000 young people and their families every single year through more than 20 services spread across our communities. Action for Children's vision is powerful and simple, and it is that every child and young person will have a safe and happy childhood, as well as be given the foundations needed in order to thrive. That vision drives its work. It steps in early and offers support before families and young people reach crisis point. We know how important early intervention is, and Action for Children has been at the forefront of that mission for the past 25 years.

Its services are diverse and far-reaching, being delivered through family support hubs, Sure Start centres, early intervention services and young carers programmes. It supports families by offering an extra little bit of help, and it does so with compassion. It provides specialist services for young people who are at risk of experiencing homelessness, including through providing floating support in Omagh and in County Fermanagh and supported accommodation that helps young adults aged 16 to 24 to build the life skills that they need to help them manage their tenancy and move towards independence. Through its fostering, it finds safe, loving homes for children and young people who have faced an incredibly difficult start in life.

What makes Action for Children stand out, particularly for me, having engaged with it extensively, is its deep commitment not just to service delivery but to lasting change. It works to develop long-term solutions to the challenges that children and young people face and ensures that their voices and experiences shape the decisions that affect their lives, whether on policy, legislation or services. I am sure that every Member will have received at some point over the years a briefing from Action for Children.

To mark its 25th anniversary in Northern Ireland, it will be hosting tea parties in every community in which it works. Those tea parties will celebrate the difference that the charity has made over the past quarter of a century by bringing together children, young people, families, and community and statutory partners. They will also acknowledge the ongoing challenges that we in the Chamber cannot ignore and that we have heard so much about, namely that one in four children in Northern Ireland continues to grow up in poverty and that homelessness amongst young people is increasing. I therefore commend Action for Children for its 25 years of outstanding service, and I wish it continued strength in its vital work.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A chairde, rinne muid Lá Domhanda na dTeifeach a cheiliúradh Dé hAoine seo caite. Mar sin de, ná bíodh aon amhras ann: tá fáilte roimh theifigh anseo. Níl le déanamh againn ach smaoineamh ar stair na himirce in Éirinn, ar na daoine sin a d'fhág Éire in aimsir an Drochshaoil ar na daoine sin a d'fhág Éire de dheasca coimhlintí, agus ar an mhuintir óga atá ag fágáil na hÉireann inniu le saol is fearr a dhéanamh dóibh féin thar lear lena thuigbheáil nach bhfuil an ceart againn an deis sin a cheilt orthu sin ar mhaith leo saol úr a dhéanamh dóibh féin as teacht anseo.

[Translation: Friends, last Friday marked World Refugee Day. Let me therefore be clear: refugees are welcome here. We need only look at our own history of emigration, from the Great Famine to those who fled during conflicts and to the young people emigrating today in the hope of a better life to realise that we have no right to deny those who wish to do the same by coming here.]

A chairde

[Translation: Friends]

, the Irish diaspora is everywhere. Irish bars and GAA clubs function in every corner of the globe. Thig daoine go hÉirinn as na cúiseanna céanna ar fhág na hÉireannagh í. Ní lú an daonnacht s'acu ná ár ndaonnacht féin; tá a scéal-san lán chomh bailí lenár scéal féin.

[Translation: Those who come to Ireland seeking refuge do so for many of the same reasons that the Irish left. Their humanity is no less than ours. Their stories no less valid than ours.]

Political and community leaders, a chairde

[Translation: friends]

, must respond with unity, urgency and moral clarity to the recent abhorrent attacks on immigrants, refugees and ethnic minorities. Such attacks must stop, and they must be condemned without equivocation.

Multiculturalism is not a threat; it is a strength. In my area of south Tyrone, it enriches our community, broadens our understanding and strengthens the fabric of our society.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I rise today with profound sadness to reflect on last week, which was a sad week for anyone in the United Kingdom who values life. Having imposed laws on abortion in Northern Ireland, campaigners were successful in getting such legislation introduced across England and Wales. The introduction of new clause 1 to the Bill means that abortions that are carried out at home, either through the taking of pills that are purchased online or any other method, will be decriminalised. That clause is not about cases involving a medical diagnosis that affects the mother or the baby; it relates to any abortion for any reason at any point, right up to birth.

DUP MPs voted against the amendment, and others have explained their position, but the Alliance Party's Member of Parliament, who previously signed the amendment, has been silent. You might think that, having added her name to such a significant amendment, she would have found the time to explain her position, especially when she found the time to tweet about virtually every subject that was discussed in Parliament last week, with the singular and notable exception of an amendment that permits late-term abortion up to the point of birth.

On Friday, MPs voted to permit assisted dying in England and Wales. The Bill is significantly different to how it was when it was originally proposed; it is even worse. Judicial involvement in the process has been removed, and legal safeguards have been watered down. The Bill requires the founding principles of the NHS to be altered, all to create a system of private provision that will profit financially from the ending of lives. The Bill does not offer a dignified path for those who are facing the end of life; it opens up the prospect of vulnerable people being coerced to end their lives, without the proper safeguards to stop that from happening.

It was a sad week for anyone who values the protection of life. It was especially dark for some of the weakest, frailest and most vulnerable in society: unborn babies; women who are experiencing crisis pregnancy; people living with a disability; or those with a terminal illness who are at risk from coercion or abuse. We are taught in Proverbs:

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."

We must be a voice for the voiceless in society. There is no ambiguity over our position. The DUP is firmly a pro-life party. I repeat: last week was a sad week for anyone who values the protection of life.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Today, many of our councils are marking Armed Forces Week 2025 by raising the Armed Forces Day support flag. I am very pleased to say that, this morning, the flag was raised in Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council by our mayor, Leah Kirkpatrick. While not all councils across our nation show the same respect to serving armed forces personnel and veterans or, indeed, their families, the over 100,000 members of our extended armed forces family, including veterans and their family members, across the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the army and the Royal Air Force, both regular and reserve, appreciate the effort that has been made.

On Saturday, I had the opportunity to attend Northern Ireland Armed Forces Day in Newtownards. The splendid weather was matched by the large crowds of people who thoroughly enjoyed the spectacle and meeting many of the branches of our armed services. Ards and North Down Borough Council should be warmly congratulated for how it organised the event. The support of the PSNI and other emergency services in providing traffic management and first aid was first class. There was, however, one piece of traffic management that they were not responsible for: the magnificent parachute display by the RAF Falcons display team followed by the superlative Red Arrows, which entertained most of Antrim and Carrickfergus on their way in and, as they passed Scrabo Tower, gave an extraordinary display of airmanship and precise aerobatics.

To the thousands who were on the airfield looking up or on the surrounding hills, that was truly the highlight of the day.

I thank the RAF in Northern Ireland, especially Air Marshall Reynolds CB CBE DFC RAF, the air officer commanding Northern Ireland, who gave me, an ex-submariner, the most informed commentary by a helicopter pilot on air displays that anybody could have had. You have probably noticed, Mr Speaker, that I managed to get a bit of the sun as well.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I rise to highlight the fact that this is still Cervical Screening Awareness Week, and I encourage every woman or person who receives an invitation for cervical screening to attend that appointment. I took the difficult decision last week to speak of my experience of cervical cancer, so I emphasise again just how important it is for people to attend those appointments. It might literally save your life. The procedures are quick, painless —mostly — and professionally handled. I understand that people will be hesitant about attending the appointments, but I stress again how important it is that they take up that opportunity.

I am aware also that there are concerns about the cervical screening programme. That is understandable in the light of the scandal in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. Therefore, I voice my support for the Ladies with Letters campaign to have a statutory public inquiry into the scandal that happened in the Southern Trust, which impacted on 17,000 women. There were 11 women with precancerous cells, eight with cancer and two who died. That should not be minimised in view of the extent of the scandal and the impact that it has had on those women and their families. We await the outcome from the Health Minister. I emphasise again that I support the call for a statutory public inquiry. I hope that the matter is resolved soon so that those women can move on to the next stage of their campaign and we can bring some accountability to the situation.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I speak in support of the Chinook Justice Campaign and the families who have fought for truth and accountability for more than 30 years. On 2 June 1994, a Chinook helicopter crashed into the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland, killing all 29 people on board. Among the passengers were 25 highly trained and dedicated British intelligence service personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army. The two pilots were members of the United Kingdom special forces and were professionals with exemplary service records. It was the worst single loss of life in the history of the RAF during peacetime.

Beyond the tragedy itself, what followed has left the bereaved families with deep and legitimate concerns about transparency, justice and the treatment of their loved ones' memories. Just two weeks ago, I listened to the testimonies of the family of Detective Chief Superintendent Maurice Neilly, who tragically lost his life on that fateful day. He was a man of impeccable service and character. I pay tribute to his wife, Donna, and son, Mark, and family, who have found a dignified way to search for answers surrounding Maurice's death, a journey that is filled with sorrow and pain.

An initial RAF board of inquiry found the crash to be the result of gross negligence by the pilots. That conclusion has been widely discredited, including by the Mull of Kintyre review conducted by Lord Philip. That review called for the Ministry of Defence to apologise to the families of the pilots. Such an apology is long overdue. That review, however, revealed anonymous concerns from personnel who worked on the Chinooks, including fear and technical faults.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the call for justice and hope that the UK Government Armed Forces Minister takes it on board.

Assembly Business

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That Standing Order 20(1) be suspended for 23 June 2025.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Order 20(1) be suspended for 23 June 2025.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

As there are Ayes from all sides of the House and no dissenting voices, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated.

Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Ministerial Statement

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I have received notice from the Minister of Justice that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question as this is not an opportunity for debate or long-winded introductions.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on a bilateral ministerial meeting held under the auspices of the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) on cooperation on criminal justice matters that took place in Dublin on Wednesday 28 May 2025. I represented the Executive at the bilateral meeting with Minister Jim O'Callaghan, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in Ireland. It was the first IGA ministerial meeting attended by Minister O'Callaghan. It was a productive meeting that provided a welcome opportunity to reaffirm our shared commitment to enhancing practical criminal justice cooperation on the island.

The meeting provided Minister O'Callaghan and me with an opportunity to review progress against the 2023-25 IGA joint work plan. We received updates from each project advisory group (PAG): public protection; support for victims; youth justice; forensic science; and criminal justice and social diversity. The IGA structure contributes to the promotion of good practice in each area. The project advisory groups have developed a range of cross-border initiatives and opportunities for information exchange and shared learning, and I thank all the members, who continue to develop and enhance our cooperation on those important issues. I will provide Members with a summary of the work that has been completed under the 2023-25 joint work plan.

The public protection PAG has collaborated on a range of issues. Of particular note is the development of a shared criminal justice leadership programme that is designed to enhance working relationships, cross-agency collaboration and shared learning. The programme commenced in November 2024 and will be delivered across eight modules with 32 participants from criminal justice organisations in both jurisdictions. A special 21st anniversary edition of the 'Irish Probation Journal' was also published, reflecting on two decades of work, and preparation for the twenty-second edition is under way. Information exchange and engagement is ongoing and includes exchange on areas such as electronic monitoring, development of behaviour interventions and public protection arrangements.

The support for victims PAG remains focused on improving services and experiences for victims and witnesses. Work continues on the alignment of the respective victim and witness charters. Additionally, bilateral exchanges have been used to share learning on the role of registered intermediaries. The exchanges have also covered human trafficking, with a particular focus on child sexual exploitation, and the introduction of the children's sexual offences legal advisers (CSOLA) scheme. Domestic violence remains a focus for the PAG, with regular information exchange. Counterparts in Ireland were particularly interested in the launch of the Power to Change campaign in Northern Ireland earlier this year.

The youth justice PAG has focused on practical cooperation and shared learning between youth justice services. There have been reciprocal visits between youth justice agencies and further collaboration with the Donegal Youth Service. Of particular note during the most recent reporting period is the Stable Lives, Safer Streets initiative, a policy-led research hub funded through the Shared Island initiative and delivered by Queen's University Belfast and the University of Limerick. Minister O'Callaghan and I were privileged to hear from the committed academics who run the initiative, which combines top-down and bottom-up research to improve responses to youth crime, child criminal exploitation and community safety. A particular focus is being placed on child criminal exploitation, with evidence highlighting how many young people are manipulated and exploited into criminal activity through coercion or grooming. This collaborative and evidence-based work is already shaping the future direction of youth justice policy across both jurisdictions.

The completion of an important evaluation of children's diversion forums in Northern Ireland is further improving the Youth Justice Agency's approach to earlier-stage diversion, in partnership with others.

The forensic science PAG has continued to focus on shared learning and practical information exchange, with regular engagement in areas such as handwriting, explosives and elemental glass analysis. The two agencies continue to share information on the new Forensic Science Ireland laboratory facilities in Backweston. That is particularly welcome while the Forensic Science Northern Ireland building project progresses. The recent European Academy of Forensic Science conference, which was hosted by Forensic Science Ireland, was held in May 2025 in Dublin. It was attended by both agencies and offered further opportunities for professional engagement.

The criminal justice and social diversity PAG has progressed cross-border work on hate crime and community inclusion. The PSNI and an Garda Síochána have continued cross-border cooperation in conjunction with the Rio Ferdinand Foundation and have worked closely with the Traveller Mediation Service in border areas. That PAG continues to share learning on engagement with ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ+ community.

The meeting also received an update on the work of the joint agency task force (JATF), which, as Members will be aware, was instituted under the Fresh Start Agreement and is led by senior officers from the PSNI, an Garda Síochána, HMRC and the Irish Revenue Commissioners. The strategic oversight group is obliged to provide a summary report to each IGA ministerial meeting. The most recent update covered the group's seventeenth and eighteenth reports, spanning April 2024 to March 2025. There continues to be high levels of cooperation and operational activity across the six priority areas: rural crime, drugs, financial crime, human trafficking, excise fraud and organised immigration crime. Notably, joint efforts have continued to target mobile organised crime gangs, resulting in the recovery of stolen property, drug seizures and burglary detections. A dedicated cross-border day of action on 6 March 2025 yielded positive operational results for both police services. Cross-border referral systems for trafficking cases, often from an early stage, have proven effective, particularly in relation to children.

I acknowledge the task force's ongoing work in tackling threats in those priority areas. It is evident from the recent reports that the joint agency task force continues to be a highly effective model for tackling cross-border organised crime, with strong practical and strategic collaboration between law enforcement agencies delivering tangible results. Significant seizures of counterfeit cigarettes and illicit alcohol and the dismantling of fuel laundering operations highlight the ongoing work by HMRC and the Irish Revenue Commissioners. Meanwhile, close collaboration between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána national drugs and organised crime bureau has resulted in high-profile drug seizures of a value in excess of £20 million at airports and seaports.

The task force has demonstrated its ability to disrupt organised criminality through intelligence-led enforcement and coordinated operations. Progress has also been made on financial crime, with long-running investigations advancing asset seizure and recovery. Those cases often involve complex civil and criminal litigation. The task force continues to prove itself as an effective vehicle for real-time intelligence sharing and enforcement coordination. Supporting that level of cooperation remains a priority, and I am pleased to update Members on its continued success.

The IGA is an important forum, and the ongoing contribution of those involved is invaluable in ensuring progress across a broad range of issues, which, in turn, continues to improve justice outcomes across this island.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, did you discuss with the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in the South the possibility of convening a public inquiry into clerical abuse, given its often cross-border nature?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question. The Executive have discussed what learning we can take from the investigations that have been developed in the South. The Department of Justice, however, does not lead on clerical abuse. The Executive Office leads on that particular matter for the Executive. I have not directly raised that with my counterpart, but I know that the Executive Office is in constant contact with its counterpart in the South in order to ensure that there is a joined-up approach and that learning on one side will be carried through in order to inform the Executive's response.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

It is clear that good work is being done, which should ensure that past mistakes, where criminals fled across the border to sanctuary, are no longer happening and that the border is no longer a hindrance for law enforcement. Given the nature of crime, it makes sense that there would be shared learning and practical cooperation with the South.

However, will the Minister outline why she is seeking to, in her words, align the victim and witness charters with the Republic rather than the UK?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is not an either/or. We are trying to get the best outcome for victims and witnesses across the board. In this particular statement, I am focused on the meeting that we had through the IGA. It is important that there be a consistent approach. Those of you who were involved in the passage of the Justice Bill will know that people often become victims or witnesses because of crime that has a cross-border element, particularly those who live in border communities. It is important that the support for them is reasonably consistent, irrespective of where they seek that support. That is an important point to make. However, we also work with our colleagues in the Home Office. Indeed, I met recently with Minister Jess Phillips, the Minister with responsibility for safeguarding, to discuss how we can ensure that standards that apply, for example, in England also inform our discussions. I do not think that it has to be a choice between the two. We can try to get the best possible outcome for victims and witnesses, and that means being able to share and collaborate, irrespective of borders.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her statement. She talked about elements of criminal justice and social diversity work and, obviously, cross-border work that is being progressed around hate crime and community inclusion. On the back of racist attacks over the past few weeks and, indeed, the past year, with online misinformation encouraging some of those incidents, what work is being progressed in that area around cross-border collaboration, and did both Ministers discuss what more can be done to take enforcement action against social media companies if they do not take action on misinformation?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Under the auspices of the IGA, there are a restricted number of work streams, and, obviously, because telecommunications is a reserved matter, it does not form one of them. However, when we have been talking about the wider issues of integration in the community, we have, of course, touched on the influence of social media on people's attitudes and behaviours. Although, in Northern Ireland, we have quite limited powers when it comes to any change to the law, we do, of course, operate within the Home Office structures for dealing with the social media companies. It is an issue. Outside of the IGA structure itself, Minister O'Callaghan was in touch with me last week, concerned about what he could see, but also concerned about the potential for people either to travel to be part of disturbances or to be involved in disturbances in one jurisdiction and still manage to travel to be involved in later disturbances in other jurisdictions. It is also something that the PSNI has been liaising very closely with an Garda Síochána about, because clearly, when those things are being trailed on social media and when some young people find that their posts around violence are being monetised by some of the platforms, there is an incentive for people to get involved. It is important that we track that and monitor that behaviour to try to do work in the prevention space rather than simply the response space.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Minister. Will the Minister outline some of the specific successes of the joint agency task force in 2024-25?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I have already mentioned that the joint agency task force continues to demonstrate really effective collaboration by the various law enforcement agencies. Over the reporting period, there were multiple joint operations with successful outcomes. For example, real-time collaboration between law enforcement on both sides of the border led to successful operations and investigations around drug seizures. In October 2024, a large quantity of cannabis with an estimated value of £8·5 million was recovered following an operation in Dublin, and four individuals were arrested and charged as a result. In March 2025, following searches conducted near Belfast, £6·5 million of drugs was seized and one individual was arrested. There have been many more successes of that kind.

In December 2024, there was an increased focus on targeting cross-border organised retail crime in the run-up to Christmas. Both police services ran organised retail crime operations, which were incorporated into their Christmas road safety campaigns. Then, on 6 March, there was a dedicated cross-border day of action, which formed part of a wider joint agency task force operation, tackling cross-jurisdictional criminality in counties Louth and Armagh. That included high-visibility multi-agency checkpoints and resulted in multiple house searches and several arrests for drug-related offences. Quantities of drugs were also seized.

Other positive outcomes related to human trafficking, illegal moneylending, fraud, fuel smuggling and illicit cigarette manufacture. It is really important to note that, in March, we had over 200 delegates at a cross-border conference on organised crime. Again, that showcased the very close working relationships that are in place and the dedication of the JATF to keeping people safe.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Minister's statement on cross-border collaboration. It is important. This morning, I made a Member's statement about convicted murderer James Meehan, who is illegally at large in Ireland from a Northern Ireland prison. The gardaí and the PSNI know where he is, but James Meehan is happily enjoying his life and going to the pub with no consequences. Was there any discussion of cutting out that loophole, which undermines our justice system?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, I do not want to comment on specific cases. It is not wise for me, as Justice Minister, to do so without having all the information to hand.

Secondly, as I stated, there are six work streams under the auspices of the IGA, but, of course, I meet the Minister on other occasions to have discussions when those issues surface. I am more than happy to raise those issues with him when we are in routine contact. It is important to say, however, that there are structures in place — thankfully, they were not disrupted, as they might have been, with our change in status with regard to the EU — to have people returned from one jurisdiction to another. Those exist under the current agreements. However, when it comes to things such as extradition, those are reserved matters and not matters for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thank you for your statement, Minister. Can you give details and examples of the collaborative work and shared learning taking place between youth and justice services on the ground locally?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

A number of bits of work are happening, particularly with young people. The youth justice agencies on both sides of the border share learning and have collaborative work streams involving young people in border communities, particularly in the north-west. There has been quite a lot of collaboration in some of the work that has been done with young people in Donegal and Derry. That is one piece of work that they are doing. We are also looking at the learning from our experience in youth justice and how we can share that expertise on a cross-border basis to try to improve overall outcomes for young people, ensure that we can exit young people from the justice system as quickly as possible and minimise their future contact with it. That is a shared objective, I guess, that both jurisdictions have.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Will the Minister, first of all, join me in paying tribute to Robin Masefield CBE, former director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, who passed away, sadly, at the weekend?

In her statement, the Minister mentioned human trafficking and people smuggling across the border, which is still rising, unfortunately. What more can be done in the time ahead, Minister?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I absolutely join you in paying tribute to Sir Robin Masefield, who was the director general of prisons for a considerable period. He has passed away after an illness. It is, indeed, very sad. Those who worked with him found him to be a person of huge thought and integrity and somebody who was very committed to ending reoffending and to rehabilitation in prisons, primarily with a view to keeping people safe, which is always the overriding priority.

On victims and witnesses of human trafficking and exploitation and the cross-border nature of that crime, a number of joint operations have been carried out in order to disrupt cross-border criminal networks. When there are pipelines for certain illegal substances, the same pipelines and connections will be used for all illegal substances. One week, it will be cigarettes, and, another week, it will be something else. Ultimately, people will be involved in those pipelines too, because, for those who are involved in the trafficking of human beings, people are just a commodity like any other. There is no humanity behind it.

In the work that is done, it is important that we are able to support victims and potential victims of trafficking and exploitation. Access to support is available from the Department of Justice for those who have been identified as victims. That is supported and provided through contact with Women's Aid and Migrant Help. The Home Office sets out the provision of that support, because it is a reserved matter. We are delivery partners with the Home Office, but it is important to note, from our strategic oversight group and from the IGA, that cross-border cooperation on the ground among police, revenue commissioners, Border Force and others is part of the overall package of work that gets done. We are not responsible for the immigration part because of its reserved nature, but we are responsible for disrupting the organised crime networks, which are undoubtedly involved in human trafficking and in human misery.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she outline other projects that will be prioritised by the Stable Lives Safer Streets research hub?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The hub is undertaking additional research projects that link closely to the Youth Justice Agency's corporate plan for 2025-28: research on the gendered experiences and pathways to justice contact for girls in Northern Ireland, which is due to be completed this summer and will inform the Youth Justice Agency's approach to supporting girls in the youth justice system, and an evaluation of the Youth Justice Agency's child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) partnership, which is at the planning stage. Both pieces of research will be of significant value to the Youth Justice Agency and come at no cost to the agency, as they are being delivered by the hub using funding provided by the Shared Island initiative. It is therefore a win-win situation for us to be engaged in the process.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, given how vital it is for all of us to work collectively to end the violence, abuse and harm suffered by women and girls in all our communities, I welcome the support for the project advisory groups' focus on domestic violence and their interest in the Power to Change campaign. Can the Minister outline what further enhanced work and joint initiatives are being progressed with her ministerial counterpart to address gender-based violence across the island?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As I said, a number of groups undertake work in that space,. The one that is probably key is the Public Protection Advisory Group (PPAG), which remains one of the most proactive groups under the IGA. It is doing work on sexual offender management training, on risk assessment for females and on transition perpetrators. Prisons, police and probation services on both sides of the border could access the workshop. We have also developed a new leadership programme, which has 32 participants, to develop skills in that area, and the shared development goals are an important part of it.

As part of the victims PAG, we are looking at improving services and policies, particularly the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter, which, as the Member knows, are important for those who have been affected by domestic and sexual violence and abuse. We have also been sharing our learning on the children's sexual offences legal adviser (CSOLA) scheme on the impact that that might have. There is a lot of interest in the South in how it might apply similar measures in its court system.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Given that the Justice Minister met the Republic of Ireland's Migration Minister, what robust discussions were had on to the number of people arriving in Northern Ireland illegally via the Republic of Ireland? Was she made aware of the number who are arriving via plane, with officials disregarding their identification, and being bussed to Northern Ireland courtesy of the Republic of Ireland Government?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

If the Member does not have the figures to hand, perhaps he should desist from making inflammatory statements about the significance of the issue, because it is really unhelpful to talk about people — any people — in those terms. I met the Justice Minister under the auspices of the IGA. The Justice Minister is my counterpart when it comes to justice matters. When it comes to migration, he is the counterpart of the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper. He is not my counterpart.

With respect, the Member can shake his head all that he wishes, but migration is a reserved matter for the mother of all Parliaments. I am surprised that a unionist

[Interruption]

would suggest that it should be otherwise. It is not a devolved matter; it is a reserved matter. However, we are kept informed of the work that is going on between AGS,

[Interruption]

the PSNI and Border Force and the work that they are undertaking.

You will appreciate, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, even if others do not, that there is an operational element to this, for which I am not accountable. I understand that Members find this difficult —

[Interruption.]

I understand that Members find this difficult, but the separation of powers between politics and operational justice is one of the foundations of a free democracy. Members who seek to encroach on that in the Chamber, week on week, need to give their heads a wobble.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am not averse to Members having a bit of back and forth, but I will knock on the head Members shouting from a sedentary position.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

In the conversations on victims and witnesses, particularly on domestic abuse and sexual violence, was there discussion of the giving of character references to those accused of such crimes and of maybe doing something more into line with what they do in the South, where character referees have to take the stand, which means that they are aware of what the person for whom they are giving the character reference has been accused?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

That is not a discussion that we had at this meeting of the IGA, but it is a discussion that I had at a previous meeting with the former Justice Minister, because we are looking at what options are available to us in tightening the rules on good character witness statements and evidence. It is something that we have discussed in the past, but we did not discuss it at this meeting.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

It is nice to see the Minister back in her place; I hope that she is feeling better.

Will the Minister provide more details on what took place during the cross-border day of action on 6 March this year and outline any positive operational results that the initiative yielded for the PSNI, particularly in relation to the Omagh victims?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The cross-border day of action was not about the Omagh inquiry, which is a separate matter. It related to the disruption of organised crime gangs. As I set out in my statement, there were drug seizures, house searches and vehicle searches following up from that day of action that allowed AGS and PSNI to recover significant quantities of material from those who were traversing the border during that joined-up action.

The important thing from my perspective is that that good cooperation can lay the foundations for good cooperation at other levels. I hope that that good cooperation will extend to the Irish Government when it comes to the Omagh bombing inquiry, but clearly that is not directly related to the day of action. I have, however, taken the opportunity to raise with Jim O'Callaghan, the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach the issue of the Omagh bomb inquiry and the importance of their full and frank cooperation with it to ensure that victims get the truth and clarity that they deserve.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

What engagement is taking place between the Minister's Department and the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration in Ireland on best practice support for victims and witnesses?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a number of things. First, there is a project advisory group specifically for victims and witnesses. That continues to engage positively on learning and how we can better understand the needs and interests of victims and witnesses through the system. There are common challenges in both jurisdictions, so there are opportunities for us to learn from each other. I have already mentioned the like of the CSOLA scheme that we have introduced here: there is real interest from the South in taking the learning from that scheme and replicating it. We should not always assume that it is for us to learn and for others to lead: sometimes, it can be the other way round.

There has also been an ongoing sharing of progress updates and emerging learning from the implementation of the Gillen review and the O'Malley review, which happened around the same time and largely covered the same issues. In Northern Ireland, we have a panel of registered intermediaries, and the intermediary scheme secretariat has assisted with the development of a similar scheme in the Republic of Ireland. Registered intermediaries continue to provide help, advice and job-shadowing opportunities to their counterparts in the South, which, again, is an example of an area in which we have been able to lead and share learning with others.

The last one is the disclosure of complainants' personal material, which, we know, has been particularly fraught. My officials have been engaging with officials in the South about the disclosure of that material in trial processes, as it is a live issue in both jurisdictions. We are seeking to address that in the victims and witnesses of crime Bill: enhanced protection of complainants' personal information and article 8 rights, balanced against the accused's article 6 rights via judicial oversight.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Minister, in your statement, you referred to support for victims' project advisory groups. My question relates to something that you touched on briefly with respect to the Omagh inquiry. What conversations were had about the Kingsmills case, the disclosure of information more broadly and adequate cooperation?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

We had no discussion about the Kingsmills case at that meeting because it was an update on the progress that is being made for victims and witnesses of contemporary crime. It was not about legacy issues. Legacy issues are generally dealt with through direct engagement between either me or other members of the Executive and the Tánaiste and Taoiseach or the Secretary of State and Prime Minister, rather than through the auspices of the IGA. However, as I said, I had the opportunity to discuss with Minister O'Callaghan the importance of every person who was affected by the Troubles — every victim and every survivor — being able to access truth and justice where that is available and knowing that there is no barrier from either Government or any other body to try to prevent their accessing that truth and justice.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, last week, 'The Telegraph' carried a story about Albanian gangs encouraging people to enter the UK illegally via the open border with the Republic. When will the PSNI be a physical presence on the border, like the guards, to prevent those crime gangs exploiting that weakness in our security?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The PSNI already is on the border as a physical presence, and that is supplemented by the work of the Border Force, which is the UK agency that has responsibility for migration crime. The PSNI can work with AGS to disrupt the organised crime networks that operate throughout these islands exploiting human misery and vulnerable individuals and engaging in human trafficking and modern-day slavery. As I pointed out, the PSNI, along with AGS, has already dealt with cases of coercive and grooming behaviour and trafficking. It is important that it does so with the support of Border Force.

It is an important issue that needs to be addressed so that those who have a right to come and seek asylum or refuge in Northern Ireland and those who have a right to come to Northern Ireland to seek work are able to do so without being descried as "illegal" when, often, that is simply not the case.

Executive Committee Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call the Minister for the Economy, Caoimhe Archibald, to move the First Stage of the Bill on behalf of the Minister for Infrastructure.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I beg to introduce the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill [NIA 17/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for the regulation of water use; to provide for the regulation of sustainable drainage systems; to make provision in relation to flood prevention and remediation; to make provision in relation to communication with sewers; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to introduce the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill [NIA 18/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for the establishment and functions of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to introduce the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill [NIA 19/22-27], which is a Bill to make further provision with respect to the administration and financing of public services in Northern Ireland, in particular, measures to provide powers to undertake certain activities, to enable charging for certain activities and to modify arrangements for financial governance.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I beg to introduce the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill [NIA 20/22-27], which is a Bill to amend the law relating to insolvency; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Minister, are you moving the Agriculture Minister's Bill?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I can do, if necessary.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

You do not need to: he is here. He is behind you. That is excellent timing.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to introduce the Dilapidation Bill [NIA 21/22-27], which is a Bill to confer functions on district councils in connection with the dilapidation of buildings and other land.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members should take their ease for a moment.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

I beg to move

That the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025 be approved.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft statutory instrument (SI), which will amend the Medicines Act 1968 and the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 — the "HMRs". The amendments are aimed at enabling all community pharmacies to access hub-and-spoke dispensing of human medicines, should they so wish.

Hub-and-spoke dispensing is a pharmacy model whereby some routine parts of the dispensing process, such as assembling prescriptions, are done in a central hub pharmacy, while patient interactions and final supply occur at spoke pharmacies, allowing staff in those pharmacies to focus on delivering patient-centred services. Typically, there are many spoke pharmacies to one hub. The concept is that the simple, routine aspects of assembling prescriptions can take place on a large scale in a hub that usually makes use of automated processes. Meanwhile, the relationship that patients have with their pharmacist continues at the spoke pharmacies.

Under current legislation, the medicine dispensed in one pharmacy can be sold or supplied only by that pharmacy or another within the same legal entity. The proposed legislative amendments will enable pharmacies belonging to different legal entities to set up hub-and-spoke arrangements. That will unlock the hub-and-spoke dispensing model for smaller pharmacy businesses and level the playing field so that all pharmacy businesses can avail themselves of the model, should they choose to do so. The legislation will also make it possible for dispensing doctors to act as a spoke, giving them access to the knowledge provided by pharmacists in the hub.

Hub-and-spoke arrangements will not be mandatory. Enabling all pharmacies to avail themselves of hub-and-spoke dispensing arrangements, should they choose to do so, aligns with a strategic priority in my Department's community pharmacy strategic plan 2030, which aims to modernise systems for the safe and reliable supply of medicines and professional advice from community pharmacies. The legislative changes, along with other changes such as previous amendments to the Human Medicines Regulations, which provided flexibilities to pharmacists for the dispensing of medicines in their original pack, will help community pharmacies to streamline how they manage the dispensing workload and release capacity in pharmacy teams to undertake more patient-centred services that align with Health and Social Care (HSC) priorities.

A UK-wide public consultation on the proposed changes to the Medicines Act 1968 and the HMRs ran from 16 March to 8 June 2022. The consultation included proposals on two models of hub-and-spoke dispensing. In model 1, the patient presents a prescription to the spoke, and the spoke sends the relevant information to the hub so that it can carry out its agreed dispensing actions. The hub then returns the dispensed medicines to the spoke, which may have further responsibilities to perform, such as providing the patient with advice on the medicine before ultimately supplying it to them. In model 2, a similar pathway is followed whereby a patient presents a prescription to the spoke that is sent to the hub. After the hub assembles and prepares the medicine, the completed order is supplied directly to the patient.

Responses to the consultation proposals raised a number of significant concerns about model 2: its potential to undermine the relationship between pharmacy and patient; risks posed by the sharing of accountability for the supply of medicines; and risks to patient safety. Following further re-engagement with key stakeholders, including the Chief Pharmaceutical Officers of the devolved Administrations and community pharmacy representative organisations, the UK Government propose to proceed with the introduction of hub-and-spoke reforms with amendments that take account of those key stakeholders' views.

The revised proposals will mean the introduction of model 1 only at this stage, with a view to introducing model 2, subject to public consultation, if there is sufficient stakeholder interest once model 1 has bedded in. To ensure patient safety, having taken into consideration the consultation responses, the legislation seeks, through several measures, to enhance the governance, transparency and accountability to patients of participating pharmacies.

First, hub pharmacies and spoke pharmacies will be mandated to enter into written arrangements with one another when adopting that dispensing model. The written arrangements will be a comprehensive agreement on the responsibilities of each pharmacy for the shared dispensing process. Secondly, the spoke must sell, supply or dispense the medicine to the patient, the hub having assembled or part-assembled it under the arrangements. Third, the dispensed medicine must be labelled with the spoke's name and address plus the date on which the hub assembled or part-assembled the medicine, along with the standard information that is required on any dispensing label.

Next, the sharing of patient data between the hub and spoke without the explicit consent of a patient is permitted through an information gateway that requires the spoke to display an appropriate notice to patients and staff at the spoke and the hub to maintain the confidentiality of the patient data. Finally, with the aim of providing full transparency to patients, the spoke is required to display a notice on its premises and its internet presence.

The legislation will not come into operation until 1 October of this year. That helps to provide certainty to the sector and gives time for the Department to consult community pharmacy representatives on any further requirements, which could include guidance or further legislative amendments that may be required to the terms of service and the contractual arrangements for community pharmacists, as set out in the Pharmaceutical Services Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997.

Hub and spoke pharmacies will operate as registered pharmacies under the regulatory oversight and standards of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI), as they currently do. The timescale will allow the PSNI, working in tandem with the General Pharmaceutical Council in Great Britain, to consider how best to ensure that any additional professional guidance is available in time to support safe and compliant implementation of the potential new legal framework.

I am pleased to inform Members that the Health Committee considered the policy intent of the statutory instrument (SI) at its meeting on 28 May, confirming that it was content that the SI be laid in draft form in the Business Office. When the SI was laid in draft, the Committee considered it at its meeting on 12 June and, again, indicated that it was content. It is therefore with the Committee's support that I bring the statutory instrument before the wider Assembly today. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I welcome this opportunity to confirm, as the Minister said, the Health Committee's support for the motion. The legislation enables all community pharmacies and dispensing doctors to access hub-and-spoke dispensing, should they wish to do so. As the Minister outlined, under the current legislation, medicine that is dispensed in one pharmacy can only be sold or supplied by that pharmacy or another within the same legal identity. The regulations will remove barriers to help community pharmacies streamline how they manage the dispensing workload and release capacity in their teams to undertake more patient-centred services.

Department of Health officials briefed the Committee on the draft SI on 29 May 2025. I think that the Minister said it was 28 May, but it was 29 May. The officials provided details of the elements that are to be put in place to ensure accountability, governance and transparency for patients. The Committee noted at that briefing that the consultation was on two different models. Model 1 involves medicines being assembled and returned from the hub to the spoke pharmacy before being supplied to the patient. Model 2 involves the hub pharmacy supplying medicines directly to the patient. Responses from here in the North raised significant concerns about model 2, including the potential of undermining the relationship between pharmacies and patients. Revised proposals mean that only model 1 will be introduced at this stage. Officials informed the Committee that there would be a further public consultation before any introduction of model 2. Officials also committed to working with Community Pharmacy on the next steps for implementation. Again, the Minister has outlined how that will happen. At the meeting on 29 May 2025, the Committee agreed that it was content with the policy intent, and, on 12 June 2025, the Committee recommended that the draft statutory instrument be approved by the Assembly.

Colin McGrath (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the impact that this will have on those in the community pharmacy sector when it comes to streamlining their work. We are all very aware of, and have been lobbied about, the impact of the community pharmacy budget. The sector is struggling with the amount of money that is being provided. There is a large amount of paperwork, and a lot of practices could be revised. Last week, the Minister mentioned e-prescriptions as another way to help, but these regulations are one element of help for the community pharmacy sector. We need to continue to help that sector to do all that it can. The best thing that we could do is to look at the model for paying for medication. There is a better model in Scotland, and other models are available, but it seems that the current model for community pharmacies causes a lot of financial constraint on them. Whilst the regulations are welcome, there is a long distance to go to help the sector. I hope that the Minister will continue to do all that he can to help and support our community pharmacy sector, which is often at the heart of our high streets and all our local communities.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

At their core, these regulations aim to deliver greater flexibility and efficiency and to potentially allow for better allocation of clinical capacity in pharmacy services. By enabling medicine assembly to take place centrally in regulated specialised hubs, there is a reasonable expectation that pharmacists in community spoke pharmacies will have more time for direct patient care, medicine optimisation and preventative work. Those areas are increasingly important as we seek to build multidisciplinary approaches to primary care, particularly given the Minister's plans to shift left.

It is also important to recognise the vital role that community pharmacies play in our healthcare system and the increasing pressures that they continue to face. While I am hopeful that these measures will help to alleviate some of those pressures, it is essential that we continue to support the sector and listen carefully to its concerns. Having engaged with the sector, I believe that, of the two options that were presented, the current model, model 1, was the preferred option. During consultation, stakeholders in Northern Ireland expressed significant concerns about model 2, which presented a hub-to-patient approach that removed the traditional community aspect from community pharmacies. While model 1 is the more acceptable option, it is not without its challenges. I therefore urge the Minister and the Department to undertake a full impact assessment of that model.

I understand that, currently, the regulations are optional and that pharmacies are under no obligation to adopt them at this stage, but legitimate concerns remain in the community pharmacy sector. Should that approach become widespread, we should ensure that any system that is adopted is fair, robust and, above all, safe. I make it clear that we should welcome steps forward in improving aspects of our health service and that I recognise the potential benefits of the proposals, but I am also mindful of the valid concerns that have been raised. If we move towards implementation, it is vital that we continue close engagements with pharmacists, Community Pharmacy NI and the wider sector and give serious consideration to the issues that they have raised. Currently, under the existing model, the responsible pharmacist, the spoke pharmacy, has legal and professional responsibility for all medicines supplied to patients. In a hub-and-spoke model, however, that pharmacist may not have directly overseen or verified the assembly of the medicines at the hub. While the final checks will still be made at the spoke, separating assembly from supply introduces additional complexity in determining who is liable for a dispensing error, if one should occur.

Other members and I highlighted those concerns during the Health Committee's scrutiny. In response, the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer from the Department of Health confirmed that, while legislation does not itself specify where the legal responsibility lies, it will rely on the contractual agreements between the hub-and-spoke parties. However, it is not yet clear how consistently or thoroughly those agreements will set out the responsibilities in practice, especially in cases where an error occurs during assembly at the hub. That highlights the need for clear, detailed guidance to ensure that hubs and spokes have shared understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities.

The request for an impact assessment is, I feel, reasonable. Such an assessment would be important in informing the development of detailed guidance in collaboration with the sector, providing pharmacists with confidence that they can remain protected within a framework that reflects the operational realities of hub-and-spoke models. In particular, further clarification is needed on how contractual responsibilities will align with the continuing statutory obligations of the responsible pharmacist under existing regulations.

In conclusion, my understanding is that Community Pharmacy is cautiously supportive of these measures and welcomes this model over the direct hub-to-patient model. The proposals offer an opportunity to modernise aspects of pharmaceutical practice while strengthening the clinical role of community pharmacies. While the regulations are being introduced on an optional basis, the concerns raised are valid and should be addressed. An impact assessment should be carried out to inform clear operational guidance, define lines of responsibility and accountability and address potential operational challenges in order to ensure safe and effective implementation and safeguard the continued safe supply of medicines by community pharmacies.

If we can get this right, we can deliver innovation and support for a sector that is desperately in need, but we can do so only by working in partnership with Community Pharmacy and ensuring that robust protections are firmly in place. It now falls to the Department to provide clear guidance and safeguards that will give pharmacists the confidence to move forward.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call the Minister of Health to conclude and wind on the debate.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you. I also thank the Chair and the Deputy Chair of the Committee and Mr McGrath for his comments. In the current challenging healthcare climate, all policy options that improve efficiency and potentially increase the level of service to patients are to be welcomed. I believe that these legislative amendments will ensure that local pharmacies will continue to have access to the same commercial model — I stress commercial model — as their counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr Donnelly talked about shifting left, and Mr McGrath talked about the importance of community pharmacists. If we are to achieve the shift left in my vision, it will not just be about GP surgeries; community pharmacies will have a key role to play. I am very keen that we have a new funding model that will enable the shift left: you cannot do that without a new funding model. The underpinning rationale for enabling hub-and-spoke dispensing between different pharmacy businesses, should they choose to do so, is to allow for more efficient dispensing and the freeing up of pharmacists to provide more clinical services. In turn, that could help to alleviate pressures across an already stretched system.

To finish, I turn to the unexpected controversy of when the Committee first dealt with this issue. I believe that I said that it was Thursday 29 May, but the Chair seems to think that it was Wednesday 28 May. I am happy to give way if he wants to clarify.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

It was the other way round. You said 28 May, and I said 29 May.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

My bad. It was Thursday 29 May. I beg your pardon. I commend the motion to the House.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am glad that we cleared that up.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Hub and Spoke Dispensing etc.) Regulations 2025 be approved.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 25 February 2025, dealing with: an offence of cuckooing (contained in Part 4, clauses 32 to 34 and 35(2), (3) and (4)(c) and Part 3 of schedule 5); an updated offence to deal with advice or guidance on creating child sexual abuse material (contained in Part 5, clause 37); management of sex offenders (contained in Part 5, clauses 59, 61 to 63, 65, 66(1), 67 and 68 and schedule 9); administrating etc harmful substances (including by spiking) (contained in Part 7, clause 73); encouraging or assisting serious self-harm (contained in Part 7, clauses 74 and 75); electronic devices for use in vehicle offences (contained in Part 8, clauses 78 and 79); proceeds of crime relating to confiscation (contained in Part 11, clause 102(2) and schedule 15); proceeds of civil recovery: costs and expenses (contained in Part 11, clause 103); international law enforcement data sharing agreements (contained in Part 15, clauses 127, 128 and 129); and criminal liability of bodies and partnerships (contained in Part 15, clause 130).

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Justice to open the debate on the motion.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the Crime and Policing Bill that is progressing through Parliament.

Before I outline the provisions for which I am seeking consent, it may be helpful for Members if I briefly provide some background information. The Bill was introduced in Parliament on 25 February this year. The Bill is wide-ranging and supports the delivery of the UK Government's safer streets mission to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls in a decade and to increase public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system. It gives police further powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, crime and terrorism. It contains a mix of excepted and reserved matters, some of which apply to or are extended to Northern Ireland, and some transferred matters, which therefore require the Assembly's legislative consent. A number of the measures were included in the previous UK Government's Criminal Justice Bill, which fell in May last year on the calling of the general election.

The Bill has completed its passage through the House of Commons and has been republished a number of times following the addition of amendments. Members should note, however, that the clause numbers contained in the motion relate to the Bill as introduced on 25 February. There have been no amendments, beyond the clause numbering, to any of the measures for which I am seeking consent.

On 15 May, the Executive agreed to a legislative consent motion's being progressed. Since its introduction, my officials have provided oral and written briefings on the Bill to the Committee for Justice. The Committee agreed, through its report to the Assembly that was published on 5 June, to support the motion. I thank Executive colleagues and members of the Committee for their scrutiny, support and timely consideration of the matter.

I will turn now to the 10 measures in the Crime and Policing Bill that I am formally seeking the Assembly's legislative consent to be extended to Northern Ireland. The first measure introduces a new offence of cuckooing, whereby criminals take over the home of another person without that person's consent to use it for specified criminal activity, if certain conditions are met. The creation of that offence will ensure that there is a mechanism through which to prosecute those responsible for that despicable practice and the harm that they cause. It will also improve identification and safeguarding of victims who no longer feel safe in their home.

The second measure relates to the possession of advice or guidance on creating child sexual abuse images — "paedophile manuals", as they are more commonly referred to — by amending the current offence of possession of a paedophile manual that is contained at section 69 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. That offence criminalises the possession of any item that involves advice or guidance about abusing children sexually but explicitly excludes advice or guidance related to pseudo images. The new provision will therefore close a loophole in the offence by extending the definition of the current section 69 offence to capture possession of guidance on producing AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

The third measure relates to the management of sex offenders and aims to strengthen and streamline the current sex offender notification requirements contained at Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The requirements are more commonly referred to as "the sex offenders register", and are automatically applied to offenders who are convicted of or cautioned for a specific sexual offence. They form an essential part of offender risk management and are considered to be an invaluable tool for the police, in conjunction with the other public protection authorities, in managing the risk of sexual harm that an offender presents whilst in the community. Practically, they enable the authorities to know the whereabouts of relevant offenders so that they can respond to any matters arising as quickly as possible.

The fourth measure introduces a new offence of spiking. The Government are repealing sections 22 to 25 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and replacing sections 23 and 24 with a single offence of administering a harmful substance, including by spiking. The aim is to increase public awareness that spiking is illegal and encourage victims to report those incidents to the police.

The fifth measure provides for a new offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm. It replaces the provision in the Online Safety Act 2023 with a broader offence to cover all means by which serious self-harm may be encouraged or assisted, including by any means of communication and any other way.

The sixth measure introduces new offences relating to electronic devices for use in vehicle theft. That criminalises the possession, importation, manufacture, adaptation, supply or offer of supply, and possession of electronic devices such a signal jammers, signal amplifiers and devices that are used to access a vehicle's wiring system to commit a relevant offence such as stealing a vehicle, stealing anything in a vehicle or taking a vehicle without authority.

The seventh measure sets out extensive reforms to the existing confiscation regime for the proceeds of crime under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which aim to improve the process for making confiscation orders, ensure the fairness and transparency of the confiscation regime and optimise the enforcement of confiscation orders.

The eighth measure introduces cost protections in relation to proceeds of crime and civil proceedings for enforcement agencies. That mirrors the approach taken in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which amended the unexplained wealth order provisions.

The ninth measure relates to the implementation of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements. That is a future-proofing measure that ensures that UK agencies can continue to share information with overseas partners to facilitate mutual assistance in criminal investigations.

Finally, the tenth measure extends criminal liability to all instances in which a senior manager commits an offence whilst acting within the scope of their actual or apparent authority. That is known as the "identification doctrine reform" and replaces the provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which was limited to economic crime.

That is the summary of the measures for which I am seeking legislative consent today. For completeness, Members may also wish to note that the Bill, at introduction, included at clause 95 a transferred provision to extend access to driving licensing information held by the GB DVLA to police and law enforcement agencies. Due to ongoing policy development with the Home Office, I am not seeking legislative consent for that provision at this stage. I will bring forward at least one further legislative consent motion to cover measures that have been, and are expected to be, added, subject to the approval of the Executive Office Committee and the Justice Committee. That concludes the overview of the Bill.

As Minister of Justice, it is, of course, my preference to legislate for devolved matters through the Assembly. However, the extension of the provisions in my motion will ensure that there is consistency across the UK in tackling certain kinds of criminality. It also provides important safeguards for victims. We know that certain types of organised crime know and recognise no boundaries and so should be handled consistently across every jurisdiction. Utilising this Westminster Bill is the most efficient and expedient way to legislate for these matters and prevents a situation in which Northern Ireland becomes a lacuna that is attractive to organised crime. I hope that the legislative consent motion will have the support of the House, and I look forward to listening to Members as they contribute to the debate.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister. I call Joanne Bunting, Chair of the Justice Committee.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. As you said, I will speak on the motion as Chair of the Committee for Justice. I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession.

The Minister has outlined the purpose and detail of the LCM, so I will focus on the Committee's approach to it. Having initially been advised by the Minister in January that His Majesty's Government intended to introduce the Crime and Policing Bill, and that it was highly likely that she would be seeking the Committee's agreement to the laying of an LCM, we asked the Department to provide us with details of the measures in the Bill that it had been informed or had anticipated would apply to Northern Ireland, including those for which legislative consent may be required. The Committee also requested a clear indication of the time frame for the Bill's introduction. The Department responded by stating that, as details of the Bill had been shared with officials in confidence and were not yet in the public domain, it was unable to share any further information at that time.

On 26 February, the Committee was informed by the Department that the Bill had been introduced in Parliament the previous day. The Committee was asked whether it was content in principle for an LCM to be sought on the transferred matters that extend or apply to Northern Ireland. The Department advised that the current legislative programme means that it would not be possible to bring forward equivalent legislation via an Assembly Bill before the next mandate at the earliest and that any delay in legislating in the areas that the Minister outlined would create lacunas, as she said, thus leaving Northern Ireland more vulnerable to serious and economic crime. It was, therefore, the Department's view that an LCM was the most timely, reasonable and proportionate way to proceed.

At our meeting on 27 February, Committee members expressed concerns about the lack of engagement on the Bill until that point. It was noted that, although the Committee had been informed that the Department could not share certain information with it at that time, the Department had liaised with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and the PSNI on the Bill. The Committee agreed to invite departmental officials to provide evidence and to answer questions on the Bill at its meeting on 20 March. A number of our questions were answered during that session. We also sought follow-up information on a range of issues, including the Home Office human rights memorandum; the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission advice; details of international law enforcement information-sharing agreements and who has access to the relevant databases; clarification on why the provisions apply only to the GB driving licence database; information on the consideration of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); information on any potential costs to the PSNI of implementing the proposed new measures; details of penalties or sentences that are to be applied to any new offences; and information on any forthcoming regulations in relation to the LCM, including what procedure will be applied.

At its meeting on 1 May, the Committee considered the Department's response, which included the advice that the Department had received from the NIHRC and the details that were requested on new offences, regulations and information-sharing agreements. The Department clarified that provisions in the Bill relate to information that is held under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which does not apply to Northern Ireland. Those provisions, therefore, cannot apply to licences that are issued in Northern Ireland. The Department also set out its view that the provisions in the Bill that relate to registered sex offenders (RSOs) and amendments to the paedophile manual will increase protections for children and are, therefore, in line with the UNCRC.

The Committee engaged further with the Department on matters relating to the notification requirements for the management of sex offenders and access to the DVLA database and sought clarification on whether the reference to "encouraging or assisting serious self-harm" extended to suicide. We also sought information from the PSNI on the parameters or guidelines that will be put in place for the powers under which the police can initiate the removal of an RSO from the requirement for indefinite notification; that is, removing them from the sex offenders register.

The Department and PSNI's responses both advised that the procedures and criteria that will be applied by police when initiating the removal of an RSO will mirror those that are already in place to manage a request for removal from the register by an RSO themselves. The Department's response clarified that it is already an offence under existing legislation to commit an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting another person to take, or to attempt to take, their own life. The Department also informed the Committee that, at that stage, due to ongoing policy development, consent was not being sought on clause 95, which relates to the GB driving licence database.

A further evidence session with departmental officials was held on 29 May. During that session, officials responded to further queries from members about the removal of RSOs from the sex offenders register. Officials also outlined the implications should legislative consent not be approved for the provisions that are outlined in the LCM.

Having considered the written and oral evidence that was received, the Committee agreed on 29 May that it was content with the proposal to extend the provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland by way of a legislative consent motion.

I will now speak as Justice spokesperson for the DUP. Of course, we welcome any good legislation that closes gaps and strengthens the hand of law enforcement. We welcome the new offence of cuckooing. It is important that legislation is in place to deal with that rising crime, which is already happening in Northern Ireland. It is entirely wrong that homes, including those of the vulnerable and elderly, are exploited in that manner.

We are delighted to see additional powers against those who would seek to encourage and educate others with regard to child sexual exploitation images and to use AI for such sinister and depraved purposes. Following a visit to the National Crime Agency as a member of the Policing Board, I am aware of the difficulties that currently exist when such images of abuse are discovered, because, of course, as a result of technological advancement, the first thing that enforcement must establish is whether the child in question is real or is, in fact, a generated image. Time spent on that is essentially time lost in potentially saving a child, so a law that ensures that those images, too, are an offence must be welcomed by all right-thinking people and is another step towards the law keeping pace with crime.

In the course of Committee scrutiny on the LCM, we sought several reassurances around various matters relating to registered sex offenders to ensure that the community protections were not diminished and around the self-harm offences, as I outlined earlier, that could also be used by those with sinister ends. However, the irony is not lost on us on this side of the House that the mother of Parliaments wishes to enhance the offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm whilst, deeply regrettably and shamefully, passing far-reaching legislation on the ending of life through abortion and assisted dying legislation. I reiterate that we in the DUP value life and cherish its sanctity and dignity at every stage.

In a previous debate in this place, we discussed the impact and extent of spiking, particularly on young women. To see a stand-alone and modernised offence is also a step forward.

Overall, we in the DUP welcome the LCM and the strengthening that it affords regarding various offences. We support it and commend it to the House.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I support the legislative consent motion on crime and policing. As a member of the Justice Committee and the SDLP's spokesperson on Justice, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to a legislative framework that better protects our communities.

The SDLP welcomes the provisions of the LCM as timely, necessary and responsive to the real-world harms that individuals and communities face. Notably, the introduction of a specific offence of spiking is positive. That reflects the growing concern, particularly among young people, around personal safety in nightlife and social settings. It is something that my party colleagues Cara Hunter, Sinéad McLaughlin and Councillor Doire Finn have complained about and campaigned on for some time. It is a shame that it has not been introduced sooner by the Executive.

I also highlight the introduction of a new offence of cuckooing, a deeply exploitative practice where criminals take over the home of a vulnerable person to facilitate drug-dealing or other illegal activity. It is a growing and deeply damaging tactic used by organised crime groups, and the recognition of it in law is overdue and welcome.

I am satisfied that the provisions of the LCM will have a positive impact in the North. It is, however, important to note that the Chief Constable has repeatedly highlighted his serious concerns about officer numbers and overall funding for the police. We have disturbing figures today that only 17% of the police force is from a Catholic, nationalist background. What is going on? Given the new offences and wider ramifications of the LCM, I call on the Minister of Justice to ensure that the Police Service is given sufficient resources to facilitate the new provisions —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Justin.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

— to ensure that they have the desired impact.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Justin, I ask you to return to the matter of the debate, please.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

I have finished.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am sorry for interrupting you. That is procedure.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

That is OK.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I appreciate that.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister, who gave an outline of what is included in the LCM, and the Chair, Joanne, who gave a breakdown of the scrutiny that the Committee tried to apply within the time frame that it had. As Members have highlighted, the Bill creates new offences for which consent is sought through the LCM, including the cuckooing offence in particular. It also includes guidance on child sex abuse, greater provisions to strengthen the notification requirements for sex offenders on the register and the new offence of spiking. The Committee looked at those issues. As part of our deliberations, we looked at engaging the Human Rights Commission in order to have a local understanding of the provisions. Subsequently, there were questions for the PSNI on the implementation of the provisions once the Bill passes in Westminster.

It is also important to put on record, as we did in the Committee report, that the legislation covers a number of reserved or excepted matters over which the Assembly has no oversight. We cannot properly scrutinise them. The Human Rights Commission here raised concerns about those excepted matters, and I take the opportunity to put those concerns on the record.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I will put on record some short remarks on the principle of extending the Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland through the legislative consent motion.

The Bill covers a broad range of devolved matters that will play a key role in ensuring public order and enabling deeper safety across our communities. Given the constricted length of the mandate and its shorter accompanying legislative programme, the Bill provides a key opportunity for the Minister and her Department to make progress and provide additional protection for vulnerable people. That includes the integral creation of offences that will protect our children and young people through the criminalisation of possession of advice or guidance about creating child sex abuse images.

Many across the House know that a particular focus of mine is on how we can work across government to tackle violence against women and girls. In that vein, it would be remiss of me not to draw attention to the opportunity that the Bill has created for the Minister to deliver a new stand-alone offence of spiking, of which women and girls make up the majority of victims. Spiking is truly an abhorrent act. Many of us across the Chamber will know someone who has experienced that atrocious crime, yet, at the same time, research by Drinkaware shows that 90% of drink-spiking incidents across the UK go unreported. Alliance is committed to supporting all victims of crime. The creation of the spiking offence will help to reverse that under-reporting and act as a powerful deterrent for those who seek to take advantage of others. The clarity that the offence brings can help us to improve police data collection and increase our understanding of the prevalence of spiking in our clubs, bars, nightlife and even our homes. Such understanding will mean that we can better tackle its occurrence and protect victims.

The Bill will allow the better protection of all our constituents, giving additional tools to police to deal with the outworkings and detection of crime. I hope that all across the Chamber will join Alliance in passing the LCM.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The last Member to speak will be the Minister of Justice to conclude and wind up the debate.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate and thank in particular the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee, who oversaw the scrutiny of the LCM.

I will turn to some of the points that Members raised during the debate, which was constructive. To be clear, any engagement that we had with others, including the PSNI or the Human Rights Commission, was on the same broad terms as with the Committee. Unfortunately, we cannot share the detail of the content of legislation until it is published in Westminster. That is the same courtesy as we would expect to be shown to this House. There is also the issue that things were being added at the last minute of which we were not aware. The Committee may therefore have found itself frustrated that we were briefing that something was in the Bill that was then out of it or that was out and then in. There is a challenge in that regard, which is why it would always be my first preference to introduce legislation here ourselves. That would allow us to have more detailed scrutiny. However, the Bill is a valuable opportunity for us to update the measures, and, as the Committee Chair said, it is important that we take a robust stance on the issues. Many of the criminal offences covered in the Bill, whether that is cuckooing, child sexual abuse or the actions of sexual offenders more generally, deal with some of the most vulnerable victims that we will have to deal with. It is important that we keep pace not just with technology but with what is happening more widely in the criminal space.

I thank Members who highlighted the issue of indefinite notification requirements. The benefit of that provision — this partly answers Mr McNulty's point — is that it will allow the PSNI to look at the lowest-risk offenders and, where it feels that that risk is no longer valid, remove individuals from the register. That allows the PSNI to concentrate its scarce resources on the highest-risk offenders. It is important that it is always about balancing out proportionally where those resources have to go. We all want those high-risk offenders to be the subject of increased scrutiny. The provision will allow the opportunity to do that under an own motion process. There is already a process whereby the offender themselves can ask to be removed from the register, but this will allow the PSNI to initiate a review if it feels that that is appropriate to do so. To be clear, however, that will apply only to category 1 sex offenders — those who are in the lowest risk category — and removal will take place only in those cases where all of the partners are content that the risk is mitigated in other ways.

I know that Members have a particular interest in the issue of spiking. The new clause has the potential to improve police data collection and gain a better understanding of the prevalence of spiking. A number of Members, including my colleague Connie Egan, spoke about the fact that it is an under-reported crime. There is embarrassment, fear of not being believed and the assumption that, if there is not a specific offence to deal with it, it will not be dealt with by the courts. All of those things together can dissuade people from coming forward and reporting. There is an opportunity through this legislation to raise public awareness, deter individuals from engaging in the criminal offence, provide a platform to allow meaningful data to be collated and allow strategic and developmental planning to address that behaviour in future. There is currently no substantive data that will tell us the prevalence of spiking. Given the broad nature of the existing offences, it is hard to measure it. We do not have specific data on spiking, but this will allow us to capture that.

I am not sure that I fully understood Mr McNulty's point about the Executive not doing this. The bottom line is that we are doing it: we are doing it today via the LCM and in the most expeditious manner possible. That is what everybody would want us to do so that this will be available to people in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity.

I hope that, in my introductory remarks and my response to Members' queries, I have shown that the Bill's provisions will not only strengthen the ability of our law enforcement agencies and the courts to tackle serious and organised crime but ensure that we do not fall behind the rest of the UK in our response to the issues. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 25 February 2025, dealing with: an offence of cuckooing (contained in Part 4, clauses 32 to 34 and 35(2), (3) and (4)(c) and Part 3 of schedule 5); an updated offence to deal with advice or guidance on creating child sexual abuse material (contained in Part 5, clause 37); management of sex offenders (contained in Part 5, clauses 59, 61 to 63, 65, 66(1), 67 and 68 and schedule 9); administrating etc harmful substances (including by spiking) (contained in Part 7, clause 73); encouraging or assisting serious self-harm (contained in Part 7, clauses 74 and 75); electronic devices for use in vehicle offences (contained in Part 8, clauses 78 and 79); proceeds of crime relating to confiscation (contained in Part 11, clause 102(2) and schedule 15); proceeds of civil recovery: costs and expenses (contained in Part 11, clause 103); international law enforcement data sharing agreements (contained in Part 15, clauses 127, 128 and 129); and criminal liability of bodies and partnerships (contained in Part 15, clause 130).

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, as amended in the House of Commons on 19 March 2025, dealing with sharing of information (sharing of trailer data by DVLA) (contained in Part 1, clauses 30 to 33); offences relating to articles for use in serious crime (contained in Part 3, clauses 45 to 47); breach of an interim serious crime preventions order in non-terrorist cases (contained in Part 3, clause 49); and validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications (clause 53) (in respect of the Department of Education’s (England) UK ENIC services insofar as they relate to education) of the Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion and speak about the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament.

The Bill was introduced in Westminster on 30 January 2025. Its overall intention is to create a framework of new, enhanced powers and offences to improve UK border security and to strengthen the asylum and immigration system. The Bill also contains various measures that will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies and the courts to tackle serious and organised crime.

The Bill contains a mix of excepted and reserved measures, some of which apply or are extended to Northern Ireland. There are, however, four matters that are transferred and therefore require legislative consent. In the interests of transparency, Members will wish to note that, as part of the parliamentary process, two revised versions of the Bill have been published since its introduction. That means that some of the clause numbers have changed. Indeed, as the Bill is currently at the House of Lords Committee Stage, I imagine that a further revised version of the Bill will soon be published. Today, I will refer to the clause numbers as set out in the memorandum and motion. Those relate to the Bill as amended in the House of Commons on 19 March 2025. I should emphasise that, whilst revised versions of the Bill have been published, there have been no amendments to any of the measures that require legislative consent today. Apart from the clause numbers, they remain unchanged.

I also want to highlight the fact that the majority of the measures contained in the Bill do not relate to my Department, and I have not been consulted or engaged with on those measures. I am aware that the Home Office Minister wrote to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, but I have not had sight of that correspondence. I understand, however, that none of the measures that are of wider interest to the Executive Office requires legislative consent.

My interest today is in three measures that require legislative consent and that fall within the remit of the Department of Justice and in one further measure that falls to the Department for the Economy. In the interests of expediency and the effective utilisation of Assembly time, it was agreed that I would bring a single legislative consent motion (LCM) to the Assembly on behalf of the Department of Justice and the Department for the Economy. I am therefore pleased to lead on this joint motion.

Turning to the matters in the Bill that engage the legislative consent process, I will now provide an overview of the measures for which I seek the Assembly's legislative consent. The first establishes a framework allowing the Secretary of State for Transport, through the GB Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to share trailer registration information with specific government bodies including the police. It authorises the Secretary of State for Transport to supply trailer registration information to the Home Office and designated law enforcement bodies, including the UK police forces, HM Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency. It sets out how information shared under the legislation can be passed on by recipients, such as the Home Office or authorised policing personnel, allowing further disclosure to other public functionaries in the UK or abroad for specified purposes related to policing, criminal investigations, law enforcement purposes and safeguarding national security. The draft legislation ensures that those provisions do not override data protection or investigatory powers laws and clarifies definitions, including who qualifies as an authorised person or officer, and empowers the Secretary of State to define specific policing purposes, through regulations, after consulting the relevant stakeholders, such as police representatives, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice.

The second is a measure to create two new criminal offences relating to articles for use in serious crime. It includes possession of a specified article that will be used in connection with a serious offence and importing, manufacturing, adapting, supplying or offering to supply a specified article where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the article will be used in any serious offence. The specified articles are defined in the legislation and include vehicle concealments used to transport illicit goods, templates for 3D-printed firearms components, an encapsulator, which is used to fake drugs and tablets, and tablet presses which, again, are used in the supply of illegal drugs.

A serious offence is defined as one that is specified in Part 2 of schedule A to the Serious Crime Act 2007. The associated penalty on summary conviction is imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum, or, on conviction on indictment, imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a fine or both. The legislation includes a delegated power to allow the Secretary of State to amend the list of specified articles via secondary legislation. There is a requirement to consult the Department of Justice before doing so. Any changes must be considered by Parliament. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 by adding the offences to the criminal lifestyle offences at schedule 5.

The third measure extends the offence of a breach of an interim serious crime prevention order. The extension of that measure to all jurisdictions of the UK is to maintain the integrity of the offence and ensure enforcement. It is the only offence of a breach that engages legislative consent. The associated penalty is on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both, or, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a fine or both.

The final measure falls to the Department for the Economy. The clause deals with the validation of fees that are charged for the UK National Information Centre (UK ENIC) service. The UK ENIC service is the UK's national information centre for the recognition and evaluation of international qualifications and is used by the Department for the Economy's Careers Service.

That concludes the overview of the Bill. As Minister of Justice, my preference is always to legislate for devolved matters through the Assembly. For the measures that fall to the Department of Justice specifically, however, Members will appreciate the very serious nature of the criminality that the clauses aim to deal with. I am hopeful that Members will in this instance agree that the extension of the Westminster Bill to Northern Ireland via legislative consent is the most efficient and expedient way in which to legislate for the matters that are before the House. I hope that the legislative consent motion will have Members' support.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I speak again as Chairman of the Committee for Justice and make the same declaration of interest as I did previously. Once again, the Minister has already explained the purpose and detail of the LCM, so I will focus on the Committee's approach to it and, indeed, the process followed for it.

At its meeting on 1 May 2025, the Committee considered a written paper from the Department of Justice advising of the Bill's introduction and outlining the provisions for which legislative consent would be required. The Department's paper also advised that, as the legislative consent memorandum could not be laid within the time frame that was required under Standing Orders, it was the Department's intention to lay a memorandum under Standing Order 42A(4)(b) in order to ensure that all Members were aware of the Bill. The paper further advised that, in due course, a legislative consent memorandum would be laid and that a legislative consent motion would be tabled, subject to Executive agreement and the views of the Committee. The Committee agreed to request an oral evidence session with departmental officials to discuss the proposal, which was subsequently scheduled for 29 May. A memorandum dated 13 May that advised that consent was not being sought was laid by the Department on 14 May. The memorandum stated:

"It is the view of the Department that further time is needed to fully engage with partners, the Executive and the Justice Committee. Following this engagement, it is the intention of the Minister to bring forward a Legislative Consent Motion and Memorandum."

A legislative consent memorandum was laid and a motion seeking consent was tabled under Standing Order 42A(4)(a) the very next day, however, before any further engagement with the Committee took place. At the Committee meeting on 29 May, departmental officials explained that a memorandum not seeking consent should have been laid under Standing Order 42A(4)(b) around the time that the Committee received the initial briefing on 23 April, so it was laid later than intended, in what officials described as an "administrative error".

Nevertheless, the clock had started on the process before the Committee had received its oral briefing, hence members expressed frustration at the time that was available to scrutinise the LCM. Officials advised that the initial engagement from Westminster had been with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and that the Bill had moved through its legislative stages in Westminster at pace, thus making the legislative consent process particularly challenging. Ultimately, the Committee was informed that the Department did not want to risk laying an LCM when it did, as it was concerned that the Bill might complete its passage and gain Royal Assent before the summer recess period at Westminster.

Committee members, understandably concerned about the LCM process, questioned officials on whether they had had sufficient time to consult partners, as necessary, on the provisions for which legislative consent was being sought. The officials advised that the Department had been able to work through all the points that had been raised and that it was content to proceed with the LCM.

Members also asked officials about the input of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and whether its views on the compliance of clauses 30 to 33 with article 2 of the Windsor framework were similar to those outlined in the Government's human rights memorandum. The Committee was advised that, as recommended by the NIHRC, the Department had sought an expanded memorandum from the Home Office, with the latter confirming that it had conducted its own article 2 analysis and was content that there was no diminution of rights. The Committee was further advised that the Department had shared that information with the HRC, which had nothing further to add at that time. A written paper from the Department stated:

"determining compatibility with Article 2 will also depend on an assessment of the ... regulations to be made under Clause 32(8)".

The Committee questioned the officials on whether the Department or the Assembly would have a role to play in considering the regulations and was advised that the Secretary of State for Transport would have the power to make the regulations and that, although there was no role for the Assembly to play, the Department of Justice would be consulted on them.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

I am aware that the Department wrote to the Committee on Friday to advise of an amendment to clause 33(9), which will fall under the scope of this LCM. Although that correspondence was circulated to Members in advance of today's debate, the Committee has, obviously, not had the opportunity to consider it. I therefore cannot speak on the Committee's behalf in respect of that. I do note, however, that the Department has advised that the Minister is satisfied that the amendment will strengthen the clause to make it explicit that the Secretary of State must consult with the DOJ before making regulations.

I return to the oral evidence session on 29 May. The Committee also asked questions regarding the reversal of the evidential burden of proof in relation to articles that are used in serious crime. Officials advised that the articles in question would rarely be used in everyday business. A pill press, for example, is not an item that a person would usually have, and its primary purpose is likely to be associated with criminal activity. A defendant caught with such an item would not be required to prove innocence, but, instead, to provide a plausible explanation as to why they had it. If they were able to do so, the burden of proof would revert to the prosecution. The Department therefore considered that measure to be proportionate for the offences.

The Committee also asked the Committee for the Economy for its views on the provisions that will fall under the remit of the Department for the Economy. Those relate to the validation of fees that are charged in relation to qualifications. The Committee for the Economy advised that, as there will be no material change to the UK National Information Centre's services, it was content with the request for legislative consent for that provision.

Following consideration of the LCM that was laid before the Assembly on 15 May and the evidence that was received at the meeting of 29 May, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal to extend the provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to Northern Ireland by way of a legislative consent motion.

As the DUP's justice spokesperson, I note that, primarily, the aspects for which the Department is seeking consent relate to serious and organised crime, including measures that are likely related to the potential trafficking, smuggling or production of drugs or components for weapons. We are content to support those measures and the LCM that is before the House.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

As a member of the Committee for Justice and as the SDLP's spokesperson on justice, I support the legislative consent motion on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The LCM relates to provisions that will strengthen operational cooperation in addressing issues such as trafficking, illegal migration and organised crime. It seeks to equip our justice partners with the necessary tools, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and oversight, and recognises that effective cooperation between agencies is vital in tackling exploitation, trafficking and cross-border criminality.

However, I also take this opportunity to underline something equally important in the wider context of the Bill. The way that we talk about these issues matters. We must be careful to avoid sensationalism or language that dehumanises individuals. I have been deeply concerned at some of the language that I have heard, the deliberate spreading of misinformation and the misleading of people that I have witnessed from lead political parties in the Executive in recent weeks. This is not about vulnerable people fleeing conflict; it about tackling criminals who profit from exploiting those vulnerable people.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Actually, will the Member get back to what is in the LCM?

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Border security and immigration are complex and sensitive topics that affect real people who are often in incredibly vulnerable circumstances. Although the SDLP is content to support the LCM, it believes that it is essential that we approach these matters with a sense of balance, responsibility, sensitivity and respect.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for bringing the LCM to the House. The Chair of the Committee outlined the in-depth scrutiny that we tried to do at the Committee with the devolved provisions that pertain to the LCM. We also tried to engage with the Human Rights Commission and others for advice. There are a number of devolved implications, which the Minister and the Chair outlined. There are also regulations and amendments that have come forward, on which the Committee is still engaging.

I know that the Minister highlighted the fact that the LCM will enhance protections around engaging DOJ, but if clauses 30 to 33 pertain to the DVLA, what engagement will there be with the Infrastructure Minister? That is a concern that we raised, and I know that the Committee will look at that in more detail at Thursday's Committee meeting.

I put on record and highlight the fact that there is a range of excepted matters that do not fall under the Assembly's control. When you look at where the Bill initially came from, you see that it came from the Tory Party in Britain and the Rwanda policy, which is proposed to be repealed and is also a reserved matter. Key aspects of the reserved matters are draconian, and we have concerns about their human rights implications. Again, I highlight the fact that, whilst the LCM process is welcomed, huge swathes of the legislation that will have an impact here are excepted matters, and the Assembly does not have proper scrutiny of and oversight into those and cannot feed into them. We also know through Committee deliberations that the Human Rights Commission here raised concerns, particularly about the compliance of article 2 of the Windsor framework. We know that the Human Rights Commission was going to publish further information and a further detailed report on that aspect of the work. In fairness to the Human Rights Commission, it engaged with the Department. The Department made representations to the Home Office, which said that, under its human rights deliberations, there was nowhere else to go on the matter. However, we still have concerns about that area of work, particularly the impact of article 2 of the Windsor framework.

The Committee and, indeed, my party highlighted concerns about the pace of the Bill. The Department also highlighted those concerns. We were concerned that it was moving at such a pace through Westminster that engagement with key partners to look at the impact of the provisions — reserved and devolved — was limited. I thank the departmental officials for their engagement with the Committee on the concerns and queries that were raised and for trying to answer those as well as they could.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I put on record my support and that of my Alliance colleagues for the legislative consent motion endorsing the extension of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to Northern Ireland. Whilst it is, of course, preferable to legislate on devolved matters through an Assembly Bill, legislative consent motions have an important role to play in providing a timely and reasonable approach to how we across the Chamber ensure that Northern Ireland has much-needed provisions that deliver for the benefit of the public.

The measures in the Bill that are relevant to the Department of Justice are about enabling more effective interventions to protect UK border security, making it easier for police and defence forces to disrupt and detect those who are engaged in crime. The Bill is incredibly pertinent to national security. Once it becomes law, it is vital that the Department and its operational partners work collectively to ensure its successful implementation. Establishing a framework to allow for the sharing of trailer registration information with specific government bodies is a practical and useful tool for the detection of crime, and the provisions relating to serious crime more broadly expand the legislative apparatus to tackle criminality across the United Kingdom.

Passing the motion will send a clear message from the Assembly to all those who are engaged in criminality that we will do everything that is within our gift as political representatives to prevent and intervene in their activities. Alliance is committed to working collectively to ensure that those who put our communities at risk and exploit vulnerable people for their own gain do not go unchallenged. The principles of the motion will allow the Assembly to protect the people whom we serve. I hope that that is why colleagues across the Chamber will vote positively today.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The legislative consent motion covers just nine clauses of a 90-page Bill. Those clauses deal with trailer data, crime prevention orders and qualification fees. However, it completely sidesteps the issue that matters most for Northern Ireland: the open land border with the Irish Republic. Clause 2 empowers the new border security commander to set UK-wide strategic priorities, yet there is no mention — not a single line — about the land border or illegal immigration into Northern Ireland. That omission is not a technical oversight; it is a political failure and a refusal to confront reality. When the Bill was before the Commons, Jim Shannon MP secured assurances from the Minister that the PSNI and the guards would cooperate on border threats. Is the Justice Minister willing to give those same assurances to the House here today? Last week, 'The Irish News' reported that the guards are carrying out bus checks near the border. What equivalent checks and efforts are being made here in Northern Ireland? Traffickers are exploiting that weakness —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Gaston, you, like Mr McNulty, need to get back to addressing the LCM. I know that you would like to expand it a little, but we need to stick to the subject. Thank you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will do so, but I highlight a recent article in 'The Telegraph', which exposed how Albanian crime gangs openly advertise a safe route into the UK via Dublin, charging £4,000 per person. When contacted, the PSNI failed to comment. Meanwhile, in Ballymena's G3 area, over 52% of residents have arrived here within the past decade, many via the Republic, bringing sharp demographic change and raising community tensions. The Minister tells us that there is no data —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Can we now get back to the —?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— to justify concerns about immigration in the area.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Can we get back to the LCM, please?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— Mr Speaker, I will, but I encourage the Minister to look at the 2021 census data. Furthermore, ask yourself this: with no border checks, records or enforcement, how could any other form of data exist?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that there is serious concern about the LCM before us today? It refers only to symptoms and has a singular focus on enforcement; it does not mention root causes, which is what he is referring to. Although there may be enforcement powers, they are so limited in scope that they miss the very obvious question of an open border. We simply do not know the level of illegal immigration that is crossing that border.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Absolutely. I appreciate the Member's intervention. The problem with the LCM today is that it does not look at the root causes. That is why we have ended up in Northern Ireland with the problems that we have seen over the past number of weeks.

The motion may be limited, but the problem is not: Northern Ireland is being used as a back door into the UK.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to give way.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Does the Member agree that some of the cause of the problems over the past few weeks has been the people who have actively targeted homes, set fire to homes and rioted on our streets, not just the issue in the LCM?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Gaston, I ask you to ignore that, because, again, it is completely away from what is in the motion, and to try to stick to what is in the motion, please.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Taking your advice, I will close by saying that there is nothing compassionate or liberal about ignoring the issues. The situation is being actively exploited by smugglers, traffickers and criminal gangs. I urge the Minister to act by securing dedicated enforcement funding, insisting on cross-border action and stopping criminal gangs from exploiting our border and communities.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank most of the Members who contributed to the debate today. I will address some of the issues that they raised. It would be helpful if Members did not chunter from a sedentary position. It seems that Mr Buckley is at his most noisy —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

There you go. Sneering.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

— when his knees are bent. Perhaps he should bend them in different ways —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

The sneering and laughing Minister.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

— and allow people to speak without interruption.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister, you sat in another House in which the chuntering here would be whispers.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Hear, hear.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

You are an experienced and skilled politician —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Hear, hear.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

— and a very able orator. A little distraction from the sidelines should not be sufficient to put you off your stride. It certainly is not sufficient to put people off their stride at Westminster. I aspire to a House in which we have vibrant discussions and debates —

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Hear, hear.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

— rather than its being like a school class, where everybody sits in absolute silence. Please continue.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Hear, hear.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, I am not sure where you went to school, but courtesy was taught in my school. People shouting across another when they are speaking is rude.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Then stop the sneering remarks.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is rude in Parliament, and it is rude in the Assembly.

I wish to return to the issue and move on with what I have to say about Committee engagement.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Will the Minister give way?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, of course.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Does the Minister think that language must also be monitored in relation to people's homes being attacked in the past few weeks? Misinformation of a racist nature was used to whip up the crowd, resulting in front living rooms being set on fire, pregnant women having to flee and families having to hide in their lofts from what the PSNI described as racist mobs. Language should be moderate at times when people are being attacked in their home.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I agree. A rule of thumb is that the more sensitive the issue, the more moderate the language required. Some Members would do well to take account of that in their contributions.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister give way?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I wish to move on to the matter of Committee engagement, which was raised by the Chair of the Committee. I thank the Chair and Committee members for their work on the LCM. The LCM is limited in nature, and I will address that.

The nature and overall topic of the Bill made initial engagement quite complex because the vast majority of the measures in it are reserved or excepted. I know that Members want to have a debate about immigration, and they are free to do so. The debate on this LCM is not, however, the forum in which to do that, because the LCM is on a reserved matter — immigration — and the only measures for which I need legislative consent are the devolved measures. The boundaries between reserved and excepted matters and devolved matters are clearly established, and I am not responsible for reserved and excepted matters. Members continue to make pointless charges that I should do something about immigration enforcement when I do not have the vires to do so. Border Force is responsible for the enforcement of border law in Northern Ireland, under the direct charge of the Home Office.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister give way?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Given that Members are so concerned about illegal immigration, you would expect them to do their homework and to know that.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, I will not give way to the Member. The Member has plenty to say —

[Interruption.]

The Member has had plenty to say while he has been sitting down, and I will certainly not give way to him while he continues to shout.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

[Inaudible.]

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Home Office originally wrote the First Minister and deputy First Minister. My Department, because of its limited role in the matter, was not engaged by the Home Office. However, given that no measures falling within the Bill require the consent of the Executive Office, I took the decision to move forward with an LCM for those issues, as I set out in my introductory remarks, that fall within the remit of Justice, recognising that it has only a limited vires in respect of immigration. A further complicating factor was that there was a measure in the Bill that required the consent of the Department for the Economy. My Department agreed that it could use our LCM to progress that.

The Committee received a briefing on 23 April to alert it to the measures in the Bill. A further paper was provided on 22 May, alongside the legislative consent motion and memorandum seeking consent. Departmental officials provided oral evidence to the Committee on 29 May. I note that the Committee's report on the Bill was published on 5 June.

I thank the Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill and its subsequent report, but I understand its frustration, because LCMs always happen at pace and often engage complex and sensitive issues. I was pleased to note that no substantive concerns were raised and that the Committee was content to support my decision to seek Assembly endorsement of those matters that require legislative consent, as opposed to those that are legislated for, rightly, by Westminster.

Why was the memorandum laid the day before the full legislative consent motion? As Members will understand, and as officials have already explained and apologised for to the Committee, that was due to an administrative error. The memorandum should have been laid following the correspondence with the Executive and the Justice Committee on 23 April. I apologise if that frustrated the Committee's work in any way.

The Home Office has overall responsibility for the measures in the wider Bill and for immigration in Northern Ireland, just as it does for immigration in every other part of the UK. The Executive Office has an interest in some measures in the Bill, but none of those requires legislative consent; they are all under the vires of the Home Office as they are excepted or reserved matters. The three measures that I have brought forward fall within the legislative competency of my Department, and the fourth rests with the Department for the Economy.

The Home Office wrote to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. I have therefore engaged with the Home Office in relation only to the measures in the Bill that are within the remit of my Department, rather than on the wider Bill. I note that the Member raised the issue of what the PSNI is doing. This morning, I set out in detail the work of the joint agency task force in disrupting organised crime gangs, which include those who engage in people smuggling. The Policing Board has been working with the PSNI on, in particular, Albanian people smugglers who advertise online.

The Deputy Chair of the Committee asked what engagement we need with the Infrastructure Minister. The clause about sharing trailer registration information is not cross-cutting. It establishes a framework to allow the Secretary of State for Transport, through the GB Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to share trailer and registration information with specific government bodies, including the police. The Driver and Vehicle Agency in Northern Ireland does not register trailers, including Northern Ireland trailers. The DVLA carries out that function for Northern Ireland trailers that require registration, so there is no cross-cutting element to that part of the legislation.

A wider point has been made today that I should do x, y or z in relation to immigration. Where immigration crime is part of the organised crime disruption process and, for example, things like unexplained wealth orders or other Criminal Finances Act 2017 measures can be deployed, of course they will be used to prevent those who exploit human misery and exploit the vulnerable from being able to profit from that. That falls within the remit of the Department of Justice. Specific immigration laws, which are reserved and excepted matters, do not. They are dealt with at UK level. They are not devolved in Scotland; they are not devolved in Wales; and they are not devolved in Northern Ireland. I cannot do the Home Secretary's job for her any more than she can delve into matters that are devolved to the Assembly. That is why I stand here today, proposing a legislative consent motion to seek the permission of the House for the Home Secretary to take action on the issues for which I have responsibility. I do not have responsibility for the remainder of the Bill. These are the elements for which I have responsibility, and that is why I propose the motion.

I hope that it is clear to Members that the Bill will not only strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies and the courts to tackle serious and organised crime but ensure that we do not fall behind the rest of the UK in our response to those issues. We, as an Assembly, need to take these matters seriously, and it is not helpful, frankly, to level wider narratives about inactivity on the part of the PSNI or, indeed, the DOJ. That undermines public confidence and is unjust in the context of the matter not being devolved and our having no vires to act. Where we do, we have acted, and today provides a strong example of that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, as amended in the House of Commons on 19 March 2025, dealing with sharing of information (sharing of trailer data by DVLA) (contained in Part 1, clauses 30 to 33); offences relating to articles for use in serious crime (contained in Part 3, clauses 45 to 47); breach of an interim serious crime preventions order in non-terrorist cases (contained in Part 3, clause 49); and validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications (clause 53) (in respect of the Department of Education’s (England) UK ENIC services insofar as they relate to education) of the Bill.

Private Members' Business

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the independence and vital role of the Northern Ireland judiciary and acknowledges the complex nature of the cases that come before the courts; supports the requirement for all judges to take part in ongoing personal and professional development, as directed by the Lady Chief Justice; expresses deep concern at the lenient sentences handed down in some of the most serious cases, including those involving sexual offences; further recognises the lasting harm that such sentences can cause to victims and the damage that they do to public confidence in the justice system; is alarmed by recent figures showing that nearly 80% of prisoners in Northern Ireland are repeat offenders, highlighting the urgent need for sentencing policy to do more to deter reoffending and protect the public; believes that sentencing should reflect the seriousness of such crimes and meet the expectations of victims and wider society; calls on the Minister of Justice to take urgent and proactive steps to address those concerns, including launching a public consultation on the establishment of a sentencing council for Northern Ireland to support greater consistency, transparency and robustness in sentencing; and further calls on the Minister to ensure that, in all relevant cases, victims are provided with written copies of sentencing remarks, at no cost and without delay.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

It is good that reading that out does not come out of the hour and a half for the debate.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up the debate. As an amendment has been accepted, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Before I call Mr Beattie to open the debate, I remind Members that, as the motion relates to the improvement of sentencing practices in Northern Ireland, they should be mindful of not straying into the topic of specific cases that are the subject of active legal proceedings. Please open the debate on the motion.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. More than that, people must have confidence that our justice system works. It is clear, however, that confidence in our criminal justice system is being eroded daily. Part of the problem, though certainly not all of it, is our sentencing regime, an issue that I have raised on many occasions.

On a wider issue, it is worth reflecting on the most recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report on our criminal justice system. The report said that inspectors found that:

"Since the devolution of policing and justice ... 15 years ago ... there had been limited improvement in the overall performance of the criminal justice system".

Further, they found that there was no:

"collectively agreed vision and strategic priorities shared by the DoJ and the key criminal justice organisations".

That is in line with the 'Review of the Northern Ireland Policing Board', which described the tripartite relationship as showing:

"no evidence of a shared collective vision – a shared direction – a unified front".

According to the Criminal Justice Inspection report, that has led to criminal justice outcomes remaining "relatively static" despite numerous strategies and policies, with "impactful change" being "slow". The Ulster Unionist Party's motion lays out areas that will, we believe, bring about meaningful change and, importantly, increase confidence in a beleaguered criminal justice system.

First, we call for compulsory and continuous personal and professional development for our judges. Their training is the responsibility of the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ) through the Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland. That has been the case since the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. We believe that delivering that training must be more than an invitation to attend. There must be directed attendance with registered outcomes in order to ensure that our judges are equipped with the knowledge that they need to exercise their judicial functions. In doing so, the training should aim to ensure that judges understand that the language that they use during a trial or in passing sentence must be designed to give confidence to the public. We simply cannot have a repeat of the situation where a serious predatory sex offender was told by the judge to find a wife and start a family or that he should not be excluded from normal life and should be allowed to use the same internet dating site that he used to target the woman whom he sexually assaulted. Such language creates moral and societal outrage and undermines confidence.

That brings me to the issue of lenient sentencing in Northern Ireland, particularly sentence discounts or credits or the fact that judges are able to deviate from mandatory minimum sentencing. Sentencing in Northern Ireland is complex. It has been stated that:

"Consistency in the sentencing process is an important aspect of fairness. Fairness also requires that the particular circumstances of individual cases are taken into account in determining the appropriate outcome."

Yet, in Northern Ireland, we have put the perpetrator in the driving seat. If the perpetrator admits guilt at the earliest opportunity, they receive up to a third off their sentence. The reason for that is well known. It saves time, money and resources, and it saves the victim from having to go through the pain of a trial. OK, I can get behind that. I think that getting a third off a sentence is excessive, but it is similar to the rest of the United Kingdom. However, here is where I really am concerned.

If the perpetrator pleads not guilty and then decides to wait to see how the evidence stacks up, puts his victim through perhaps two or three years of worry while waiting for the trial and then decides at the last moment, even on the day that the trial starts, to plead guilty, he could receive up to 25% — a quarter — off his sentence. Why would a perpetrator therefore not chance his arm? That is an obscene amount of sentence reduction.

Let me be clear: it is our party's belief that individuals should get one chance to plead guilty, and that is at their arraignment hearing or earlier. If they do, they will receive a sentence reduction. If they do not, the opportunity should be taken away from them. If perpetrators then decide to plead guilty, it should be up to the judge to decide whether they are entitled to have any time taken off their sentence, but that needs to be backloaded. What do I mean by "backloaded"?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. Before he continues, will he clarify that? At the moment, that is what happens. A person is offered the opportunity at arraignment to plead, and if they plead, they will get a certain reduction in sentence for entering an early guilty plea. If they plead later in the process, it is the judge who determines the percentage of sentence reduction, if any, to which they are entitled. How does his proposal therefore differ from what happens at the moment?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before you respond, Mr Beattie, there were only nine minutes from when you started until 2.45 pm, when I will have to interrupt you. If you could therefore finish within nine minutes, that would be good.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I do not think that I will be able to. I am really sorry, Mr Speaker.

Minister, you probably just caught me at the sentence at which I was about to say what I believe should be meant by backloading that element when, as you just said, somebody enters a late guilty plea. It means that they get should time off their licence not off their custodial sentence. That is what I mean by "backloading". I am aware that there is a consultation —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Go ahead.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Not all sentences have a licensing element, so I am really at a loss to understand. If somebody is on a life licence, that is a permanent situation for the rest of their life, but many people will not have an extended licence. They will simply have their custody period. I therefore do not understand the point about licence. Can you clarify?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Yes, I can. If I had time, I would be able to go through it all with you, but I do not, so I will have to be pretty sharp and frugal with my words. Not all, but the vast majority of sentences are 50% custodial and 50% on licence. That is roughly what people see happen. It is not exact, and I do not have the time to go through it all exactly. What I am saying is that, if you are going to give somebody a sentence reduction, take it off the time that they have on licence, not off the time that they spend behind bars.

Let us remember why we have custodial sentences. I am conscious of Sinn Féin's amendment, which deals with rehabilitation, and I have no issue with it whatsoever. I will support the amendment, and I look forward to hearing what its Members have to say on public protection. Punishment and deterrence, however, are also included among the reasons for a custodial sentence, and we seem to have forgotten about those two core principles, even though 80% of the people in jail currently are repeat offenders. Our sentencing is weak and ineffective, particularly for crimes of a sexual nature against women and girls. There is a case of an individual with hundreds of sexually explicit pictures of children getting a suspended sentence. In 2023, the perpetrator of the rape of a 14-year-old girl received just 18 months in jail. In 2024, a two-year jail term was given to a 51-year-old man who raped a woman whom he had met on a dating site. In 2025, for the sexual abuse of two girls aged six and eight, the perpetrator got six years. In the case of a vulnerable teenage girl who was raped by a 47-year-old man, the sentence was four years behind bars. That is not good enough. People do not think that it is good enough, and they do not view the licence element of the sentence as being just. I guess that that is the point that I am trying to make.

What can help? The Ulster Unionist Party believes that the establishment of a sentencing council could give judges stronger direction on sentencing, not just guidance. A sentencing council would have the ability to take away a lot of the discretion in judges' determinations and, in doing so, achieve exactly what people want, which is consistency, transparency, fairness, the sentence to match the crime and a system that is understood. Go to the Judiciary NI website, and, under the sentencing guidelines for sexual offences, you will find 58 entries that outline case law.

It is from that that judges form their decisions, along with maximum and minimum —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Beattie, I am sorry that I have to interrupt you. I am sorry, because I wanted to hear that. You will have a minute after Question Time to finish.

The debate stood suspended.

Oral Answers to Questions — Infrastructure

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Diana Armstrong is not in her place.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. Mr Baker asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the West Belfast greenway. (AQO 2201/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am pleased to advise that the first phase of the West Belfast greenway is programmed to commence construction in the coming months. Officials are also preparing a planning application for the next phase of the West Belfast greenway and hope to submit it in the autumn. When that section of the route is complete, it will provide an attractive, high-quality active travel route that is predominantly traffic-free between Andersonstown and the city centre.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Will you provide an update on the wider delivery of the Belfast cycling network delivery plan?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. Since the Belfast cycling network delivery plan was first published in 2022, approximately 13 kilometres of new cycle path have been built, in partnership with Belfast City Council, on the Lagan gateway and the Forth Meadow greenway schemes. Improvements have also been made to existing facilities, with the installation of environmentally friendly lighting along the 7 kilometre urban section of the Comber greenway and on Stranmillis Embankment, with new red surfacing laid along the existing segregated cycle track between Ormeau Road and Governors Bridge.

Design work is substantially complete on a further four schemes. Those are at various stages of the statutory process that is required to legislate for cycle routes before construction can commence. Design is either ongoing or due to commence shortly on a further eight schemes, and officials are working to bring a number of those forward for public engagement later this year. Officials are also considering the prioritisation of future schemes in the Belfast cycling network in line with the emerging eastern transport plan and other significant changes that have occurred in Belfast in recent years.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

5. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Infrastructure for a breakdown of spend on the delivery of new cycling infrastructure over the past three financial years. (AQO 2202/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

My Department does not monitor spend on cycling infrastructure separately from other active travel improvements. The total spend recorded on dedicated active travel projects in the past three financial years is £12 million in 2022-23, £10 million in 2023-24 and, provisionally, £17 million in 2024-25. In addition to spend on new active travel projects, my Department routinely undertakes many activities that are primarily for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists. Spend on those is not included in those figures. Overall spend in my Department on active travel is in the region of £45 million to £50 million, which equates to around 5% to 6% of the overall transport budget.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that improving and enhancing the opportunity for people to cycle is essential for improving public health and reducing congestion? How will she ensure that the active travel budget prioritises schemes over fixing footways and repairing street lights?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member refers to fixing footways and street lights as if those things take up a lot of the budget. Such work is carried out on active travel schemes that are already in place and require maintenance to ensure that the routes are safe for everyone to use, be that by making sure that they are properly lit or that the surfaces are safe for pedestrians and cyclists. However, there is a difference between the maintenance of existing schemes and the building of new schemes. Part of that is about ensuring that they are safe for people to use, which relates to the quality of the surfaces as well as ensuring that they are properly lit. If we want to do this really well, we have to ensure that the routes that we are providing, whether they are new or existing, are accessible for everyone, can be used at all times during the day, are properly connecting communities and fulfil what we set out to do.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, how do you determine whether active travel funding is being fairly distributed?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I understand that walking, wheeling or cycling will always be most attractive as modes of transport over shorter distances, as they are probably more achievable for most people in those circumstances. Therefore, it is important to target investment in areas where it has the potential to be at its most beneficial. However, striking the right balance between urban and rural investment is also very important. To ensure fairness and consistency, we will use the same guiding principles that apply in larger towns and cities to prioritise pedestrian and cycling improvements in smaller settlements. We will, therefore, place particular emphasis on links to schools, public transport and small town or village centres.

It is fair to say that this is not an exact science, so my Department continues to engage with all councils and other stakeholders to strike the right balance to ensure that we are delivering for everybody across the North and do not focus just on bigger areas.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Minister, the aim is to have the active travel budget sitting at around 10%; I think that it is currently at 6% or 7% or thereabouts. Will that be to the detriment of existing roads and footpaths, because we are swinging too much one way and cannot drive or walk on what we have at present?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I think that the Member raised that before. I do not think that it is to the detriment of existing roads and footpaths. Those are schemes that we have to do, and we want to encourage people to get out of their cars and use their bikes or walk or whatever it may be. One should not replace the other. We are working to ensure that we provide options for everybody and are working towards our climate change targets on active travel. You will know that it is set out in those targets that I have to allocate 10% of my budget to active travel, so it is a requirement for me. It is very important, however, that if we are to encourage people to have healthier lifestyles and to get out and about and out of their cars, we have to do it right. That is how we are doing it, and we have to work towards that 10% budget allocation.

It is important to say that maintaining our footpaths is part of the overall piece on roads and footpaths. You will also be aware of the fact that we are looking at the road maintenance strategy and at how we can do it better. We all recognise the shortfalls in the budget, but take it from me that I am committed to making sure that I get as much money as I can to upgrade and fix our roads to the best of my and the Department's ability. I am very focused on that.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

6. Ms Murphy asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the next tranche of part-time 20 mph speed limit zones at schools. (AQO 2203/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Road safety is a high priority for my Department, and I am committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and to address the needs of all road users.

Since 2020-21, the Department has delivered two tranches of part-time 20 mph speed limits at 216 schools, which is an investment of £4 million. The Department previously piloted that approach at 17 schools, bringing the total number of schools with part-time 20 mph speed limits to 233. A review of the initiative introducing part-time 20 mph speed limits at schools was undertaken and is available on my Department's website. The review recommended the provision of a third tranche of part-time speed limits at schools, with a more targeted intervention approach.

A new policy document has been issued to enable an interim and modest programme to be taken forward in this financial year. Given current funding pressures, tranche 3 is to be a bit more modest in size. A programme for schools that are to be treated in the next financial year has now been prepared. That draft programme is based on the existing scored listing, so it covers those schools that have already been scored as part of the previous tranches, but, at my request and given the significance of that higher speed limit and how it might impact on road safety, preference will be given to rural schools that are located on roads where the national speed limit applies. I am considering the draft programme and hope to be in a position to make a formal announcement this week.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her detailed response. I have been lobbying her and the Department on the issue continually over the past number of months. Minister, when will we be likely to see tranche 3 being announced?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said, I have been considering that and looking at what we can do and at whether we can maximise the budget that I have to ensure that we get as many schools as possible in that tranche. I have been back and forth with officials in recent weeks to ensure that we can get the maximum number of schools in that tranche. As I said, I am hoping to make an announcement this week.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I want to believe the Minister that road speed and road infrastructure are priorities for the Department. The Minister will know that, within the past hour, a judge has ruled that the decision by the Department to proceed with the A5 cannot stand. Will she now accept that, whether they relate to our infrastructure, economy or agriculture, the current Northern Ireland climate change targets are a dangerous weight around our neck?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I do not think that that is related to the question on the 20 mph speed limit.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

It is up to you how you answer that.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I do not know how to answer it in relation to the 20 mph speed limit, to be honest with you, Mr Speaker.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

You do not want to answer it.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Are we asking about the Climate Change Act or are we asking about —?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Speed. We just had a decision about —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. Next for a supplementary question is Stewart Dickson.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. To go back to the topic, while we certainly welcome a 20 mph speed limit outside schools — I have heard this question asked regularly in the Chamber, and I will ask it again today — what action are you taking to encourage children to cycle and walk and use walking buses to get to school?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his question. Just last week, I met Sustrans, which does significant work in schools. I am aware that the Department helps to fund the cycling proficiency scheme. There is lots more that we can do and that I am keen to do. The Member will know that I recently announced that I will take forward legislation on safety on school buses. That, in itself, is something that we can do. I have requested a meeting with the Education Minister to see how we can work together on that. There is an important education piece specific to that on helping our children to be more aware while using buses, particularly when they are getting on and off them.

The Member talked about walking buses, and I am keen to explore their use further. I know that they are very effective and encourage schoolchildren and their parents, carers or whoever takes them to school to do so in a more active way. We are doing a lot of work on the issue. As I said in response to a earlier question, the overall active travel delivery plan outlines the focus on ensuring that we have safer routes that link schools with residential areas. I am working to provide permanent 20 mph zones in those areas that are more residential and safe links to schools, shopping areas and such places so that we can continue to build on the work that is being done.

Justin McNulty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, I declare an interest: my wee fella started at his new school, St Malachy's in Camlough, this morning. His first day was very nerve-racking and exciting at the same time. I was approached by a concerned member of staff, who asked me how to get a 20 mph speed limit control zone outside St Malachy's on the Chapel Road in Camlough and any other traffic control measures to keep the children safe, because she was really concerned about the fact that there have been too many near misses in recent years.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

First, I send my best wishes to Setanta. I hope that he has a great first day and many happy years in St Malachy's, which is another great school in our constituency. As a parent of a P2 pupil who is going into P3, I know that this time just flies. I am sure that you and your wife are very excited for the time ahead.

On the specific school, I think that all schools in all our areas would, ideally, like to have a 20 mph zone outside them. I, too, have been approached by my child's school about significant road safety concerns. Unfortunately, everybody is in a hurry, and road users often do not think of the implications when using the roads.

As I said, this is a modest tranche. We are finalising where the schools that are already on the existing list have scored. There is no doubt that some schools may not get through in this tranche. I suggest to the Member that we take that forward. If the school is not included in this tranche, we can make sure that it, along with others, is assessed for a future 20 mph zone and traffic-calming measures, as we work out a more long-term plan. I encourage the Member to contact the section office or my private office to get an assessment of that area of Camlough so that we can see what is required. I have not come across that to date, so I am happy to ask officials to look into it.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

7. Mr Chambers asked the Minister for Infrastructure for her assessment of the annual volume of untreated sewage discharging into Belfast lough from NI Water waste water treatment works. (AQO 2204/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

NI Water treats approximately 73 million cubic metres of waste water per year at the five main waste water treatment works that discharge into Belfast lough. NI Water has advised that its models indicate that, on average, only 70,000 cubic metres of untreated sewage from waste water treatment works are discharged into Belfast lough annually. Whilst approximately 3·5 million cubic metres of waste water from the waste water treatment works are discharged directly into Belfast lough without being treated, it is crucial to note that only 1% to 2% of that is untreated. That is not to take away from the issue; it is just to put into context what is being discharged.

NI Water estimates that approximately 80% to 95% of that spill volume is rainwater; 5% to 20% is everyday waste water from homes and businesses; and 1% to 2% is, as I have said, is untreated sewage. As the Member and the Assembly know, I continue to work with Executive colleagues to provide NI Water with the adequate funding needed to allow it to deal with the problems in the waste water system not just in Belfast but across the North. I know that Belfast lough in particular is a significant issue, and we continue to look at solutions to it.

As well as that, I continue to follow the three-pronged approach that I have referred to on many occasions in the Chamber, first, to secure more investment for waste water infrastructure but also to look at what else we can do. Members will be aware that my Bill on sustainable drainage was introduced this morning, and I look forward to hearing the discussion on that in the time ahead.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Any amount of raw sewage going into Belfast lough is totally unacceptable, but everyone agrees that the waste water treatment works that discharge into Belfast lough require considerable investment to bring them up to the compliance standards that are coming down the line. Has the Minister a strategy to find the investment needed to bring those treatment works up to standard?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said on the overall issue of waste water infrastructure, the Member is familiar with the three-pronged approach that I referred to in my previous response. That is the way forward at present. However, in the interim, I have been working closely with NI Water to look at other ways in which we can do as much as possible in the time that we have. At present, NI Water provides additional maintenance to the treatment works around Belfast lough to ensure that those assets can continue to operate in the short term and until such times as we have the budget available to undertake the more substantial upgrade that is required. That is something we are looking at across the North. In addition to that, NI Water continues its programme of installing event duration monitors to identify the worst-performing discharge points and to help ensure that money is targeted where it is most needed.

In a challenging financial context, we are looking at what else we can do to mitigate the situation as much as possible. It is not ideal: I totally take the point that it is unacceptable. We should not see any untreated sewage go into our waterways — that is not where any of us want to be — but, until such times as we have the budget to do the work that is needed, we have to do what we can to alleviate difficulties as best we can, if we cannot fully eliminate them.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

As the living with water programme in Belfast is paused, how long will the pause be? Will you outline your engagement with NI Water and what more you will do to tackle the waste water capacity crisis that we have across Northern Ireland?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I will answer the second part of the question first. I have made my approach clear on numerous occasions, particularly on securing additional investment. At every stage, whether monitoring rounds or whatever it may be, we try to garner more funds to do as much work as we can. It is fair to say that the whole Executive Budget would not cover the work. Even if NI Water had the budget today, it says that it would take a long time to deliver what is needed. We are working through that. My approach to everything in the budget is to break it down and see what we can do well with the budget that we have.

A review of the Belfast living with water plan was commissioned due to a rise in the estimated cost of delivering it from £1·4 billion to £2·1 billion, which, I am sure, the Member will agree, is a significant rise since the plan was announced. The review concluded that the Belfast plan is still needed. However, the original 12-year delivery time frame is no longer viable. Projects in the plan, which include proposals to improve the water quality of Belfast lough, will now be taken forward by my Department and NI Water as normal business at a scale and pace achievable within available budgets rather than through a structured programme. As I have said, I take the approach of seeing what can be done with the budget that we have until such times as more funding is available.

It was always accepted that additional funding would be required to deliver the living with water plan and, in the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement, living with water was identified as a beneficiary of increased funding. However, that funding was not received.

I remain fully committed to the Belfast plan's objectives to help protect against flooding, enhance the environment and grow the economy. I will continue, as I have been doing to date and as my predecessor did, to make the case for additional funding and expedite its delivery. In the last financial year, I provided NI Water with half a billion pounds in funding.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up, Minister.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I hope that reassures Members about how committed we are to this.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Does the Minister accept that there is an immediate need for additional action, given that the current approach has made no difference to sewage spills and given the environmental peril that Belfast lough is in?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I agree. That is the point that I am making. None of us underestimates the fact that it is a really live and significant problem. If I had all the money to do the work, we would not be having this conversation, but the reality is that we do not. Difficult decisions have to be made every day on the budget. That does not mean that we stand still; it means that we have to continue to lobby for the additional funds, wherever they may come from, whether that is through the Executive or from the British Treasury. Ministers around the Executive table all recognise how important this is. Every one of us knows that, in order to move forward on many of the things that the Programme for Government sets out and that many of us as MLAs have prioritised, we need to ensure that our waste water infrastructure is fit for purpose. I will continue to work with Executive colleagues in the first instance, but I am also looking at other steps that I can take in the interim to ensure that we continue to move forward until we get to the point where we are dealing with the problem in the most effective and efficient way.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Dr Aiken is not in his place.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

9. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the urban drainage pilot project. (AQO 2206/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have secured £15 million over the next four years from the public-sector transformation fund to develop and deliver a pilot project that will use nature-based solutions to help transform our urban drainage systems. The aim is to provide a range of nature-based drainage and flood management solutions to demonstrate their effectiveness in managing the flow of water through urban areas, helping to reduce flood risk and pollution. Nature-based drainage solutions are cleaner and greener and can help slow the flow of water entering our sewers, which, in turn, will help to reduce the risk of out-of-sewer flooding. The pilot project's overall target is to provide approximately 10,000 cubic metres of temporary rainwater storage by retrofitting sustainable drainage systems, commonly known as "SuDS", to reduce the pressure on our constrained drainage and waste water infrastructure. Officials are engaging with a range of stakeholders to discuss potential locations for nature-based solutions, focusing on bringing viable projects from concept to delivery within the framework of the transformation fund. The project will initially focus on the Fortwilliam and Whitehouse areas in Belfast. However, interventions outside that area may also be considered where the benefits of nature-based drainage solutions can be demonstrated.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for her answer.]

Does the Minister agree that changing how we live with water can produce many benefits in the future?