Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 March 2026

456 contributions from 54 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Rinneadh achomharc Rialtas na Breataine in aghaidh Liam Óig Uí Annaidh a dhíbhe, agus tá sin ceart agus cóir. Níor cheart an t-achomharc a dhéanamh sa chéad dul síos. Ba chóir do Rialtas na Breataine a n-aird a dhíriú ar lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe, chan ar na daoine atá ag tarraingt aird air. Seo agaibh ceartas na Breataine: coirpeach a dhéanamh den té a labhraíonn amach i gcoinne an chinedhíothaithe. Ba chóir don Bhreatain a bheith ar a dícheall ag tabhairt lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe chun cuntais; níor chóir di bheith rannpháirteach sa chinedhíothú sin.

Níor bhain an cás in aghaidh Liam Óig riamh le sábháilteacht an phobail ná le riar an cheartais. Ní raibh ann ach an stát ag mí-úsáid a chumhachta le ceoltóir a ghéarleanúint cionn is go labhraíonn sé amach go neamhbhalbh ar son mhuintir na Palaistíne atá faoi chois.

Molaim Liam Óg agus Kneecap as an fhód a sheasamh go daingean nuair atá daoine eile ar a seacht ndícheall lena gcur ina dtost. Níl aon amhras orm ná go gcoinneoidh siad leo an gléas cainte atá acu a úsáid leis an éagóir a thabhairt chun solais, ainneoin dhícheall Rialtas na Breataine coirpigh a dhéanamh díobh agus a gcur ina dtost.

[Translation: The British Government’s appeal against Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh has been dismissed, and that is entirely proper. The decision to pursue the appeal should never have been taken. The British Government should turn their attention to those inflicting genocide, not those highlighting it. This is what British justice looks like: attempts to criminalise those who speak up and protest against genocide. Britain should be resolute in holding the perpetrators of genocide to account, not be complicit in that genocide. The case against Liam Óg was never about public safety or the proper administration of justice. It was about the abuse of state power to pursue and intimidate an artist who uses his voice unapologetically to speak up for the oppressed people of Palestine. I commend Liam Óg and Kneecap on their unwavering determination in the face of a campaign to silence them. I have no doubt that they will continue to use their platform to highlight injustice, no matter how hard the British Government attempt to criminalise and silence them.]

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

This week, Emma Little-Pengelly will lead the Northern Ireland delegation to Washington DC to embark on a series of engagements with politicians, business leaders and diplomats. This part of the United Kingdom enjoys privileged access to the corridors of power each March. It is vital that we never waste that opportunity and that we play our part. For Northern Ireland, the idea of the special relationship with the United States is not just something that we talk about; it is something that we live and feel, and it is renewed with every generation. It is written into family histories, shared stories, classrooms, boardrooms and the way in which we see the world.

This year will be particularly significant for Northern Ireland, as a number of events are planned to mark the role that Ulster Scots played in the formation of modern America. Two hundred and fifty years on from the Declaration of Independence, those bonds remain strong. The United States remains Northern Ireland's largest source of high-value foreign direct investment. Over the past decade, American companies have created over 15,000 jobs here in Northern Ireland, with a contribution of over £1·5 billion, and that is because, like me, the American investors believe in Northern Ireland. Recent investments, such as the announcement of 1,000 jobs in the Bank of America, point to something bigger than individual projects. They reflect confidence in this place, in our people and in our economy. From fintech and cybersecurity to advanced manufacturing and the creative industries that now attract major international productions, Northern Ireland is telling a new story: one of confidence, creativity and connection.

That is why US/Northern Ireland trade matters: not because of balance sheets or job numbers but because it reflects a partnership rooted in history and based on a belief in Northern Ireland and our people. We believe deeply in that special relationship, and I am confident that, together, we will see more investment here in Northern Ireland. While others fail to show up, turn up and speak up for Northern Ireland, Emma Little-Pengelly will be out there flying the flag for Northern Ireland and showing why she is the only person befitting of the title of "First Minister for all".

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Over the past number of days and weeks, there has been a lot of political noise around energy prices and oil prices, but the reality for households is much simpler. People outside this Building are really worried. Working people are already struggling, families are trying to manage household budgets and pensioners are wondering what the next heating bill will look like.

I was at the Economy Committee this morning, and, frankly, I left angry at the political pantomime that played out around an issue that directly affects people's lives. Today's Committee meeting was supposed to provide clarity. Families in Lagan Valley and beyond have seen their heating bills double in a matter of weeks, and they deserve answers. Instead, what unfolded today was a spectacle: a political row between the DUP and Sinn Féin that generated considerably more heat than the £81 million that we were there to discuss. The two parties traded accusations across the table, and half a million of our householders who rely on home heating oil were no better off by the time that we left. This place needs to give hope, bring delivery and support quickly and have a plan for a long-term ambition that things will change in the future. It should not be a clickbait pantomime between the DUP and Sinn Féin. Energy prices should never be used as a political football, because, behind every headline, there is a family struggling.

If support is limited, it must be targeted properly at those who are struggling most. We need to have an honest discussion about the bigger issue, which is that we remain far too exposed to global fossil fuel price shocks. As night follows day, we see a war and then disruption to oil and gas markets, and households here feel it immediately. This is a repeat of 2022, and it cannot happen again. We do not have energy security; we have complete energy vulnerability. Therefore, we need to move at speed to deliver short-term help to working families while focusing on long-term solutions. We need greater transparency in the market for home heating oil, and, as prices spike, we need targeted support for householders now. We also need a really clear plan to transition to renewables in order to secure locally produced energy that protects people from similar shocks in the future. This is all about people. The Department for the Economy needs to lead and come back with answers and a plan as soon as possible.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Last week, along with our party leader, I was involved in talks with our Prime Minister and, separately, with the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Minister for Defence, Helen McEntee TD. We raised with both of them the very real concerns about the lack of defence and security provisions of our Southern neighbour. Those concerns have recently been further exemplified by the Iranian cyberattacks on the US medtech company Stryker; the Russian drone incursions when President Zelenskyy's aircraft was trying to land at Dublin Airport; the movement of Russia's grey and dark fleet ships travelling unmonitored through Ireland's extensive but unpatrolled exclusive economic zone; the highly suspicious movements of the Yantar, the Russian navy's main underwater research ship, near and above sensitive data, power and gas cables and pipes; and the cyberattack that brought down the Irish health system, which, again, was attributed to criminal gangs controlled by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB).

Irish sea, subsea, airspace and cyberspace are wide open for exploitation or worse. That is a very real concern for us because, for instance, our integrated single electricity market (ISEM) — our electricity market and system — is controlled from Dublin. Our agribusiness relies a lot on just-enough, just-in-time access to Irish business and data sharing. We have to be aware that any loss of gas to the Irish Republic will result in rapid and catastrophic failure of its electricity grid. There simply is not enough interconnection to stabilise the Irish grid, especially with the very high preponderance that they have of supplying power-hungry data centres.

It was good to see that, on Friday, the Irish recognised their vulnerabilities and reached out to the United Kingdom to formally ask it to take responsibility for the security of Irish seas and airspace. It could be surmised, although I have no knowledge of it, that the cyberdefensive power of GCHQ in Cheltenham has also been requested. Keeping the Irish secure is of interest to us. A strand 2/3 issue of the Belfast Agreement is something that we should keep an eye on. However, we also believe that the United Kingdom should be properly compensated for that. Anyone who has been following recent news stories will know that both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force have been hard stretched. It is right and proper that, if our forces are deployed to defend Ireland, which has, indeed, freeloaded on its commitment for decades, we should be paid. After all, Ireland keeps telling us that it is in robust fiscal health — no doubt because it has not previously paid for any defence. At the very least, Ireland should drop its court case on legacy against the United Kingdom. Why would it sue the UK over its use of the military whilst, at the exact same time, beg the UK to save its industry and the EU presidency later this year from Putin and his acolytes' interference? Hypocrisy should not be a basis for cooperation in these dangerous times.

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

Tuesday is St Patrick's Day. Right around the globe, people will celebrate all that is green. At its heart, it is a day about unity. St Patrick's story is one of reconciliation and bringing people together. That is the spirit in which it should always be marked.

I represent South Down and am a native of Downpatrick, a town that is proud to be the resting place of our national saint. Indeed, there are three saints buried there, but St Patrick is, of course, the most notable. Our area is steeped in that patrician heritage, from the statue of St Patrick on Slieve Patrick and Saul to the landing place along the River Quoile and to Down Cathedral, where he is laid to rest. The story and legacy of St Patrick are told wonderfully at the St Patrick's Centre in Downpatrick, the only centre in the world that is dedicated entirely to him. It is well worth a visit. His influence runs right through our community life. Our chapel bears his name and our schools reflect that tradition. Of course, the Patrician Youth Centre, an organisation that I have been proudly associated with for nearly 40 years, continues to serve young people across our area and has his name in the title.

Celebrations are already well under way. Yesterday saw the hugely successful Jimmy's 10k in Downpatrick. Well done to everyone who took part in that. Unfortunately, a hamstring injury that I picked up last week prevented me from participating

[Laughter]

, but I hope to be there next year. I appreciate that Laura Devlin from my office represented us there. Congratulations to everyone in the East Down Athletic Club for their sterling leadership of that wonderful event that brings people to our town.

Tomorrow, the county town of Down will be alive with activity. Events will take place in the Down Arts Centre, at Down County Museum, in the St Patrick's Centre and around Down Cathedral, as well as throughout the streets of our town. Our colourful St Patrick's Day parade will set off at 1.30 pm. I encourage anyone who can to come along to enjoy the spectacle and support the local shops and hospitality afterwards. Downpatrick has it all. It has St Patrick. There can be no better place to be on 17 March than there.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Beidh Lá Fhéile Pádraig ann amárach. Lá ar a ndéanfar gach a mbaineann le hÉirinn a cheiliúradh ar fud an domhain. Beidh ár gcultúr, ár n-oidhreacht agus an tionchar atá againn ar fud an domhain á gceiliúradh i ngach cearn den chruinne. Ó Bhéal Feirste go Nua-Eabhrac agus ó Sydney go Chicago, beidh na milliúin daoine ag ceiliúradh Lá Fhéile Pádraig le mórshiúlta, le ceol agus le hócáidí.

Cuimhníonn sé dúinn go láidir go bhfuil éifeacht dhomhanda ag cultúr na hÉireann agus go bhfuil bród ar dhaoine ar fud an domhain as a n-oidhreacht Éireannach. Beidh na milliúin daoine a mhothaíonn nasc le hÉirinn, trína nginealach nó tríd an mhéid a thug muid don domhan, beidh sin ag ceiliúradh ár n-oileáin. Beidh mórshiúl againn i lár chathair Bhéal Feirste, agus ina dhiaidh sin beidh Ceiliúradh Mór na Féile Pádraig ann. Tabharfaidh imeachtaí an lae amárach léargas dúinn ar an phléisiúr atá i ndán don chathair nuair a thiocfaidh an fhleadh sa tsamhradh, agus i samhradh na bliana seo chugainn fosta, nó d'fhógair Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann go bhfillfidh an fhleadh ar Bhéal Feirste sa bhliain 2027.

Molaim do gach duine páirt a ghlacadh sna himeachtaí áitiúla lenár gcultúr comhchoiteann, ár n-oidhreacht chomhchoiteann agus an éifeacht a rinne muid ar fud an domhain a cheiliúradh. Guím beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig daoibh go léir.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

To state the obvious, this is a Chamber of robust debate, and so it should be. With that robustness come the scrutiny of legislation and the agreeing of motions in this place. It is right and proper that a legislature is robust and challenging so that the laws that we pass are appropriate.

I was alarmed to hear the commentary from the Alliance Party's conference at the weekend, at which it was stated that an individual Minister — Justice Minister Long — was being demonised by unionist politicians. I am sorry, but we will not be deflected from doing our duty and job of scrutinising the Minister. It is a bit rich that the party referred only to unionist politicians, given that I have heard on many occasions in this place the official Opposition — the SDLP — challenge the Justice Minister. The Justice Minister has also blamed them for being personal, yet the remarks from the Alliance Party's conference at the weekend targeted only unionist politicians. Why is that? I believe that it is nothing more than tactical for a number of reasons. Not only does the Alliance Party position itself on the spectrum here closely in line with the SDLP and Sinn Féin, but it does not like scrutiny or questions. The Justice Minister also does not like questions, but we will not be deflected from our job in the Assembly of scrutinising Ministers, no matter who they are.

As Justice Chairperson, I will ensure that the Committee is given full strength of arm to scrutinise the Department properly. We will not be put off by personal attacks or slanderous remarks. We are demonising no one; we hold everyone to account in the Chamber, as we should. I held the post of Chairperson of the Justice Committee 10 years ago, and I now hold it again. I look at the Justice Department, and I can tell you that the deterioration in our justice system is stark. The Public Prosecution Service tells us that the median time for court cases is now 750 days: that is 200 days longer than in 2020. That is what is wrong with the justice system.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Paul.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

We will continue to scrutinise it.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I rise to mark Global Recycling Day, which is celebrated each year on 18 March. The Global Recycling Foundation established the day in 2018 to recognise recycling as the seventh resource, alongside water, oil, natural gas, coal, minerals and air. Since then, Global Recycling Day has grown into an international call to action, reminding Governments, businesses and individuals that what we once saw as waste is, in fact, a vital resource in the fight against climate change and environmental degradation. It will come as no surprise to Members when I say that recycling is key to cutting emissions, conserving resources and reducing pollution. By reusing materials rather than extracting new ones, we reduce the pressure on our land, water and air. At a time of global instability and rising costs, a strong recycling system also supports green jobs and a more resilient circular economy.

The Alliance Party has consistently led the way on waste and recycling policy at every level of government. In local government, Alliance councillors have driven improvements in kerbside recycling and food waste collection; championed better information for residents; pushed for investment in modern recycling infrastructure; and worked to ensure that reusing and recycling are championed over landfill and incineration. In the Executive, the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has continued that leadership. He has introduced measures to increase household and business recycling rates, supported the planned introduction of the extended producer responsibility scheme and backed steps towards a deposit return scheme, to name but three actions. Those are practical, evidence-based actions that will help Northern Ireland move away from a throwaway culture and towards a genuinely sustainable system of resource management.

Our recycling rates have improved markedly over the past decade, and, in some areas, they are comparable to those in other parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland. We still, however, lag behind many of the best-performing regions in Europe, where recycling rates are substantially higher than ours.

On Global Recycling Day 2026, we should be clear that recycling is not a niche environmental issue. Every person in Northern Ireland has a role to play in making sure that their waste is disposed of correctly and recognising that what we throw away is, in fact, a valuable resource. Alliance will continue to show leadership at every level of government to ensure that Northern Ireland moves decisively towards higher rates of recycling, less waste and a genuine circular economy.

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

I will inject some positivity into the Chamber this afternoon. Last night, many of us across Ireland felt immense and enormous pride watching Jessie Buckley step on to the world's biggest stage to accept an Oscar for best actress. For a young woman from Killarney to reach the pinnacle of international cinema is truly remarkable, but journeys such as Jessie Buckley's do not begin on red carpets in Hollywood; they begin in our school halls, in local theatres, in youth and drama groups and through community arts programmes. Those are the very places where local talent is first discovered and where confidence, particularly that of our young people, begins to grow.

What makes the moment especially meaningful for those of us on the north coast is that the film 'Hamnet' is based on the novel by Coleraine-born writer Maggie O'Farrell. Her powerful storytelling helped bring a remarkable story to life and, thankfully, on to the global stage. That connection reminds us that extraordinary creative talents exist not only in the world's major cities but right here in our communities at home. That is why it is so crucial that we fund the arts locally. Local arts programmes give so many people, particularly our young people, the opportunity to build their confidence and to imagine futures that they may never have thought possible. Somewhere in Northern Ireland today, young people are writing their first story, stepping on to a small stage or discovering their voice through music or drama. If we support opportunities for them, their creativity can take them anywhere: as evidenced by Jessie Buckley, it could even take them to Hollywood.

Today, as we celebrate Jessie Buckley's incredible achievement, let it remind us of something important: we must invest in the arts locally and in the potential of our next generation here at home. From west Belfast's Anthony Boyle and Lola Petticrew to the South's Paul Mescal and Cillian Murphy, we have a hub of talent on this island, North and South. That is why local investment is so important. The closure of the Riverside Theatre in my constituency was so heartbreaking for so many of us. Who knows what lies ahead? The next Oscar winner may well be growing up today in Coleraine or somewhere else in Northern Ireland. While we celebrate Jessie Buckley, who is one of us, we also celebrate the pride that we feel in being Irish, the Irish identity, Irish talent and, of course, the importance of celebrating and investing in the local arts.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

Today, I highlight the human cost of the ongoing barristers' strike in Northern Ireland and its impact on victims' families across the country. Recently, I met a constituent and her only son, whose husband and father tragically lost his life in a workplace incident several years ago. Since the horror of that day, that family has been waiting patiently for justice through the courts. The trial in their case is scheduled for later this year, but, like many others, the case faces a real possibility of further delay due to the current industrial action by the legal profession. The court process has already been long and deeply painful for that family. They have attended court on numerous occasions, only to have hearings postponed. Each delay reopens wounds and prolongs the uncertainty that they must live with every day. Behind every case number is a real family; people who are trying to rebuild their lives after unimaginable loss. For them, justice delayed is not simply a procedural matter; it has a profound emotional and psychological impact.

I recognise that the issues surrounding legal aid and the sustainability of the criminal justice system are complex. However, it is vital that a resolution is found as quickly as possible, so that victims and their families are not left in limbo and their pain is not unnecessarily prolonged. I acknowledge that a limited number of cases have proceeded under derogation arrangements during the industrial action. That is, of course, welcome and has ensured that some matters have been able to move forward. However, many other cases, including those involving grieving families, still face uncertainty and the real prospect of further and harmful delay. Therefore, I urge the Justice Minister to continue working urgently with the Bar Council and all relevant parties to resolve the dispute and restore normal court proceedings. Families who have already endured so much should not have to wait any longer for the justice that they deserve.

I have written to the Justice Minister to request a cross-party meeting with the family in the particular case. The family is anxious to hear whether the meeting will be granted.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I want to acknowledge my absence from the Chamber over the past number of months. I also thank colleagues from across the House and the many members of the public who contacted me privately during that time. The kindness shown to me is genuinely appreciated. My absence began with what, I thought, was a migraine; thankfully, it also ended there. There were scans, three lumbar punctures, a suspected stroke and several weeks of uncertainty. The care that I received at Causeway Hospital was excellent. The staff responded quickly and professionally when they believed that I was experiencing a medical emergency, and for that I am truly grateful.

Being in the system that we often debate and advocate for gives you a different perspective. While I was there, I spent many hours in A&E, where I saw older people waiting far too long, many of them on their own, and staff working at full stretch. On the stroke ward, I saw real dedication from the staff but also the pressure that they are under every day. It is a difficult experience to find yourself at 39 years old and as the mother of a two-year-old in a ward that we normally associate with those who are later in life. Yet, the consultants were clear that younger patients there are not unusual. Increasingly, they see people whose bodies have been under sustained pressure for long periods due to trauma, stress and strain, leaving nervous systems operating in fight or flight mode for far too long.

My experience of the uncertainty and the investigations and what followed made me reflect on something that we do not talk enough about in this place, which is trauma. We often treat trauma as something that sits in the past, but the body keeps a score. Experiences can be carried physically long after the moment has passed.

Medically, that can mean a dysregulated nervous system, where the sympathetic system that prepares us for threat stays switched on and the parasympathetic system that is meant to calm and regulate the body struggles to restore balance.

We are a post-conflict society, where many people have carried trauma for decades. For some, it comes from the Troubles, and, for others, it comes from domestic violence, childhood adversity, poverty and the constant pressures of caring responsibilities. However, if we are serious about prevention and about easing pressure on our health service, trauma-informed approaches must be properly embedded in our system and across wider public services. At present, much of our response focuses on cognitive therapies such as CBT, and those absolutely have their place. However, trauma is not only something that people think about that is in their heads. It is something that the body experiences. If the nervous system itself has become dysregulated, part of the pathway must focus on helping people return to a regulated state, not simply asking them to think differently about what has happened to them. That is an area where I believe that our services in Northern Ireland still have work to do.

My time away has given me a clearer sense of how fragile health can be, a deeper respect for our healthcare staff and a greater compassion for those who are living with trauma without the support that they need. I am glad to be back, and I intend to continue pressing for a system that understands trauma not as an afterthought but as part of the foundation of better care.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Harry, you have two minutes.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I want to take a moment to reflect on a deeply meaningful event, which was held in the Great Hall, here, at Stormont, the Forget-me-not Mother's Day labyrinth, created to honour families affected by baby and child loss.

The labyrinth is a gentle symbolic walking practice used across the world in civic and sacred spaces. On Saturday, this place became a place of reflection, remembrance and connection for mothers and grandmothers whose hearts carry an unimaginable weight. It offered dignity, visibility and compassion to those who often grieve in silence, and it reminded all of us of the importance of the sensitive support pathways and compassionate policy for those navigating such profound loss. What made that event especially moving was the tenderness that surrounded it. The scarf labyrinth, formed from scarves donated by people across our community, held the space together with extraordinary care. Every scarf represented love, solidarity and the simple truth that no family should walk this path alone.

I want to acknowledge the women and families who walked the labyrinth on Saturday. Their courage, their gentleness and their love for their children and grandchildren was unmistakable. In a world that can feel divided and unsettled, what we witnessed was the opposite: compassion, patience and a deep humanity that speaks louder than any headline.

I also want to express sincere gratitude to the organisers — the labyrinth collective, to the midwives and healthcare professionals who support bereaved families, and to the security and events teams here at Stormont, whose kindness and care were exemplary.

The event was not a therapeutic intervention, nor did it claim to be.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up, Harry.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, you have one minute.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Last week, the public here in Northern Ireland got a further glimpse into why Cantor Fitzgerald pulled out of plans to locate an office here in Belfast. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act to Sam McBride show that the major American financial services firm had agreed to create 300 well-paid jobs. That project had reached the stage of a signed letter of offer from Invest NI. Discussions were already under way about the timing of the public announcement, and then something happened. On 11 March last year, the Economy Minister travelled to New York and met the leadership of the company in what officials themselves described as a critical meeting. After that meeting, the deal collapsed, and 300 jobs vanished. We are well used to the toxic nature of Sinn Féin being exposed locally. We now know that its toxic nature —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— is harming Northern Ireland —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— here and on a global scale.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up. Take your seat. Thank you, Timothy.

Assembly Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Assembly may sit beyond 7.00 pm this evening, if required.

Executive Committee Business

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill, which is a Bill to make provision as to the persons who may solemnise marriage; to make provision about the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill (NIA Bill 26/22-27) be agreed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit for the debate. Given the nature of the Bill, some Members may want to draw on their knowledge of cases that they consider resulted in unduly lenient sentences or cases where there is, or was, an alleged failure to provide information on a victim's remains. Where the Assembly is considering legislation, Members may refer to such matters in good faith, and, indeed, in the public interest. I will not need to remind Members of the sensitivity of these matters among the families of victims, but I do remind Members to respect the distinct roles of the court and of the Assembly when making their contributions. Hopefully, that is clear.

I call on the Minister of Justice to open the debate on the Bill.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to bring the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill to the Assembly. On my reappointment as Minister of Justice in February 2024, I agreed my legislative programme with the aim of continuing the transformation of our justice system into a better one for all. The Bill is another step forward in that reform programme, demonstrating my commitment to improving the justice system, and, in particular, the transparency, understanding and effectiveness of sentencing through this bespoke piece of legislation.

Sentencing is one of the most complex aspects of the duties of courts. Court sentencing powers include a wide range of disposals from the lowest levels of non-custodial sentences up to the most severe custodial sentence: a life sentence. It is often the subject of media comment, but sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. The role of government is restricted to providing a legislative framework within which the courts can deliver justice as befits the individual circumstances of each case.

The Bill aims to strengthen and improve the existing framework. It consists of 51 clauses over eight Parts, and has six key objectives: first, to set in statute the basis on which sentencing decisions across the board, and in particular types of cases, are made; secondly, to make better use of community sentencing principles; thirdly, to simplify and extend current arrangements of the review of unduly lenient sentences; fourthly, to introduce Charlotte's law; fifthly, to require the courts to specify and specifically recognise certain characteristics of victims in sentencing; and, last but not least, to increase the maximum penalties for a range of road traffic offences where death or serious injury occurs.

It is right that the courts apply their discretion when charged with the complicated task of deciding the appropriate sentence to impose an any offender. Only the court that has heard every detail of the case can be in a sufficiently informed position to make those decisions, some of which have far-reaching effects, not only on the offender but on the wider family circle, on victims and on others in our society. However, there must be some parameters around those decisions. At present, statute provides the maximum sentence for every offence, and it is understood that certain other matters must be considered, but it is not always clear to the public what the court aims to do.

Part 1 of the Bill places in legislation for the first time in Northern Ireland a clear statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing and requires the courts to have regard to those when dealing with adult offenders. It further requires the courts to follow any sentencing guidance that is relevant to the offender's case and to give reason in cases where guidance is not followed. These provisions are designed to help those involved in criminal proceedings and the public more generally to understand the multilayered aims of sentencing and matters that the courts must take into consideration when carrying out what is a complex task.

Part 2 of the Bill contains provisions to allow the courts to include additional requirements when imposing a suspended sentence. A suspended sentence is a custodial sentence that is not put into effect unless the offender commits further offences within the period specified by the courts. It therefore acts as a deterrent from further offending but does little to address the root cause of that offending behaviour. This part of the Bill seeks to draw on well-documented evidence that those who are subject to community sentences tend to have a lower reoffending rate than those who receive short custodial sentences. In other words, there is a definite place for suspended sentences, but we can make them more effective in ensuring both that an offender is accountable for their offending and that they do not reoffend. The provisions aim to strengthen the suspended sentence to allow the courts, in suitable cases, to impose community requirements similar to those currently available under the community sentence framework along with a suspended sentence. The requirements may include unpaid work, curfew or electronic monitoring, or requirements relating to the offender's residence, activities or treatment. Building on current community sentence legislation, the provisions also set out the responsibilities of the probation officer assigned to ensure that the offender complies with the order and makes provision for the consequences of a breach of an order.

As Members are aware, life sentences include a period known as the tariff, set by the court, that the offender must spend in prison before they are eligible to have their case considered by the Parole Commissioners for release on licence. Once released, the licence remains in force for the rest of their life. If a person breaches the conditions of their licence, they may be returned to prison for a further period. While a life sentence is available as the maximum sentence for a number of the most serious offences, murder is the only offence where it is mandatory. Part 3 of the Bill makes provision in relation to the setting of tariffs when the court imposes a mandatory life sentence. To arrive at the final tariff, the court selects the appropriate starting point and then adjusts this up or down to take account of aggravating or mitigating features of the case. Starting points are currently found in case law, with guidance issued by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal to help the courts in their choice of starting point and the impact of some of the more common aggravating and mitigating factors. It can be difficult to identify the appropriate and most up-to-date case law, meaning that that approach lacks a certain transparency, and it is at odds with the position in England and Wales, where these are found in statute. Including starting points in the Bill will help address this issue as well as provide more clarity to the public on how tariffs in life sentence cases are calculated.

Where certain specified sentences are considered to be unduly lenient, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland already has the power to refer them to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. Part 4 of the Bill simplifies and extends those arrangements for Northern Ireland so that all sentences imposed in the Crown Court will be capable of being referred to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration if they are considered to be unduly lenient. The current provisions are found in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That UK-wide legislation includes a number of modifications in relation to its application to Northern Ireland. The provision allows for sentences of a description specified in departmental orders to be referable and has resulted in a patchwork approach with no clear rationale as to why some sentences are included and others are not. The Bill largely re-enacts those provisions, creating Northern Ireland's own statutory regime for the first time, but with the significant change that it allows any sentence passed by the Crown Court to be referred.

That will take the guesswork out of knowing which sentences may be referable, bringing much-needed clarity and consistency to the scheme and enhancing public understanding of it.

Part 5 creates what we have referred to as "Charlotte's law". Members will be aware of the campaign that was so bravely taken forward by the family of Charlotte Murray, with strong support from Lisa Dorrian's family. Those families are keenly watching the Bill’s progress, and Lisa's father and her sister, Joanne, are present in the Public Gallery today. I thank both families for their invaluable contribution to the development of the provisions in the Bill before us. Charlotte was murdered by her former partner, John Miller, who was given a life sentence in 2021 for taking her life, despite protesting his innocence, and Charlotte's remains have never been found. Lisa's disappearance now spans 21 years. The pain endured by those two families is unimaginable. To have nowhere to go to grieve and nowhere to pay your respects is a cruelty that is hard for any of us to imagine. We want to deal with that in the legislation by encouraging people, at the earliest point in their journey through the justice system, to give up such crucial information to the families and the courts.

The Bill makes groundbreaking provision aimed at encouraging disclosures about the location of a victim's remains. It introduces a requirement for the court to increase the custodial sentence or life sentence tariff imposed to take account of the failure to disclose, and it makes provisions for proportionate reductions in the sentence should a disclosure be made while the killer is in prison. Those provisions are carefully designed to apply with some modification to cases where a sentence has already been imposed, thus importantly capturing Charlotte Murray's family’s situation. In addition, Part 5 includes provisions similar to Helen's law, which requires the Parole Commissioners to take non-disclosure into account if a prisoner still has not given up that information by the time they can be considered for release on licence. I remain committed to giving hope to families who find themselves in those appalling circumstances and trust that the provisions will make a meaningful difference to them.

Part 6 deals with groups whose needs justify particular protection. First, it delivers on the most impactful recommendations from Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation and introduces a new model for tackling hate crime in Northern Ireland. It creates a statutory aggravator model for offences aggravated by hostility where the victim belongs to a racial, religious, sexual orientation or disability group. The aggravated offence model will provide a system-wide response to the criminalisation of the hate element of crimes. The provisions also allow the Department to add further kinds of hostility or details to the list by subordinate legislation. The impact of hate can be long-lasting and far-reaching, going beyond the victim's personal experience and increasing fear in the wider community. In creating the legislation, we are recognising the impact on victims and reassuring communities that crimes against them are being taken seriously.

Continuing with the theme of those who deserve special protection, Part 6 goes on to create an aggravator where the victim is a vulnerable person. Both for hate crime and vulnerable victims, the Bill requires the court to treat the offence more seriously, to state that the offence is so aggravated, to record the conviction in such a way that shows the aggravation and, in imposing the sentence, to explain how the aggravation has affected the sentence imposed.

A third group of victims is also catered for. Over the course of finalising the proposals for the Bill, a growing and worrying trend of unprovoked attacks demonstrated that many workers who provide services to the public can be described as being on the front line. In addition to members of the emergency services and the health and social care service, victims included retail workers, hospitality workers, public transport workers, service providers and lawyers, and the list goes on. Whilst all of those attacks can currently be dealt with under the laws pertaining to existing assault offences, it is considered that something more is needed for workers whose job means that they have to deal routinely with members of the public. The Bill, therefore, creates a new offence of assault on a worker who is providing a service to the public, delivering a public service or performing a public duty. The new offence recognises those workers and introduces a higher maximum sentence than that available for the existing common assault offence. It provides much more scope for the judiciary to take into account the factors of individual cases and, importantly, is not restricted to the public sector.

Finally, Part 6 creates further aggravators that may be specified in a case in which a person who is a public worker is the subject of any of a range of more serious offences. It is intended that those provisions will send the strong message that no one should have to put up with being attacked simply for doing their job.

Part 7 is the final substantive part of the Bill. It makes changes to current maximum penalties and minimum disqualification periods for a range of driving offences in which death or serious injury occurs. The changes have been campaigned for by courageous families who have lost loved ones on our roads. At this juncture, I pay tribute in particular to the families of Enda Dolan, Martin Gallagher and Lesley-Ann McCarragher, all of whom contributed to the development of the provisions, in the hope that they will prevent other families from having to endure the same heartbreak as them.

Mr and Mrs Dolan in particular have worked with us every step of the way, and they are, I believe, in the Public Gallery today. It is particularly poignant for them that we are discussing this Bill today, given that Friday of this week, 20 March, would have been Enda's thirtieth birthday. Enda was just 18 when he was killed, so the Bill has been a long time coming.

I have been struck by the patient and measured way in which those families have maintained their campaigns, which address not only the sentencing of those convicted of offences that caused the death of their children but the wider lived experience of following prosecutions from beginning to end. They have echoed comments that I hear all too often, highlighting the process-driven nature of our criminal justice system, which comes up short of the mark in demonstrating compassion and respect for victims and those who are left to pick up the pieces after such devastating offences have been committed.

Ms Sugden mentioned trauma earlier. I have made clear my belief that our justice system must be more trauma-informed from start to finish. I again place on record my intention to continue to work to improve the experience of victims and bereaved families who, through no fault of their own, find themselves thrust into that unwanted and unfamiliar world. Funded by my Department, Victim Support NI provides advice and support to families of victims as they go through the criminal justice system.

The changes made by Part 7 will see an increase from 14 years to 20 years in the maximum sentence available for the offences of causing death or serious injury through dangerous driving or careless driving with drink or drugs. That unique new maximum penalty befits the horror of such offences, and it cannot come into effect too soon.

Part 7 also provides for a possible life sentence where a driver has a previous conviction for one of those offences, and it increases the minimum disqualification period for the offences from two years to four years. For repeat offenders, it increases it from three years to six years.

Finally, Part 7 addresses an issue that has lain unresolved for many years through the provision that a disqualified driver will serve their disqualification period after they are released from prison. That will give real meaning to disqualifications in those horrendous cases, keeping such drivers off our roads for longer periods than is the case at present.

The proposed new provisions are proportionate in the context of the law and also when we consider how heinous those crimes are, cruelly robbing the victims of their future and their families of a son or a daughter.

That concludes my remarks on the substantive policy content of the Bill as introduced. As Members have heard, the Bill includes some novel and unique provisions. I do not believe, and I have never believed, that "novel" and "unique" should be seen as weaknesses. To the contrary, they are the purpose of devolution. Importantly, the Bill introduces significant changes that will make a positive difference to the people whom we represent, particularly victims of crime, and will improve confidence in the criminal justice system and increase the transparency and effectiveness of sentencing.

I look forward to working with the Committee for Justice and my Assembly colleagues to ensure that the Bill's provisions are enacted within this mandate. I commend the Bill to the House.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Second Stage debate on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. There is little point in my repeating what the Minister said while outlining the content of the Bill. It will be referred to the Committee should it pass Second Stage, and that is when the Committee's scrutiny will start in earnest. However, the Committee undertook some pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, engaging with officials before and after its introduction on 3 March 2026.

The Committee was first advised of the prospect of the Bill at the start of the mandate, with the indication that it would be the second of three large pieces of legislation coming from the Department. During oral evidence to the Committee on 25 April 2024, the Minister also outlined her wish to introduce a sentencing reform Bill in the spring of 2025. On 26 September 2024, departmental officials indicated that the Bill was being worked on, that it was likely to be complex and that it would require careful scrutiny. The Minister subsequently provided some further clarity on intended policy areas to be included in the Bill in March 2025 when she gave evidence to the Justice Committee.

The Committee received the first comprehensive pre-legislative briefing on the Bill from officials at its meeting of 27 November 2025. The written paper from the Department provided background on the development of the Bill, including the public consultation that was carried out in late 2019 and early 2020, which built on a previous review of sentencing back in 2016 when Claire Sugden was Justice Minister. During the oral session, officials outlined that the Bill would cover the principles and purposes of sentencing; introduce new offences of assault on public workers; deal with unduly lenient sentencing in the Crown Court; increase penalties for dangerous driving offences; make provisions for mandatory life sentencing; introduce Charlotte's law for failing to disclose the location of victims' remains; and bring in new hate crime aggravators. Officials said that, although they had hoped to introduce the Bill before the end of the calendar year, drafting had been complex and taken longer than expected. Committee members took the chance to ask some initial questions about issues such as the thresholds for unduly lenient sentencing, the calculations used for additional sentencing tariffs for Charlotte's law and the exploration of statutory aggravators for hate crime.

Following that initial briefing, the Committee sought clarification from the Department on the specific reasons for the delay in introducing the Bill. We also sought more information on how the protected groups in the section on hate crime aggravators had been selected and further information on the prevalence and use of victim statements in court. The latter issue was raised with the Committee by the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime during her evidence on the Justice Bill. The Department's response provided detailed information on hate crime aggravators, including evidence on the consideration given to sectarianism, age and gender as statutory aggravators, and the work carried out in other jurisdictions and how that helped to form the evidence base for the measures. The response also advised that the delay in the intended time frame for introduction was primarily due to technical and legal complexities that were encountered during the drafting stage. It also stated that the proposed content of the Bill covered a range of important sentencing issues that were significant in terms of both the number of issues being addressed and their complexity. Sentencing was one of the most complicated areas of law, with a complex mixture of legislation and practice to be taken into consideration when making any changes.

The Committee received an introductory briefing on the detail of the Bill on 5 March, two days after its introduction. I thank the officials for that briefing, which, I know, members found very helpful. Officials outlined some changes to the Bill that were proposed back in November and shared, as a draft, with the Committee. Those changes included the removal of a power for the Court of Appeal to issue its own guidance, which, officials indicated, required further development and discussion with the judiciary. Officials also outlined the fact that the Bill no longer included transgender identity as a protected group in the hate crime provisions, as that could not secure Executive approval. During the session, members asked further questions, and we also sought follow-up information on the deterrence factor of longer sentencing and the potential impact of longer sentencing on the prison system. That is particularly important as, as members heard, the prison population is at an all-time high, meaning that the Prison Service is under pressure. We are keen, therefore, to see the analysis that has been done on the Bill's possible impact on the Prison Service and whether it will potentially add to those existing unprecedented pressures.

On the face of it, the Bill may be narrower in focus than the Justice Bill and the proposed departmental amendments. However, as the Department has pointed out, it deals with complex and technical matters.

There is no doubt that some of the matters covered by the Bill are sensitive and will have a real-life impact on victims and their families; indeed, several measures in the Bill have been informed and championed by victims and their families.

I have no doubt that the Bill will be of great interest to the public and to stakeholders. In fact, the Committee has already received several approaches from individuals, organisations and MLAs about what is in the Bill and, importantly, what is not in it. We will consider those matters in our scrutiny.

It is important that the Committee makes sure that the Bill delivers on its aims and helps to improve the operation and transparency of the justice system. The Committee will do all that it can to work with the Department and the Minister to make sure that that happens and that this crucial, detailed and complex legislation is fit for purpose. It will probably come as no surprise to Members when I say that I relish the scrutiny of primary legislation. I, along with my colleagues on the Justice Committee, look forward to considering the Bill in detail at Committee Stage, subject, to its successfully passing Second Stage today.

I will make a number of points in my capacity as an individual MLA and DUP spokesperson. There is no doubt that this is a really important Bill that has been a long time coming. We have looked at reviews of sentencing for many years, going back to Claire Sugden's time as Justice Minister. I was Chair of the Justice Committee at that time as well, and I worked well with Ms Sugden on these important issues.

It is fair to say that the Bill is really technical. It grapples with some serious issues that have affected victims and their families up until now. There is real frustration about the cogs not only of justice but of legislation turning slowly. The Bill must be welcomed, because we can now see the detail of the Minister's proposals. I give my commitment to the Minister that I will do all in my power as a DUP MLA chairing the Justice Committee to work with her and her Department to make sure that the legislation is the best that it can be and that it is wholesome.

It alarms me a wee bit that the Department has moved on another review of sentencing that will run alongside the legislative journey of the Bill. Whilst it is always important to review sentencing, I wonder whether there is a missed opportunity to do some of the work of that review and to have that in the Bill.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. He is always generous with his time, and I appreciate it.

The Member will appreciate that the gestation of the Bill has been 10 years. It has taken a long time to get here. That is partly because the Assembly was not here for half of those 10 years. It is also because it takes a long time to develop policy. We are doing the review alongside this, if you like, because we recognise that the Bill will not cover every issue. We want to ensure that we do not take missteps in trying to rush to legislate when we have not done the policy development. Therefore, I reassure the Member that, if, during the passage of the Bill, issues emerge that need to be addressed, we will be more than happy to look at them as part of that review and try to take them forward in the next mandate.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that intervention; it was very helpful. One issue that comes to mind — there has already been interest in this from MLAs — is that of Harper's law. Whilst the Minister is right to talk about the gestation of the Bill and how long it has taken to get to this point, Harper's law has been about for a good number of years. Having met departmental officials, I know that they have been grappling with that issue for a number of years. That is just one example: a lot of MLAs ask me why Harper's law is not in the Bill but is in the sentencing review that the Department is conducting. That is just one important issue that springs to mind.

I will move through the Bill. Part 2 is on suspended sentences. It is important that we do justice in a cleverer way. We should have smarter justice, and we should strive for smarter justice at every opportunity that we get. I understand the point about short custodial sentences: when people are thrown into prison for short periods, you do not really get time to rehabilitate them. They serve their time in there, and then they get pushed out into society again. That can sometimes be a brutal instrument, albeit it is justice. We should consider how that works and operates in practice and whether we best serve the public through short custodial sentences.

Part 2 refers to suspended sentence orders. For serious offences, it states:

"the court may make a suspended sentence order in relation to the sentence if the term of the sentence is not more than 7 years."

A court can give a suspended sentence order if the sentence is between five and seven years. A custodial sentence of between five and seven years can be given for really serious crimes. A person could be put in prison for five years or seven years for really serious issues, so there will be a concern that people may receive a suspended sentence order who should really spend time in prison not only for their rehabilitation but for the safety of the victims and potential victims. It is really important that that be looked at and scrutinised appropriately.

We have seen that unduly lenient sentences have been given in GB for some of the most horrific sexual crimes and even technology-assisted child sexual abuse offences. We should consider who can avail themselves of a suspended sentence order, the availability of those orders and whether there are some crimes that such an order just is not compatible with. We need to be careful there.

Part 2 also mentions pre-sentencing reports. Such reports will be really important in informing the court of issues before sentencing takes place. There are times when addiction, not least gambling addiction, plays its part in crime. The all-party group (APG) on reducing harm related to gambling is exercised on the issue, and I believe that the chair of that APG will speak later. It is important that things are included in a pre-sentencing report that not only assist the court in coming to a conclusion about the sentencing that it should hand down to someone but inform it about how someone can be rehabilitated. Surely a massive part of why we have justice in the first place is to ensure that we do not create further victims by not rehabilitating those who could and should be rehabilitated. There are some really big issues in Part 2.

We go from suspended sentences to mandatory life sentences in Part 3. That will be an important piece too.

Part 4 deals with unduly lenient sentencing. Again, that is a massive issue. Politicians sometimes step into that area when they believe that an unduly lenient sentence has been given in a case. There has been and continues to be a process there. One of the fundamental questions that come up about Part 4 — my Justice Committee colleague Doug Beattie has raised it — is why it applies only to Crown Court cases. Why does it not apply to Magistrates' Court cases? There can be an array of issues with regard to unduly lenient sentences, but, surely, if there is an issue at the Crown Court, that will be replicated at the Magistrates' Court. Whilst it may be a process issue, there is a problem there. A question should be posed about unduly lenient sentencing in the Magistrates' Court, which deals with some really important, serious crimes. We should pose that question.

Part 5 is:

"Failure to disclose information about victim's remains".

That goes to the heart of the cases involving victims such as Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian and their families and, of course, Charlotte's law and Helen's law. There has been a lot of sympathy, even in the House, for the way in which victims have been treated over the years, so it is good to see those measures in the Bill. We look forward to scrutinising them to ensure that they are the best that they can be, that victims are supported and that families can get closure on a lot of those issues.

There are some groundbreaking and new issues in Part 6, which relates to hate crime. I am glad to say that the Minister is now going for an aggravator model as opposed to potential new crimes around hate crime. I welcome that, because I am one of the MLAs who have been nervous and worried about hate crime legislation and how it is playing out in GB with regard to some of the sentencing that is being imposed, especially for incidents in the world of social media. It is an important area. Of course, no one should be attacked because of who they are, what community they belong to, what religious group they are from or how they live their life. No one should be attacked or made a victim because of any of those factors. We should look at that, but I am glad that the Minister has gone down the road of an aggravator. That makes one fundamental difference: it will be the court, not the police officer who first arrests or questions someone, that will decide the aggravation. For me, that brings a bit of comfort and confidence on Part 6.

One thing that worries me relates to the recording or non-recording of non-crime hate incidents. That is a massive issue, because no crime may have been committed, but people will have their details taken, and, somewhere in the future, details of some aspect of that person's life can be disclosed. That could have a detrimental impact on their life. If I can get some certainty regarding the recording of non-crime hate incidents —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I appreciate the engagement on this. The recording of hate incidents falls to the PSNI, but it would not affect only hate incidents; it would affect all reports of potential incidents that have taken place. Whilst I understand the point that the Member makes about how long people's data can be held — it is well made, but it is something that we are dealing with separately — there is a fundamental issue relating to the fact that some people will behave in ways that mean that they cannot be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence or that do not meet the criminal threshold but can often be an indicator of other behaviours. Serial sex offenders, for example, may often start with low-level indicators. If those are recorded and held, a pattern may emerge, and losing that information because it falls short of the criminal would be dangerous. There is a balance to be struck, and I will be interested to engage with the Committee and the Member on that as we go through the process.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her engagement and the clarification. She is right: there will be cases where people are not convicted or proven guilty. There are, therefore, times when it is right for the police to record incidents, but it should also be the case that we are careful about how that information is disclosed, because it may be the case that no crime is committed and the person is completely innocent but, because there is a recording somewhere, it could be disclosed. That could cause severe detriment to someone who has not committed a crime. That is an area that we will be able to look at and see where we go.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair)

Another issue that strikes me as interesting is the assault on public workers. It is a novel and good idea, but I worry, because it is put in the Bill as "assaults on public workers", which basically includes everyone who performs a public duty, including retail workers and everyone who produces something for the public. It is right that people get protection, but we have already had aggravators and actual crimes around assaults on people who work in blue-light services, such as police officers and firefighters.

Of course, I had the pleasure of bringing in a law to bring ambulance workers up to that level; that was in 2016, if my memory serves me right. I brought an amendment to the Justice Bill — I think that it was during David Ford's time as Minister — to bring ambulance workers up to the same level as firefighters and police officers when it comes to aggravated assault.

I worry that those blue-light service workers, who not only perform a duty and a service to the public but are lifesavers, will now be at the same level as every public worker. Whilst every public worker needs to be protected in law, there is a difference when that public service can save a life. There is logic in elevating offences for assaults on blue-light service workers, because, if you knock that worker out of commission and out of operation, that could be detrimental to the next victim. If a firefighter, police officer or ambulance worker ends up in A&E and is out of service and unable to work, it may, for example, be the case that that police officer should have been at the scene of a crime when another victim was created. There is potential to ensure that those blue-light service workers are elevated above all other public workers because of the impact of an assault on those workers.

Those three job titles are included in the Bill, but we could roll that out further. I toyed with the idea of bringing a private Member's Bill to deal with assaults on A&E staff, because that is the same logic. This could get wider, and we should maybe explore that and look at including public service workers where there is a real impact on life. We would be justified in elevating such jobs when it comes to assaults on public workers. I am sure that that will not be easy. Social workers have the same issue, because they go into people's homes and could be assaulted.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

And probation officers.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for reminding me about probation officers. There will be many more, but it is worth looking at that and seeing whether there can be an elevation. I understand that the Minister is repealing the blue-light assault offences; she can correct me if I am wrong. Therefore, she will be repealing one of the laws that I brought in. However, we are not precious about that sort of thing. We want to see proper law, and we want to see the law working to protect the people who protect us.

I have a lot of family members who work in retail, some of whom have been assaulted in the shop, but I think that they understand that they are not performing a life-changing service. They are selling food and good stuff, but they are not performing such a service. Therefore, whilst it is right to protect retail staff and service workers, we have to look at the elevation of people who save us, care for us, try to save our lives and keep us from harm. There is a lot of exploration work to be done there.

Part 7 is about road traffic offences, and I am intrigued with that Part because a number of MLAs have come to me about potential amendments related to road traffic issues. I wonder whether Part 7 opens up scope for such work. I will be working with the Bill Office, probably in the next couple of weeks, to explore ways in which we can maybe bring something in that provides a service to people who have suffered. Of course, Part 7 is partly to do with Enda Dolan, who was aged 18 when he was struck by a van and died. It is a really sensitive issue, and it is really important that we deal with it. There are other victims out there with similar, but not identical, stories to tell, and they could maybe be covered in Part 7. There could be exploration of what can be done in that regard.

As I said, I am intrigued by the Bill. I look forward to scrutinising it with my colleagues on the Justice Committee. The Committee has assembled a very good team. We are very capable of scrutinising the Bill, of assisting the Minister and the Department with it and of advising them where clauses might be bettered or where new clauses might be added. I look forward to scrutinising the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill in the weeks ahead.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

The SDLP welcomes the Second Stage debate on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. As has already been set out, its provisions are important and overdue. The review of issues to do with sentencing policy that the Bill covers was announced 10 years ago, and proposals for a sentencing guidelines mechanism were announced four years before that, in 2012. As always, it is important to take the right approach to addressing the issues. The time, however, that has been taken to introduce a new legislative framework and a new and effective sentencing guidelines mechanism cannot be considered to be helpful for securing public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is for the parties responsible for causing the delays in the legislation's introduction to reflect on the impact of their decisions. We in the SDLP have proposed modest reforms that would prevent a repeat of such lengthy delays with important legislation in future by allowing the Assembly to continue to sit and to scrutinise drafted legislation in circumstances in which a single party chooses to collapse the Executive.

The Bill is important. It includes a number of provisions on the exercising of the court's discretion when sentencing, the availability and effect of suspended sentence orders, the determination of tariffs where a court is required to pass a life sentence and a review of certain sentences. It also increases penalties and disqualification periods for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. As the Minister and the Committee Chair have already said, we have the parents of Enda Dolan in the Public Gallery. Enda was an 18-year-old student from Killyclogher in County Tyrone who had been studying architecture at Queen's University. On 15 October 2014, on the Malone Road in south Belfast, a van driver who had taken drink and drugs mounted the pavement and struck Enda. Enda was thrown on to the roof of the van. The driver continued driving before eventually stopping. Enda died from his injuries at the scene. The driver pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and related offences. He was initially sentenced to seven years in prison, with the sentence later being increased on appeal. Enda's family launched the Run for Enda campaign and have, for many years, advocated for tougher sentences for drink- and drug-driving that causes death. As I said, Peter and Niamh, Enda's parents, are with us in the Public Gallery. They will no doubt be keeping a close watch on what happens here today and, indeed, at the Justice Committee as it scrutinises the Bill to ensure, as the Chair committed to earlier, that there is effective delivery for those people who have already suffered loss, hurt and injury as a consequence of what has happened to them in their lives.

The Bill's provisions are all important and very welcome changes. In particular, I welcome the introduction of provisions for Charlotte's law. We acknowledge the Murray and Dorrian families at this time. We are also reminded of the pain suffered and injustice felt by the families of those who were disappeared by the Provisional IRA, some of whom have waited over 40 years for the return of the body of their loved one. In November 2021, the Justice Minister announced proposals on Charlotte's law in the Chamber, but they have been delayed by the actions of the parties who sit in the Executive Office. I hope that there are not similar delays in introducing the legislation that is required for Caoimhe's law. Given the raised expectations of victims' families, it is important that the preparations be made and the resources put in place so that the Bill's provisions can deliver real impact from day 1.

My party also welcomes the changes to the procedure for addressing unduly lenient sentences. Simplifying and expanding the arrangements is a step in the right direction to improving public confidence in the justice system. It is, however, outcomes that will ultimately play a greater role in improving public confidence, and they will need to be monitored very carefully. The Bill also creates an offence of assaulting a public worker, extending the existing offences of assault on police, fire and rescue officers and ambulance workers to cover all public workers who:

"provide a service to the public"

or "perform a public duty". I think that I was one of the members who raised at Committee the issue of what that definition might be. The Chair already mentioned that issue. There is some concern that the widespread extension of that offence could undermine the original intention to protect emergency workers, who are already covered.

I also highlight our concern about the provisions for a statutory aggravator model for hate crime. It was supposed to reflect the recommendations from Judge Marrinan's review of the way in which the justice system deals with criminal conduct motivated by hate, malice, ill will or prejudice. While the proposed mechanism itself may allow for that, we are concerned about the Minister's apparent minimalist approach to protected groups or characteristics. We do not believe that it reflects the ambition or the progressive nature of Judge Marrinan's recommendations.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Yes.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I welcome the support for the aggravator model that we have heard so far in the debate. To be clear, it is not about being restrictive. We consulted on the categories in the Bill at the moment. There is also a clause that allows us to add by regulation additional categories, given that a phase 2 consultation will look at other protected characteristics: for example, defining age, sectarianism and so on are more complex issues that were not covered in the phase 1 consultation, but they can be added without further primary legislation after the Bill is passed.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for that. Equally, I trust and hope that the level of commitment to engaging with and delivering such legislation will not be hindered by anything in or outwith the Chamber, as has been the case up to now.

I am sure that, within the past hour, the Minister and other Members received the email from the Commissioner for Older People expressing disappointment that crimes against older people have not been included in the Bill. Hopefully, that will be a matter for consideration by the Minister when it comes to the secondary legislation that she suggested.

We had been told that the Bill was about introducing the statutory aggravator model, starting with the four existing protected groups, and that the second provision was there to introduce the additional protected groups at a later date. One of the departmental officials who attended the Justice Committee meeting on 27 November last year stated:

"It is about getting the statutory aggravator model on the statute books to start with and starting with the four protected groups and then seeking a power to introduce additional protected groups through secondary legislation at a later stage".

That is consistent with what the Minister outlined. However, we were recently informed that the Minister sought agreement from her Executive colleagues in November 2025 to introduce and include transgender identity as a protected group in the Bill. It was the Executive's inability to agree to that measure that meant that transgender identity as a protected group was removed from the Bill. That lack of consistency in the approach to protected groups was compounded by the argument from the departmental official at the Justice Committee in November 2025 that officials had already looked at sex as a potential protected group but decided that incidents where:

"aggravation was purely motivated by hate for somebody because of their gender was not as prevalent or as obvious to us as perhaps we might have thought when we started that work."

That is a direct quote from one of the officials who attended that meeting and presented evidence. Perhaps they were not looking carefully enough, or perhaps they need to widen the scope of what they are looking at or to liaise more with the police and community and voluntary groups to establish the extent and nature of that particular crime, as I suggest that it is.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

Yes.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I think that the Member is conflating two slightly different issues. One is about gender or sex, as in male or female, and it was about the number of misogyny hate crimes that were picked up. The other is to do with transgender hate crimes, which, as we know, have increased.

The letter that I sent to colleagues in the Executive set out my reasons for wishing to include transgender as one of the protected characteristics. We have seen a massive increase in violence and hate crimes against those who are transgender.

The issue is how much of the crime that we see happening on our streets could genuinely be said to be driven by misogyny. That is a bigger challenge, but it is something that will form part of the phase 2 consultation. In Scotland, the Government took the option of bringing forward a separate misogyny Bill because they did not believe that it fitted in the hate crime model.

Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for elaborating on that. Perhaps, in her winding-up comments, the Minister will indicate whether she will take the Scottish route, which she outlined, and introduce a separate misogyny Bill. That would be very helpful. Nevertheless, according to one official, sex is one of the groups that could be added at a later stage. The Minister has clarified her position on that. I suggest that, rather than follow the English and Welsh model, we align our hate crime legislation now with that on the rest of the island of Ireland and with the intention in Scotland to include characteristics of sex or gender in the protected groups.

The Bill includes important provisions that can help to secure public confidence in the criminal justice system. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, those issues can be resolved. I intend, as, I am sure, will other Members, to engage positively with the Department and the Minister on that and make sure that, in this mandate, we see good, effective legislation that helps to deliver for the many people who have been victimised over the years and who look to the Assembly for something positive that recognises their hurt and loss and delivers proper justice.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Sinn Féin welcomes the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill and the opportunity to debate it today at its Second Stage. Sentencing policy is something that communities across our society feel very strongly about. Too often, the public see serious offenders receiving sentences that appear to fall short of reflecting the harm caused to victims and families. When that happens, confidence in our justice system is damaged. Therefore, it is important that we examine the proposals in the Bill carefully and ensure that sentencing policy prioritises public protection, justice for victims and accountability for those who commit serious crimes.

Today, I will focus on two particularly important areas in the Bill: Charlotte's law and the proposals around tariff setting for murder cases, especially in the context of violence against women and girls.

First, on Charlotte's law, for families whose loved ones have been murdered but whose remains have never been recovered, the suffering is unimaginable. The pain of loss is compounded by the cruelty of not knowing where their loved ones lie. We pay tribute to the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian, who have campaigned with enormous courage and dignity to ensure that the issue cannot be ignored.

The Bill represents an important step forward. Offenders who refuse to disclose the location of a victim's remains prolong the suffering of families, and it is right that the justice system recognises that. As the legislation progresses, we must ensure that it is robust, legally sound and capable of delivering the justice and truth that families deserve.

Secondly, I will address the tariff settings for murder cases, particularly in the light of the ongoing crisis around violence against women and girls. Over the past month, we have heard harrowing details in the trials relating to the murders of Natalie McNally and Chloe Mitchell, and, just days ago, we learned of the tragic killing of Ellie Flanagan, a young woman whose life was taken far too soon. Since 2020, some 29 women have been murdered in the North, the majority of whom were killed or attacked in their own homes. Those are not isolated tragedies. They present a deeply troubling pattern of violence against women and girls. That is why it is right that violence against women and girls is recognised as an Executive priority and why sentencing policy must reflect the seriousness of those crimes.

The proposals in the Bill to increase starting tariffs for murder cases are therefore welcome, recognising that the most serious crimes must carry consequences that reflect the devastation that is caused to families and communities. Legislation alone, however, will not end the crisis. We must also understand and challenge the attitudes and behaviours that allow violence against women and girls to persist. We must ensure that victims are supported while perpetrators are held fully accountable.

Sinn Féin will support the Bill's progress to Committee Stage. We will continue to scrutinise its provisions carefully to ensure that it strengthens our justice system, delivers for victims and sends a clear message that violence, particularly against women and girls, will not be tolerated.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to give some initial reflections on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill at Second Stage on behalf of the Alliance Party. As the Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) states, the Bill:

"will make provision in relation to the policy issues arising from the Department's Sentencing Policy Review",

which commenced public consultation in 2019, with additional constituent parts covering:

"offenders who fail to disclose information about victims’ remains; and a statutory aggravator model for hate crime offences."

I thank Minister Long and her departmental officials for their diligent work in bringing forward this important and particularly complex legislation, which will make sentencing more consistent and transparent for all across Northern Ireland. The practice of sentencing, including what those sentences are and their time frames, has been the basis of much public discussion over the past few years. I commend the Bill as a vehicle to address issues that have arisen. It is particularly welcome that it comes in tandem with the newly announced sentencing review, while further initial scoping is projected to go out for public consultation next year.

The practice of sentencing by our judiciary is beyond important in our criminal legal system. It benchmarks crimes that are committed, and it is a public statement on what the consequences for each offence should be. It sends a message about what the public and our society as a whole stand for. Naturally, and as, I believe, the Bill achieves, the needs of victims and families, public sentiment and rehabilitation should be placed at the centre of how we determine sentences. As a member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the Minister's open communication with us on the Bill, including pre-introductory and post-introductory briefings from departmental officials.

I will take each Part of the Bill in turn, with a particular focus on the sections that refer to unduly lenient sentences and the aggravation attached to the failure to disclose information about victims' remains. Part 1 provides for the first time in Northern Ireland a clear statement in statute of the purposes and principles of the sentencing of adult offenders. The Alliance Party welcomes that, alongside the provisions that legally compel courts to have regard for relevant sentencing guidance when determining outcomes for offenders. Consistency in sentencing is paramount in ensuring public confidence in our criminal justice system and laying a clear foundation of purposes and principles. It provides transparency for all those who engage with it. The predictability of sentencing, where possible, is important.

Part 2 deals with the creation of new suspended sentence orders for adult offenders, which can specify one or more community requirements. Part 3 places a duty on the court, when passing a life sentence, to state in open court the reasons for deciding such a sentence and to explain to the offender the effect of it. Parts 2 and 3 interlink with an important stage in the offender's journey, and I welcome their utility in supporting the understanding of consequences and pathways to rehabilitation and, in some cases, in lowering the risk of reoffending.

Part 4 focuses on unduly lenient sentences. It simplifies and consolidates existing legislation to provide that, where the Director of Public Prosecutions determines that a sentence handed down by the Crown Court is unduly lenient, it can be referred to the Court of Appeal. The Alliance Party welcomes that move to bring consistency to the existing scheme and recognises that it aims to provide assurances to victims and their families who do not see prosecution outcomes and punishments as proportionate to the traumatising crime that has been committed. I see the benefit of that, providing clear space for review when there are concerns for public safety, particularly when the offences prosecuted include sexual violence or paedophilia, for example.

The tidying up and clarity brought by this legislation provides a path to secure justice when justice in the first instance may have been questioned. Queries have been raised to and by the Justice Committee about why that has not, from the outset, included summary trial offences in the Magistrates' Court, but I put it on record that the legislation does put in place regulation-making powers for the Department to expand that to specific offences that are prosecuted through the Magistrates' Court at a later date, once more policy development has been completed.

Part 5 of the Bill is very welcome and deals with the failure to disclose information about the remains of victims. That follows an incredibly brave and determined campaign by the families of Charlotte Murray and Lisa Dorrian. I know that they are here today, and we must pay tribute to them. I understand that they welcome these provisions today. What those families have endured is unimaginable, and I hope that this legislative step recognises their trauma and pain. These provisions will create an additional custodial period for a person who has been convicted of murder or manslaughter, where the court believes that they have information about where or how the victim's remains are disposed of but the person involved does not disclose that information. This legislation means that, for not disclosing where a victim's remains are, perpetrators will receive an additional custodial period that will not be less than 30% of the initial notional custodial period or sentence. That is welcome and incredibly important for victims' families and loved ones in their journey with trying to come to terms with a terribly traumatic loss that has happened in their life. The legislation is unique and gives a formulaic provision for how this can be dealt with if a disclosure is made post-sentencing. I welcome the fact that that accompanies the implementation of legislation similar to Helen's law, which places a duty on parole commissioners to consider information relating to the prisoner's non-disclosure when they are making decisions relating to the prisoner as a matter of public protection.

Alliance's reflections on Parts 6 and 7 of the Bill, which are on statutory aggravation and the increase of penalties in relation to road traffic offences, where death and serious injury is caused, will be covered in more detail by my party colleagues. The provisions are welcome, and I am extremely grateful to Enda Dolan's family, who are here today. They have been campaigning for this for years.

To finish, I note the EFM's reference to the Bill's financial effects, which are primarily seen as deliverable within existing resources. In a particularly challenging financial environment for our Executive, I am encouraged by that. The cost implications for the Probation Board of the introduction of community requirements as an option for inclusion in suspended sentences are of note, but I welcome the Department's commitment to a costing exercise pre implementation to ensure that it is doable.

I can see the Bill's provisions playing a real role in our Executive's joint ambition for safer communities, as noted in our Programme for Government. I look forward to working with my fellow members of the Justice Committee on the scrutiny of the Bill and engaging with the Minister, her Department and a vast array of stakeholders on its contents during our call for evidence. As already noted, sentencing plays a vital role in the functioning of any healthy democratic society. Public opinion over time shifts and changes, so our sentencing practice must, in turn, match that pace. This Bill is a welcome step forward.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for introducing it. The Minister was very clear and concise when she outlined the Bill's purpose, and I agree an awful lot with the Committee Chair's words on what he saw as some of the issues with the Bill. It is incumbent on us all now to work together on the Bill. Of course, we will be supporting it as it moves through Second Stage to Committee Stage. I do not intend to go through all of the Bill's clauses, but I will tap into a few of them with a few of my thoughts. Some aspects of the Sentencing Bill deal with issues that are very rare but have a huge impact on our society and, certainly, on victims.

Many have mentioned Part 5, failure to disclose information about a victim's remains. That is a heinous thing to do and really does have an impact. It is quite simple: if you fail to disclose the whereabouts of your victim's remains having been found guilty, time will be added to your sentence. At the minute, the mathematics and discretion falls to the judge, but that can be no less than 30% of the sentence. In simple terms, if you get 15 years, you could be looking at a sentence being extended to 20 years. That is the simple maths. The other thing that you then need to look at is this: if you have made an early guilty plea, does 33% get taken off? Having been given 15 years, you take 33% off that before you add the 30% aggravated. That is something that we will need to look at.

It is that type of complication in sentencing in general that concerns me. Many people have lost confidence in our justice system and sentencing because it seems to many to be unfair, inconsistent, overly complicated and not transparent and not to match the stated purpose and principles of sentencing, which we have, for the first time, laid out in the Bill in Part 1, namely proportionality, fairness and transparency. The use of punishment sparingly is going to be difficult for victims to hear. When we use the term "use punishment sparingly", that needs to be explained to them. The stated purposes of sentencing are punishment, protection of the public, deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation.

I have raised it in the Chamber before, but I am still convinced that Northern Ireland requires a sentencing council in line with what is in England and Wales, the Scottish Sentencing Council and the Sentencing Guidelines and Information Committee in the Irish Republic. A sentencing council would ensure fairness, consistency and transparency. It would outline the effect of the sentence on the victim and how the sentence guidelines were followed. It is a discussion to be had; one that we need to have if we are to go forward. In passing the motion that I tabled last year, the House agreed that we should have a sentencing council, but that was just a motion that was not binding. We need to have that discussion about a sentencing council.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I appreciate the Member giving way. I know that that is something that he is passionate about. It is for that reason that I put the issue of a sentencing council into the sentencing review that is happening at the moment. When we consulted on that previously, there were very disparate views on its effectiveness and affordability. Before jumping into doing something, I want to be sure that it is the best and most efficient and effective use of resource. I do not disagree with the Member that added transparency and clarity are useful, but I am not sure that a sentencing council in a jurisdiction this small would necessarily be the best use of resource. However, it could be looked at as part of the review, and that might be a good way to build up the evidence.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for that. In some ways, I agree with her about the sentencing review, but the outcomes of that will not then move into the next mandate. As good as she is, she may not be the Minister in the next mandate. In fact, according to some, you may not even be in the Executive.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

[Inaudible.]

[Laughter.]

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I still think that it is a discussion that needs to be had, because Northern Ireland is the outlier in these islands on something that is important.

I welcome Part 7, including clause 41 and the increase in sentences from 14 years to 20 years for death or injury through dangerous driving or careless driving while under the influence of drink and/or drugs. I am slightly concerned about the small increase to the sentence for causing death or serious injury when driving while disqualified to just four years when tried on indictment and 12 months when tried summarily.

That leads me on to an issue that Paul Frew raised, which is that of unduly lenient sentences. The Minister knows that I have already raised the issue with her as well. There needs to be a change made. At the minute, the only cases that can be challenged are those held in the Crown Court. The Crown Court could hand down a 12-month custodial sentence, and that can be challenged. If a magistrate hands down a 12-month custodial sentence, however, that cannot be challenged. I do not fully understand fully why the two should not be aligned.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that he is being generous with his time. I will come on to that in more detail, but I will say for now that the difference is that, if a 12-month custodial sentence in the Magistrates' Court is appealed, it cannot be changed, because that is, by and large, the maximum sentence permitted there. By exception, two-year sentences are possible in the Magistrates' Court. The real challenge is where the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) chooses to prosecute the case. If it prosecutes it in the Crown Court, and somebody gets only a year, it can be appealed. If they get a year in the Magistrates' Court, however, that is the maximum sentence available.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Again, I thank the Minister for her intervention. It is a really important discussion piece, and I have raised it before. If we had been able to challenge sentences in the Magistrates' Court previously, we could have dealt earlier with some of the issues facing us. I have said before in the Chamber that, up until recently, cases involving non-fatal strangulation were, by a majority of some 300 cases, heard in the Magistrates' Court, and not one sentence was able to be challenged. Fifteen cases were heard in the Crown Court, and the sentences could be challenged, and that was up to a maximum sentence of, I believe, three years. I think that you said two, Minister, but I thought that it was three. That is why there needs to be alignment. I am not sure how difficult it would be to align the two.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. The issue with the three years is what we are considering when looking to increase the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court. If we go down that route and increase its jurisdiction as intended, there will be the opportunity to add unduly lenient sentences in that context. In the context, however, in which the maximum sentence is 12 months, as is the case currently — by exception, there are a small number of offences for which it is two years — it would not make sense to do that. If, however, we do increase sentences at the same time, we can look at increasing the opportunity for appeal against undue leniency.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I have to say this: does that not add to the debate? It is a complex issue, and the Minister is right. If we can all have a grown-up debate on the Bill, we can come up with something transformative. I really consider the Bill to be something that can be transformative, although, right now, it is a little narrow. Its scope could be widened slightly.

I will not speak to some of the other clauses, because they have been covered in great detail right across the House. I will, however, raise a couple of issues that need to be addressed in the legislation. Even we do not see an outcome, they need to be discussed. First, we need to formalise and put on a statutory footing the process for pre-release testing of life-tariff prisoners. That could be in Part 3 of the Bill. At the moment, there is an obligation to do that. The Minister was clear that she must ready life-sentence prisoners for release at the end of their tariff. There is, however, nothing in the Bill to show what that is supposed to look like. I know that the Minister disagrees with me when I say that there is a conflict between the Life Sentences (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, but, as I see it, we can fix that if we put something into Part 3 to formalise that process.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Of course.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The legal position is clear: there is no conflict. People are released on licence under the Life Sentence Order only when they have served their tariff but can be released by the prison, under the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules, at any time during that period for good reason, and one of those good reasons is rehabilitation.

I want to make the Member aware, because there has not been a previous opportunity for me to do so, that we are looking to do a review of how we go about doing pre-release testing with independent scrutiny. I am confident that the system is working well. Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) has said that it agrees, and the Parole Commissioners have not raised any issue with us about how we operate pre-release testing. I recognise, however, that the public have to be confident about it as well. Along with the director general of the Prison Service, we have looked at how we can bring forward that review, and I will hopefully have more to tell you about that in the weeks ahead.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Minister. That is good news. It is the very point that I raised. We can look at these things. If it turns out that what we are doing is right and proper and the best way to get things to work, that is what we will do. However, if it can be improved and can give families more confidence, it is right to do that. That is what could make the Bill transformative.

We need to review sentence discount, and we can do so through the Bill. At the minute, for a guilty plea made at the earliest opportunity, you can get 33% off your sentence. If you are guilty, that is a great inducement to say, "I'm guilty". That is fair. The issue comes with the late guilty plea. A guilty plea can be made as late as the day the trial starts, and, for that, you can get between 20% and 25% off your sentence. That is an inducement for people not to plead guilty. Some of our cases last 750 days or more, and, as has been mentioned, some people say, "Do you know what? If I just hold off and don't make a guilty plea, even though I know I'm guilty, there's a good chance that witnesses will fall off and the victim will decide not to go any further". Some people are waiting —.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that that is specifically highlighted by the number of drop-offs in cases of domestic and sexual violence against women and girls?

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member is absolutely right. I asked the Minister a question about that, and I got a really good answer. A lot of people make late guilty pleas in sexual offence cases, because they think that the victim will drop off before it gets to that point. The question is —.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I really appreciate the Member giving way, and I apologise, but this is something that I am genuinely passionate about. It is really important to look at how infrequently domestic abuse cases are made out in court and contrast that with the figures for domestic abuse contest cases that have been heard in the remote evidence centre, where victims feel confident enough to turn up: we now have a 92% conviction rate. Many of those cases will be admissions of guilt on the day, because the witness has come to give their evidence, and others will go through the court process and be convicted. That shows the degree to which the system is gamed by some people in the hope that their victim will lose heart and withdraw from the case. Support for victims is important, and speeding up justice is important — I totally agree — but that is one of the starkest changes that I have seen through the use of remote evidence centres.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Minister laid it out well that some people are gaming the system. I sometimes wonder whether we should think outside the box. To speed up justice, we should make this clear: if you are guilty and you plead guilty early, you will get 33% off your sentence or maybe even 35% or a little bit more; but, if you delay your plea, you will get nothing. That would take away the ability to game the system and speed up justice.

I welcome the Bill, the words from the Minister and all the really good contributions that have been made in the Chamber. I want the Bill to be transformational. We have little time in which to achieve that transformation. I want to work achieve it. I want to work with the Minister and the Committee to create good legislation, but I want that legislation to look to the future in changing things. I want it not just to do the small, narrow pieces that we can do, important as those are, but to look at wider sentencing.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, as Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. This debate will continue following Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Emma Sheerin.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

1. Mr Frew asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the impact of the First Minister's non-attendance at briefings by His Majesty’s Government in relation to the conflict in Iran on Northern Ireland citizens in the Middle East. (AQO 3290/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

This is a deeply worrying time, and our priority is to ensure the safety and well-being of people from here who are in the region. The deputy First Minister and I and our officials are fully engaged with the British and Irish Governments on the matter. We met the Prime Minister and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs last week to discuss the ongoing impact of the conflict in the Middle East on our diaspora who are living there and travelling through there. We reinforced the fact that we stand ready to assist in helping people from here who are impacted on in the region in any way that we can.

We receive twice-daily briefings from our officials on the situation, and we have been working actively to use all the communication channels available to us to encourage people affected to register their presence through the relevant government portals and to keep up to date with the official travel guidance, as it continues to change.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Useful information given at those critical meetings led to Northern Ireland citizens receiving support to come home and to stay safe. People with British passports and those with Irish passports were able to avail themselves of that support. How can the First Minister justify staying away, and how can she look those people in the eye?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I set out clearly the reason why I did not attend the briefings, and I am comfortable with my position on that. I know that, whilst the Member's party is on the wrong side of the war scenario — it has been a cheerleader from day 1 — what people want to hear is what we are doing to help them.

All through the crisis, we have engaged with the Irish Government and the British Government; we have had those twice-daily briefings; we have ensured that we have been informed; and we have promoted all the information across the Executive Office platforms, whether on social media or regular media. I am comfortable with the role that we have played in supporting people, which is ultimately what this is about. We have no responsibility for many of the issues, but we amplified the messages from the British Government and the Irish Government, which was really important.

All Members have probably dealt with families affected by the crisis, including people who have, as the Member rightly pointed out, British or Irish passports, even in the same family. All the issues were resolved because of the way in which we were able to put questions directly to both Governments throughout the crisis, and we will continue to do so.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The decision by the United States of America and Israel to launch an unprovoked attack on the people of Iran is a flagrant abuse of international law. Does the First Minister agree that those illegal war decisions have consequences not only for the people of Iran but, directly, for people here?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. I share those concerns, as do the majority of us in the House. The real-life implications are the human cost — the tragedy of loss of life — throughout the areas that have been impacted on, but a real cost is also felt here by our constituents as their costs rise. That is why, throughout the crisis, we have engaged at every level with the British Government, whether through engagement directly with Keir Starmer, the British Prime Minister, or through our Ministers engaging directly with their counterparts on energy or finances.

There are real-life implications here. Political choices made in London to invest in illegal war over public services cause real detriment to people's lives. We all know, I have no doubt, from being contacted at our constituency offices in past weeks that people are really worried about rising costs. They were already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis; their household budgets were already stretched. Now, because of the war and the escalation in the conflict, our householders bear the brunt of all of that. Those are the real-life consequences that we all have to be alert to. We all need to face one way in making the strongest possible case for support for households. That is what we have focused on in the weeks since the latest international war broke out.

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

On 2 March, I asked the First Ministers what plans they had:

"to address the impacts of increased energy prices arising from the conflict in Iran".

That question was due for answer on 5 March. It is now 16 March. Why have the First Ministers not seen fit to answer my question about a crisis that is impacting on every household in Ireland?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that we will get the answer to you as quickly as possible, but, with all due respect, our answering your question is not going to help somebody with their household bills. The priority is to work with the British Government and challenge them to ensure that we have the right investment package so that we can help people through this cost-of-living crisis. The announcement today does not touch the surface of what is required by households that are really struggling. We need to continue to work in that regard. That is why I said that we all need to face in the same direction and stand up for our constituents. We need to stand up strongly together to make the case for a proper package to help people through the crisis. These are the real-life implications of war. Our constituents here have to bear the brunt of decisions that have been taken elsewhere, so we need to fight together for the people whom we represent.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. Miss Dolan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any assessment that has been made of the process for the proposed draft Budget 2026-29/2030. (AQO 3291/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We welcome the prospect of the first multi-year Budget in over 10 years and recognise the potential benefits that a multi-year plan could bring about. It would provide an important opportunity for all Departments to plan more strategically. However, we recognise the challenges that the Executive continue to face. Ministers remain committed to ensuring that our Budget is fit for purpose and meets our needs. Multi-year budgeting has had an important role to play in managing inescapable costs and delivering key initiatives and commitments. The process for the proposed draft Budget required Departments to submit detailed resource and capital departmental expenditure limit (DEL) information, with the Department of Finance using those returns, alongside the funding limits that were set in the spending review, to develop a draft Budget for public consultation. That 12-week consultation closed on 3 March. We note and welcome the £400 million reserve claim that was agreed with the Treasury during that time. However, we recognise that the repayments will impact on Budget funding available for services over the next three years. The recent announcement of a further £387 million for the Executive over the three-year period is welcome, as it acknowledges the need for further funding to be made available for public services here.

Engagement with Treasury is continuing at pace throughout this period. The purpose of the open-book review is to give the Treasury a fuller picture and understanding of the significant pressures that our Executive face. The reality is that we are underfunded. We have a case to make in that respect, and we intend to do so.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the current global instability makes it even more important that we maximise the opportunity provided by a three-year Budget to protect and stabilise our public services?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. I just reflected on the challenges that all our constituents are facing, including cost-of-living pressures, rising energy costs and wider global instability. All of that adds further strain to every household out there. Those pressures place an additional financial burden on our public services at a time when our Executive Budget is already constrained because of inadequate Budget settlements from Westminster, which is why getting to a juncture where we have a three-year Budget is so important. It would give us the ability to stabilise services, plan more strategically and have a bit more foresight and medium-term thinking about investment. That is why we are doing the things that we are doing. It is why we are engaged in the open-book exercise and why we are working together to look at the challenges that we have in each Department. Ultimately — I made this point to Keir Starmer last week — we have to have an adequate funding settlement for our Executive to be able to do the things that we want to do. We will play our part when it comes to transformation and trying to do things differently, but we need the resources to back that up. We continue to make that case to the Treasury.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Does the First Minister accept that the draft Budget was not agreed by the Executive? Does she recognise that, if we are to secure a three-year Budget, the Finance Minister needs to seriously engage with all Ministers?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are all aware, because he has said it publicly, that the Finance Minister published the draft Budget so that we can get the consultation process carried out. Quite a number of people have responded to the consultation, showing the interest in the Budget among the wider public: 370 responses were received. The prize for everybody is to get to a three-year Budget, which we have not had for over 10 years. It will not be a magic solution to the challenges here, but it will certainly be a much better position for us to be in as an Executive, allowing us to have more longer-term planning.

Throughout the process, the Finance Minister engaged with every single Minister, and he continues to work on his open-book exercise with the Treasury, making a strong case for why we need additional funding. Looking to Scotland and Wales, we have a comparatively bad deal. We need to continue to fight our corner. Doing so collectively will be our strength. We raised that directly with Keir Starmer last week and will continue to do so. We have until the end of the month: that is the juncture at which we have to have a Budget agreed, and I encourage every party to engage constructively in order to make sure that we get to that point.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

First Minister, you talked about the need for strategic, long-term investment in public services. I remain concerned, as we hurtle towards the end of the mandate, that we have not seen the investment strategy 2050. Can you update the House on when we will see that?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. There is a logical chronology developing. The investment strategy should, naturally, be published directly following the Budget being agreed, because we will then understand exactly what capital allocation we are dealing with across all Departments. A number of other things that are happening now will have implications for capital projects, not least the challenge to the A5 and what that means for other Executive projects. All those things have to be factored into the final document. I am hopeful that we will be able to come back, on the other side of the three-year Budget having been agreed, to talk to you about a proper investment strategy that clearly sets out our priorities for the next 10 years.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

First Minister, the Opposition agrees. We want to see the maximum possible funding being made available to the Executive, and we will always speak up for that. The spring statement allocated an extra £220 million for the Executive to spend in 2026-27. In that financial year, the repayment of the previous reserve claim will be £80 million, leaving more than £100 million of that allocation for the Executive to allocate. Will you advocate for some of that money to go to topping up support for households, given the spike in oil prices?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No, where we should all be collectively focused — including you — is on making the strongest possible case to the Treasury. The Executive's budget does not have the firepower — that is how the Finance Minister described it last week — that we need; we do not have an appropriate level of funding to help people to get through this spike in prices and the cost-of-living crisis. That is why we need to continue to work collectively to make the case to the Treasury. We have a strong case to make, and we continue to do so. Look at the stark figures for relative need: Scotland is 20% above need, Wales is 8% above need, and we are only 0·06% above need. That in itself makes the case. That is our starting point, and I encourage us all to work together to fight for households here and to fight to get proper money that will help to get people through the crisis. What is being thrown out to us today does not even scratch the surface of what people need.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

3. Mrs Dillon asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, further to their work towards a united and shared society, whether an assessment has been made of how community relations can be strengthened by having the composition of the PSNI reflect the diversity of the community it serves. (AQO 3292/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We recognise that promoting good relations and building trust across all sections of the community are central to the Executive’s commitment to a united and shared society in which policing plays an important role. We acknowledge the benefits that diverse workforces can bring across the public sector, reflecting the increasingly diverse communities that we serve. Everyone should have the same opportunities, regardless of their background.

A full review of the current Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy has been completed. We are working with officials to bring forward a refreshed cross-cutting approach to good relations, which we believe will provide an opportunity to strengthen trust, inclusion and shared outcomes across society, supporting more positive relationships between public services and the communities that they serve. Policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), funded by the Department of Justice and the Policing Board, work at a community level to improve community safety and increase confidence in policing. We believe they have a vital role to play in building community relations, going forward.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the First Minister. We are approaching the 16th anniversary of the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Assembly. First Minister, do you agree that a return to 50:50 recruitment and the appointment of the next Justice Minister by the d'Hondt process would go some way towards building community confidence in our policing and justice arrangements and that it is long past time that we used the d'Hondt process to allocate the Justice Ministry?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thanks for the question. On the first point, if the PSNI is to succeed in delivering what we all want to see, which is a modern policing service, it has to be representative of the community that it serves. Unfortunately, that is not the reality. I am on record as saying that I support the return to 50:50 recruitment, because it is an important first step in rebuilding confidence in policing and ensuring that the policing institutions command maximum community support across all sections of our community.

On the second point about Justice by d'Hondt, I absolutely agree with what you said. As we approach the 16th anniversary of the transfer of policing and justice powers, that is one of the things that remain outstanding. If we are to build confidence in policing, it has to involve the whole policing and justice family and structure. I certainly make the case that that anomaly needs to be resolved. I make that point to everybody who is elected to the Chamber. It is one of the outstanding issues that need to be addressed, and doing so would represent another milestone in strengthening democratic accountability and confidence in our policing and justice arrangements. The principle is simple: our institutions always work best when they serve and operate on the basis of an expressed democratic mandate, and that also runs true for the Department of Justice. I raised that with the British Government in the last week or so, because it needs to be resolved, and I will continue to make that case.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

First Minister, are you content that all political parties are doing enough to promote joining the police as a viable career? I ask that as a member of the Policing Board. Some parties complain about representation but do not promote joining the police. What do you say to those parties?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I said in my initial answer, the service needs to be representative of society. I constantly make that point to the Chief Constable. All the parties that sit on the Policing Board have a role in making sure that the Police Service is representative. I engage regularly. I raise directly with the Chief Constable areas of concern that, I know, are very much felt in the nationalist and republican community.

I have been to graduation ceremonies, and I have called on people to join the PSNI. However, we will have a fair and effective policing service only when it represents the community that it serves. The number of Catholics who came forward for the latest recruitment process should worry everybody. That is a backward step, and it should worry every one of us.

There is also a challenge to the PSNI. What is it doing to ensure that it creates a space where the Police Service is inclusive and representative of the community? What is it doing to ensure that it encourages people — in particular, those from the nationalist community, women and minority groups, who are not well represented in our Police Service either — to come forward? The PSNI has a big job of work to do. Of course, politically, we all have a role to play in that. It is not one or the other: it is both.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Of course, Alliance supports diversity, as it is an important priority in ensuring the representativeness of the PSNI, but 50:50 recruitment did not work for the long-term sustainability of diversity. Does the Minister agree that, if it did not work in the past, it surely will not work in the future and that, instead, our priority should be on the root causes of why Catholics are not coming forward to join the PSNI? Does the Minister also agree that, whilst the Justice Ministry is not in the d'Hondt process, it still counts towards the party's allocation in that process?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The reason 50:50 did not work is that it was stopped suddenly just when we were starting to see some change coming through. I put that directly to the Chief Constable, who said that he had an open mind about it. It is important to note that. It should be one part of a bigger jigsaw. A combination of factors needs to be looked at, including 50:50 and how the recruitment campaigns are run.

If the PSNI knows that there are under-represented groups, what is it doing to make sure that its recruitment campaigns are effective? Although I accept the Member's point about how the Justice Minister is appointed, that does not take away from the fact that the Department should be run like every other Department. How the Justice Minister is appointed is an anomaly from 16 years ago, and it needs to be corrected. It feeds into the jigsaw of trying to create a system that is fairer and inclusive. There are no no-go positions for anybody, and that is where we need to get to.

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

As a member of the Policing Board, I know that one of the issues that is affecting recruitment is the lack of neighbourhood officers: those officers who can go into communities and, in slow time, talk to people, engage with community groups and organisations and encourage people to join the Police Service. Does the First Minister agree that the obliteration of the Police Service's budget, which is a result of the Executive's Budget constraints, is preventing it from being able to recruit the right number of people to the force and the neighbourhood officer team?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that the Member will agree that the blame for the Executive's Budget constraints lie firmly at the feet of the Treasury. I have spoken at length today about the fact that we are so underfunded, relative to the likes of Scotland and Wales in particular. What is fundamental to all of this is that, if we want to invest more in our public services, which I genuinely believe that we all do, we have to have the right funding model, which we do not. If we do not have enough in the centre to enable us to invest in, say, community policing, the health service or education, we will always face challenges when trying to operate within the limitations of the Budget. I therefore continue to make the case for why we need more. We want to have good public services and more neighbourhood policing. We want our health waiting lists to be reduced. We want to see our children with additional needs being supported. We want to do all those things, but if we are starting on the back foot as a result of underfunding from London, doing them will always be a problem for us.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

4. Ms Sheerin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any humanitarian representations that they have made to the Irish Government and the British Government on behalf of local people who are in danger following the US/Israeli-led military attacks in the Middle East. (AQO 3293/22-27)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

8. Mr Clarke asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any discussions that they have had with Executive colleagues in relation to the potential economic and security implications for Northern Ireland arising from escalating tensions in the Middle East. (AQO 3297/22-27)

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

11. Mr Kearney asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether any assessment has been made on the cumulative impact that US/Israeli-led military attacks in the Middle East is having on the cost of living locally. (AQO 3300/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 4, 8 and 11 together. As I have said, I am extremely concerned about the situation in the Middle East, particularly the humanitarian impact on the citizens of the countries that are currently under attack and on the people from here who are in the region. Many find themselves stranded in very uncertain circumstances. We are fully engaged with the British and Irish Governments, and, last week, we met the Prime Minister and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs to discuss the ongoing situation and to offer our assistance to help people in any way in which we can. In particular, we raised the issue of people from here being able to register with either British or Irish embassies, regardless of whether they are travelling on an Irish passport or a British passport. We are pleased that they have been able to accommodate that request in their processes.

We welcome the commencement of chartered flights, which are prioritising the most vulnerable people. We have also seen the restarting of limited commercial flights to Britain and Ireland from the region. We therefore continue to communicate with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Foreign Office regularly, and we have stood up all our coordination mechanisms to ensure that any emerging issues are quickly detected and escalated. It is very much an evolving situation, and we are using all our communication channels to encourage people who are affected to register their presence through the relevant government portals and to keep up to date with official travel guidance.

The Executive discussed the deeply worrying situation at our meeting last week. All Ministers expressed concern about the humanitarian consequences of the crisis and agreed to keep developments under review, particularly the economic impact, which many Members have spoken about today. Locally, we have seen an almost immediate impact, with oil prices spiking, exceeding $100 a barrel last week. That is the first time that that has happened since the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

First Minister, will you draw your answer to a close, please? We are at two minutes and six seconds.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Minister for the Economy is continuing to engage with her counterparts, as is the Minister of Finance.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht a freagra.

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

First Minister, at the end of your answer, you touched on fuel supply issues. Is there a risk to our energy supply as a result of the warfare? Did you discuss that with the British Prime Minister at your recent meeting?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On the first point, we are told that there is no immediate risk to energy supply here. We are, however, continuing to monitor the situation, because we do not know where everything is going to end up.

The Economy Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, remains in ongoing contact with both the Irish and British Governments. As I have spoken about today, the immediate concern is the impact of rising energy costs. Those increases are being felt acutely by families who were already dealing with the cost-of-living crisis and now have to deal with those energy costs on top of that. Minister Archibald engaged with her counterpart the British Energy Minister, Michael Shanks, and with the Irish Government, and she made the case very strongly that the same support and assistance that was made available when the war broke out in Ukraine should be provided now. She has also engaged with suppliers on the price hikes that we are really concerned about.

On your second point, yes, I raised that directly with Keir Starmer last week, and I pushed him very hard on what he is going to do. As I said, what has been announced today does not cut it, so we have to continue to make the case for an urgent support package to mitigate the worst excesses of what people are experiencing right now.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. First Minister, no one underestimates the impact that war can have on communities. I am not sure that those who are involved in the war will be listening later today to the debate on a motion that your party has tabled, and I am not sure what difference it will make. However, my substantive question was about what conversations you and your colleagues have had on the potential economic impact on Northern Ireland. What are you going to do to assist with a response to that, given that you are supposed to be the First Minister for all?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As I have said throughout Question Time, we continue to make the case for why we need support for households here. These are the real-life implications of war — a war that your party championed from day 1. You have been gung-ho and have been cheerleading this war from day 1. You are on the wrong side; I have to tell you that. I will tell you what you did throughout the week: you called it wrong. You have been cheerleading this war from day 1, and then you tried to create deflection and distraction to take away from the fact that you have been so gung-ho about this war. Your constituents, just like mine, are suffering. Your constituents are worried about how they will pay their bills. Mine are, too. Everybody elected to this Chamber is worried about their constituents, so, instead of the nonsense, distraction, point-scoring and politicking, you should work together, fight the corner of your constituents, fight to get support into households and fight for people to get help with their bills. They are worried, and that is what they want to hear from this House, not the DUP's nonsense.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Declan Kearney. Declan, can you keep it short?

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire.

[Translation: Thank you. I thank the First Minister.]

Once again, First Minister, some within political unionism have engaged in despicable warmongering and distraction and, of course, have cast themselves as outliers in relation to support for human rights and multilateralism. First Minister, will you commit to being a voice for peace, diplomacy and international law?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

First Minister, you have a minute and 30 seconds.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Thank you.

I absolutely agree with the Member. I believe that the DUP has absolutely been on the wrong side of this the whole way through. From day 1, the DUP has been cheerleading this war, and you should be ashamed of yourselves, because what we are seeing is a flagrant breach of international law and countries turning their backs on the UN charter. We need to see an end to this conflict, a de-escalation, our trade routes opened again and an end to the deaths of thousands of people. We need to see negotiations, peace, dialogue and support for local households. That is what I remain focused on in my role as First Minister.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Pat, we have 45 seconds.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

5. Mr Sheehan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 is being implemented. (AQO 3294/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We are pleased to say that the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, the Irish Language Commissioner and the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition have been in post since 13 November last year. The NIO commenced further provisions of the Act on 27 January to enable the offices to carry out their statutory duties, including the Act’s "due regard" duty on public authorities with regard to the national and cultural identity principles. We met Katy, Pól and Lee for an introductory meeting on 9 February, when we discussed the important role that they play in promoting and celebrating our rich cultural diversity, identities, languages and traditions. We wish them all every success in their new roles and look forward to working with them.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Well done, First Minister. That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 5 has been withdrawn.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after noting that it was good that the First Minister was in the Chamber along with his party and others who were not celebrating Donald Trump as he destabilises the world and drives up energy costs for households, and that, on that subject, which has already been discussed, they agree and want maximum support from the UK Government, why, given the huge exposure to international oil markets here and that it is now more than a fortnight since Trump and Israel first invaded Iran, she and the deputy First Minister did not immediately convene a working group of Ministers and officials from all Departments to plan a response and why, instead, we have seen two weeks of infighting between Sinn Féin and the DUP. (AQT 2161/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I have repeated myself throughout Question Time, but I will do so again. From day 1, we have been fighting for households here and highlighting the impact of conflict and what it means to households on a day-to-day basis when it comes to the spikes in oil prices that they are experiencing. From day 1, we have been engaged with the British Government and made the case to them for supports. From day 1, Caoimhe Archibald and her counterpart have been engaged with them on energy support. She has been doing that because, as you know, a lot of the firepower that we need to support people comes directly from the Treasury. John O'Dowd has been doing that, and I have been doing that at every turn as well. From day 1, we have been making the case for our constituents when it comes to dealing with the crisis that we are all facing.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

First Minister, you have not answered my question. I did not ask simply about making the case. I respect that, and I agree with you that the UK Government need to provide the financial firepower. It is a global oil crisis: I am not being unreasonable about that. However, the bare minimum that the public should be able to expect is for you and the deputy First Minister, the Economy Minister, the Finance Minister and, yes, the Communities Minister to get together, design a scheme and then go to the UK Government and say, "This is what we want to deliver for the people of the North. Fund it". You have not done that. There has been indecision, squabbling and falling out. Why have your Government, again, been addicted to shifting blame to the UK Government, and then to each other, rather than on focusing on the people who matter most — the people who send us here?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Again, you accuse others of point-scoring and squabbling, but you are doing the same thing yourself. People want to hear from the Chamber what we are doing on their behalf. What I have said is that, from day 1, we have been fighting our corner on behalf of people here. They need help with their bills. I have set out for you what those Ministers have been doing — what Caoimhe Archibald and our Ministers have been doing. Yes: throughout the week, there has been a lot of noise and deflection from the Benches opposite. You know why. Call it out for what it is, Matthew, instead of doing the same thing and joining in with the chorus. I suggest to you that, given the quantum of what we need to support households right now, the best thing that we can all do is work together, fight for our constituents, dial down the noise and nonsense and actually get on with trying to get money into people's pockets. That is where my focus is.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

T2. Mr Bradley asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what discussions the Executive have had on providing finance for the housing market here and building social houses throughout Northern Ireland, and whether any money has been ring-fenced for the Communities Minister through the Executive. (AQT 2162/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As the Member knows, housing is one of our Programme for Government priorities. He will also know that we are working to finalise our Budget. I hope that we get to the point, at the end of the month, where we have a three-year Budget in place that will allow us to know exactly how much we can prioritise on every area of public spending, whether that is in housing, education, health or infrastructure. We need to get to the point where we have a three-year Budget. Then, we will fully understand exactly how we can meet our targets when it comes to housing. I am fully committed to the targets that we have set for housing.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Minister, can you ensure that there is adequate finance for the building of social housing throughout Northern Ireland because, for people who come through my office and, I am sure, the offices of other MLAs throughout Northern Ireland, the most important issue is the lack of housing?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We agree that housing is a priority, which is why it is in the Programme for Government, but we have spent an awful lot of time today talking about the constrained Budget that we have and the fact that we are underfunded. That is why we make that case. Policy decisions that are taken in London to prioritise military spending over public services have a real impact on people here. That is why I believe that, in the longer term, we would be much better placed to fight our own corner by having all the powers devolved here and working together in a new constitutional arrangement. Whilst we work towards that point, I make the case at every turn for better funding of our public services, including housing. I will continue to do so, as First Minister.

We are underfunded. The British Government are underfunding us, and that impacts on our ability to deliver on the things that I know we are all passionate about because, like you, my office is inundated with messages from people who are struggling to get a home and a roof over their head for their families.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T3. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to expand on some of the views that the First Minister mentioned on the British Prime Minister's announcement this morning about supports for households that rely on home heating oil. (AQT 2163/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I am sure that, when MLAs went to their constituency offices on Friday or over the past couple of weeks, they all engaged with people who were really worried. People were panic buying and trying to get oil in, because they were really fearful about where it would all end up. None of us know whether the recent rises are where it will stop or whether it will get worse. That is why we need support for householders. That is why we make the case to the Treasury.

I find the £17 million that has been put on the table today to be a real slap in the face. It is a slap in the face to families who are struggling to pay their oil bills. Nearly two thirds of households here rely on oil, and they are thinking, "What is this £17 million? What does it look like for me as an individual?". If the £17 million were to be applied across the board to every household, we would be talking about £30 each. That will not scratch the issue, especially when some people's bills have gone up to £1,000 for 900 litres of oil in the past week.

John O'Dowd, as the Finance Minister, has already communicated with the Department for Communities about the £17 million that was announced today, because we need to see it being turned into delivery. Let us get that £17 million out to people and target lower-income households. The announcement was just made this morning, but it is clear —. I have asked the Department for Communities how we can get that £17 million out, how it will be targeted and how quickly that can be done, because people want answers on that. We need to do that piece of work whilst advocating for more support, because £17 million does not cut it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Does the First Minister agree that, while there is disappointment over the British Prime Minister's announcement, the DUP's deliberate misrepresentations, peddling of inaccuracies about the reduction of electricity costs and erroneous claims about there being £81 million to spend show that, when it comes to finances, the current DUP leader, just like the previous leader, is not really across every jot and tittle?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. All I heard last week was distraction and deflection from the DUP. That is not what people want to hear. The reality is that, because the DUP had been cheerleading for the war from day 1, it needed to rein back on some of that ground, so it went out and started to create all those mistruths. It was deliberately misleading to people who were worried about their bills. It left people in the position of hearing fake news, if you want to call it that, that money was sitting there and not being distributed to them.

Thankfully, we had a responsible adult in the room in Caoimhe Archibald. She engaged and continued to do so. She set the record straight by saying that the £81 million is not sitting in the Executive coffers; it is money that the British Government need to legislate a change for at Westminster. As soon as that is done, we will get it to households, and we will be able to help people. That is why I made the point today that the noise, distraction and deflection does nothing to serve anybody who is worried about their household bills. From my perspective, I do not want to engage in that. People want to hear a joined-up message from this place that we have their backs and are working hard on their behalf to help them with the cost of living and to get their household bills down. They want to hear that we will call out the big oil companies, particularly when it comes to the like of the price gouging that has been talked about a lot since the start of the conflict.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

T4. Mr Donnelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, if the First Minister feels that the Justice Ministry should be part of the d'Hondt system, all positions, including those of First Minister and deputy First Minister, should be included in the d'Hondt process. (AQT 2164/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Justice by —

[Interruption.]

Sorry, I cannot hear. The fact that the Justice Ministry is not part of the d'Hondt system is an anomaly that has been outstanding for the past 16 years. It needs to be fixed, and I have raised that directly with the Secretary of State. When it comes to titles of offices and everything else, I am not interested in a cosmetic debate, and I know that you are not either. I know that you fundamentally want reform. I too believe in reform, and I think that we should make the arguments together. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is doing a big piece of work. My team is fully engaged in that work, and we will look at all the areas that are put on the table for discussion.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for that answer. What representation has the First Minister made to the British and Irish Governments since the passing of the motion on institutional reform late last year?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

You will not be surprised to hear that there is no agreement in the Executive Office, but, at a political level, I have raised the issue of reform with both Governments as recently as the last week to 10 days in my engagement with Helen McEntee, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, and with Hilary Benn directly. They are very aware of my view of reform. The nonsense in some of the debates that we have had in the Chamber around tweaking titles and whatever do not fundamentally change how we do business here. The issue of reform is something that I am up for discussing, and I will continue to work with other like-minded people.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

T6. Mr Kearney asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to comment on the remarks last week from the former leader of the DUP, Arlene Foster, advocating increased spending on militarism and weapons of mass destruction and on her big plan to strip support from the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society. (AQT 2166/22-27)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thought that the commentary from Arlene Foster was absolutely shameful. Any right-minded person would think that her comments were absolutely shameful. Sadly, I cannot say that I was surprised by the flippancy and arrogance of such a statement, saying, "Let us cut welfare, cut everybody who is in need, take money off the vulnerable and support the militarisation agenda". Then the DUP leader weighed in and doubled down on that very argument. Shame on the DUP. That shows you where its focus lies, and it shows you that that is the style of politics that you get from it.

When people are struggling, our job is to support them.

[Interruption.]

When people are struggling —

[Interruption]

. The master of distraction and deflection. Whatever you do, do not mention that you are a cheerleader of war. That is what we see.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Before I call Declan to ask a supplementary question, I remind Members on all Benches that Ministers will be heard respectfully. I will not have chuntering from sedentary positions.

Over to you, Declan. Minister, you can have an extra minute.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Thank you for that intervention in relation to decorum in the House, Deputy Speaker.

Minister, do you agree that warmongering should have no place in the House and that we should concentrate on what really matters to working people across society in unionist areas, nationalist areas and where people have no political allegiance? We should focus on building houses, uniting against austerity and ensuring that our kids who have special educational needs are properly looked after.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes, I agree 100%. I made a pledge on day 1 as First Minister to do everything that I could to support citizens across the North. I do not look through a lens of anything other than people, households and families who are struggling. They need our support, and they need us to work together. That includes us rejecting calls that take money out of people's pockets and take money from hard-pressed households. Workers and families deserve to know that we have their back. They deserve to know that we are doing everything that we can to support them. We need to get on with doing the things that matter most to the public: housing, the health service, Lough Neagh, growing our economy, creating job opportunities and fighting for proper investment in our public services. That is what matters to the people whom I speak to every day. Those are the issues that are raised in my constituency office, as is the case, I am sure, for many others. We should not take money out of the pockets of the most vulnerable in society to fund warfare and the weapons of death and destruction. Nobody wants that, and nobody in the Chamber should want that.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, First Minister; time is up.

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Question 15 has been withdrawn.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

1. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his engagement with the hospitality industry in relation to Reval2026. (AQO 3304/22-27)

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

6. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the pause of Reval2026. (AQO 3309/22-27)

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

10. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his engagement with hospitality businesses in relation to the methodology used to calculate their rates. (AQO 3313/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle,

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will answer questions 1, 6 and 10 together.

On 29 January 2026, I outlined my decision to stop further work on the Reval2026 process. In my meeting with the hospitality sector on 29 January, I advised that I was looking forward to engaging with the hospitality sector and other sectors on any proposals that would be brought forward. My immediate focus over the past few weeks has been on advancing the legislation required to facilitate the annual billing exercise for the rating system. Alongside that, I am focused on progressing the draft multi-year Budget, following the close of that consultation earlier this month. As I outlined in the regional rates debate in the House on 10 March, rates bills will issue this year that are based on rateable values in the current valuation list, creating certainty for businesses in respect of their 2026-27 rates bills. I will address the next steps for Reval2026 in due course.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his update, and I understand that he has a busy in tray at present. Is it his view, then, that he will have a final proposal for Reval2027 or whatever we are going to call it in 2027, because nothing will be published in the remainder of this calendar year?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is unlikely that anything will be published in the remainder of this calendar year. We will decide our next move in discussions with all sectors, whether that will be Reval2027 or Reval2028. However, it was right to stop, engage and then decide on a way forward.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Minister, in your statement on 29 January, you said:

"I want our local businesses to thrive; they are the backbone of our communities."

How can a business thrive when its proposed net asset value (NAV) jumps from £66,000 to £119,000?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I cannot comment on any individual business. However, a significant increase in Reval suggests that there was a significant physical extension to the business, a change in the business model where different services were provided or an increase in income for that business. Those are the usual projections. Furthermore, all businesses had the benefit of the COVID moneys removed. There was a significant leap upwards for many businesses in those circumstances, but other businesses will have seen reductions. The Member will be aware that those who focused solely on the hospitality sector now want to focus on other sectors. I currently face pre-action letters from at least one sector that has concerns that, having benefited from Reval2026, it is now losing out as a result of it. It is not a simple as concentrating on one premises or one sector; it is a multifaceted equation. As I said to your colleague, the best way forward was to stop the process, take time to engage and then move forward.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you for your answer, Minister. You stated previously that you had asked the hospitality industry to bring forward evidence to make the case for a change in methodology. When do you expect that evidence to come forward, and how long will it take you and your officials to review the evidence in order to ensure that changes can be made?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The hospitality sector offered to bring evidence to me. I welcome the opportunity to engage with the sector on that evidence when it is presented. The detail of that evidence and the need for discussion around it will dictate how long it will be before I can evaluate it.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Minister, will you outline what current supports there are in the rating system for local businesses and what supports you plan to bring forward?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We currently provide our business sector with around a quarter of a billion pounds' worth of support. Across the whole tax base, 75% of non-domestic properties are currently entitled to some form of rate relief. The current small business rate relief scheme supports almost 30,000 businesses with discounts of between 20% and 50% on their rates. I proposed in my draft Budget a fund of around £10 million to increase support further for the small business sector, which will include the hospitality sector and others.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

2. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Finance whether he will consider removing rates paid on funeral directors' chapels of rest. (AQO 3305/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Over 77% of funeral directors' chapels of rest in the valuation list here currently benefit from small business rate relief, meaning that they get between 20% and 50% off their rates bill. I have recently completed a consultation process on small business rate relief, and I am considering the responses received to it. I aim to bring proposals to the Executive in the near future to review and extend support provided through that scheme by increasing the thresholds, subject to Executive agreement in the context of the available budget. All rate reliefs and exemptions will be reviewed as part of ongoing review of rate support measures.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I fully accept that he is doing an awful lot on rates, but he will know that chapels of rest are places of religious worship in the same way in which churches are, and churches are exempt. Importantly, chapels of rest are used by an awful lot of people who have lost young children, because they offer a more intimate setting. That is why I ask the Minister whether he will consider removing business rates completely from chapels of rest.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Now that the Member has brought that to my attention, I will take it under consideration as we move to the rates review. I am conscious of the very personal and emotive nature of such settings and the services that they offer bereaved families, including, as the Member pointed out, bereaved families who have lost a child.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Minister, are you considering removing rates that are due to be paid on any new categories of business premises in your review of rates?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We are undertaking a series of reviews, and I do not want to pre-empt any decisions on any information that may come to me. I have said in the House previously that I want to give a rates holiday to businesses that extend their premises physically and so on, but let us work our way through the processes and see where they take us.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

3. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Finance for an update on how the reserve claim repayments will affect the proposed draft Budget 2026-29/2030. (AQO 3306/22-27)

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

9. Miss Dolan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the multi-year Budget process. (AQO 3312/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

With your permission, Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 9 together. I published my multi-year Budget proposals on 6 January and launched a public consultation on the same day. The draft Budget does not provide the level of funding that I would wish for public services. Rather, it reflects what is possible within the available envelope. The consultation closed on 3 March, and my Department is now analysing the responses before sharing them with the Executive.

Alongside that, engagement with the Treasury on the open-book review of departmental budgets is progressing at pace. The review is designed to give the Treasury a fuller understanding of the significant pressures that we are facing and to strengthen our case for fairer funding for public services. The review is scheduled to complete later this month and, along with the analysis of the consultation responses, will feed into the Executive's final Budget discussions.

The Chancellor's spring forecast provided the Executive with an additional £387 million across the multi-year Budget period. We must also, however, take into account the requirement to repay the reserve claim over three years, with £80 million due in 2026-27 and £160 million due in both 2027-28 and 2028-29. It will be for the Executive, as part of their deliberations on agreeing a final Budget, to determine collectively how the implications of the spring forecast and the reserve claim repayments are reflected in departmental allocations.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the Barnett consequentials announced last week largely cover the reserve claim, albeit they are short by £20 million, will Departments benefit from that money throughout the period, or will it simply be absorbed by covering the repayments?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I read out, the repayment schedule for the reserve claim is £80 million in 2026-27, £160 million in 2027-28 and the same in 2028-29. The allocations for the spring forecast are £227 million in 2026-27, £5·6 million in 2027-28 and £144·9 million in 2028-29. The only year when there is credit, for want of a better term, to the Executive is 2026-27. While all additional funding is welcome, it largely balances off the reserve claim, and we will certainly engage with the British Government on that. It is clear that the Barnett consequentials in the spring forecast funding came about as a result of the historical underfunding and pressures faced by councils in England in SEN provision, and we are facing similar pressures here. As I said in the Chamber previously, that blows out of the water the myth of financial mismanagement. It reflects the reality of the pressures that we are facing in relation to SEN and in relation to healthcare.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, what impact has the loss of the stabilisation funding from the restoration package had on public finances and the ability to manage Budgets?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That has had a significant impact on our Budget and on our ability to deliver and maintain public services and to plan for transformation. The First Minister, in her contribution, reflected on the fact that Scotland is funded at 20% above its need and Wales at in the region of 8% above its need. The £520 million stabilisation fund went a long way to enabling us to be funded at not merely the level of need but at slightly above the level of need to allow us to deliver transformation and make public services sustainable as we move forward. There is a firm argument to be made for the restoration of what was known as the stabilisation package, which was around £520 million per annum.

Matthew O'Toole (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

Minister, you acknowledge that there will be a £100 million "credit" — that was the term that you used — in the 2026-27 financial year: the amount of repayment will be significantly lower than the amount that is additional from the spring statement. Given that difference and given that that is additional money to the Executive, can you be specific about what you will use it for? If you are not to use it for energy support, which the First Minister did not think was a good idea a little while ago, and if you are not to use it to supplement local growth money, that is additional money for the Executive. Can you be specific on how it will be spent?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

This is the second Monday in a row on which the leader of the Opposition has asked the Executive to spend their moneys on issues that relate directly to the responsibilities of the British Government. Last week, the Member wanted the spring forecast profile to be spent on the local growth fund. The local growth fund is the responsibility of the British Government. This week, the Member is looking to spend that money on energy costs. Given the scale and quantum of the challenges involved, it is the responsibility of the British Government to intervene directly in that. In fact, last Monday, the Member was seeking the spending of Executive money on those matters.

Those of us who held out and challenged the British Government have had some initial success in this matter. When I meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the end of this week, I will again emphasise the need for the British Government to provide proper funding to all hard-pressed workers and families for energy costs. What will we spend that money on? We will spend it on front-line public services, which is what we were given the money for.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

4. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Finance when regulations will be in place for parents to avail themselves of a baby loss certificate. (AQO 3307/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Following Royal Assent and the enactment of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Act 25 on February 2026, my Department has been working at pace to finalise the draft baby loss certificate scheme regulations. The regulations will set out how parents can access a certificate that formally recognises their loss, which many families told us would bring comfort and acknowledgement at an incredibly difficult time.

It is my intention to provide the draft regulations to the Finance Committee before the Easter recess. I am hopeful that, if the Assembly scrutiny and approval processes proceed without delay, the Assembly will be able to consider the regulations by the beginning of May. I remain committed to ensuring that the scheme is delivered as swiftly and as sensitively as possible so that parents who have endured such heartbreaking loss receive the recognition and support that they deserve. I acknowledge the immense courage of all who shared their personal stories, which helped to shape the legislation.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that the Minister said that the Chamber will be able to debate this on 26 May, I ask when parents, who so badly need and want these certificates, will be able to obtain one. Will there be some sort of awareness campaign around obtaining a baby loss certificate?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I hope that we will have a scheme opened for applications around June. Certainly, I will look at options for raising awareness of it, although awareness has certainly been raised, given the debates that we have had in the Chamber, the growing media attention and the baby loss groups, who have been Trojans on the matter. However, if there is more that we can do, I will certainly take a look at it.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for the update on the timeline. It is very important that parents who want to access a baby loss certificate can do so. Can you confirm that the baby loss certificates will be available retrospectively, with no time limit on the years to be included, given that we have been contacted by parents who lost babies 20 years ago and more but who want the existence of their child to be acknowledged?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is quite apt that we are discussing this on the day after Mother's Day. The loss felt by mothers and families who have lost babies in these circumstances is in their hearts forever. In the regulations that I bring forward, I will ensure that there is no time limit from the loss of the baby to the application for the certificate. A time limit was introduced in England, and it caused some anxiety. Whether that was a loophole, or however it might have occurred, that was corrected. From the outset, I will ensure that we get the regulations right.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

5. Mr Harvey asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the roll-out of digital transformation across the Northern Ireland Civil Service. (AQO 3308/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am committed to transforming the way in which public services are delivered, making it easier and more convenient for citizens and businesses whilst providing a more efficient and effective customer response.

While the Department of Finance does not have a remit for delivering digital transformation across Departments, each Department is responsible for managing its own digital transformation. DOF initiatives have included the following. My Department provides a central identity assurance service to support digitised government services that enable citizens to access a wide range of online services. Land and Property Services has launched a new online service, giving ratepayers greater control and convenience when managing their rates accounts. The Integr8 programme will transform how every civil servant, Civil Service supplier and job applicant engages with the finance and HR functions of the Civil Service and a number of our arm’s-length bodies. My Department is also embedding technology into recruitment and training, providing an online portal for NI Civil Service pension scheme members and automating sickness absence case management. The digital workplace programme has been put in place to provide a renewed, organisation-wide approach to information and records management. Finally, NISRA is adopting a digital-first approach by modernising surveys and the census, piloting modular online surveys and creating new, linked datasets to support better policymaking and services.

Those initiatives demonstrate how my Department is at the forefront of digital transformation.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Minister, as you move to increase digitisation of public services in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, what are you doing to ensure that public services and data belonging to members of the public in these systems are protected against cyberattack?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

A robust system is in place. We have a team dedicated to protecting our systems from data attacks. I do not go into detail on it: I never have all the detail in front of me for security reasons, because it is, literally, trying to keep ahead, day by day, of those who try to attack our systems. However, we have a system in place to protect the public's data. That does not mean that we are not vulnerable to attack or that an attack might get through. It may well do, but our teams are dedicated and work diligently to protect our systems.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

In this transformation, there is obviously a huge element of workforce planning. Two of the elements that I am interested in are: what skill sets do you plan for to enable this work, and how do you ensure that the right people will be in place to make sure that the digital transformation can happen over the coming years?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The job families framework is being finalised to provide a consistent way of defining roles across the Civil Service on the basis of the work that people do and the skills that are required rather than organisational boundaries. Defining job families strengthens workforce planning, supports clearer career pathways for staff and forms job architecture up to grade 8, which enables more targeted recruitment, learning in the workforce and analytics over time. The new professional framework will strengthen the professional leadership and standards as capability continues to mature.

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

Minister, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) recently found that only 5% of companies that invested in AI had a return on their investment. How confident are you that the Civil Service's use of AI will give value for money, and what steps have you taken to ensure that that is so?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is important that we do not simply take a broad-brush approach and say that AI is the way forward and will save money. Each project has to be considered on its merits, be thoroughly investigated and go through a business case process to ensure that it will deliver value for money for the public purse.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Cathal Boylan is not in his seat for question 7. We move on to question 8.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

8. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the open-book review of departmental spending. (AQO 3311/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

To strengthen our case for fairer funding for public services, the Executive will work with the Treasury to review the Executive's spending and pressures. The open-book exercise will support a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we face. Terms of reference have been agreed with the Treasury, and an information-gathering template was issued to the Departments, with returns due on 6 March 2026. All the departmental returns have been received and shared with the Treasury. The information collected will now be analysed and a report produced. It is intended that the exercise will be completed later this month, with the outcome of the process supporting the Executive's efforts to agree a multi-year Budget. The process will also inform future discussions with the Treasury about Budgets, fiscal events and the fiscal framework.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister expect the open-book exercise to include a review of the administration costs — many of which are significant — of the over 120 quangos that currently exist across Northern Ireland?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes, it will. The information requested by the Treasury from my Department is wide-ranging and covers the expenditure of each Department, including that of its arm's-length bodies. However, discussing quangos is interesting. We have far too many arm's-length bodies, but, when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of Ministers and, indeed, MLAs deciding which ones to cut, it often appears to be a case of circling the wagons.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, what engagement has there been with the Treasury and the Departments on the open-book exercise?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There has been a wide-ranging engagement, and we are working at pace. We want to see the report completed later this month, in time for both a public consultation and reports from the Ministers. My report on the bilateral meetings with Ministers is complete, and it will all come together under the framework for the Executive to agree a Budget in time for the new financial year. The work has taken place at pace, and, as I said in my original answer, the information has been gathered and the template has been provided to all Departments. The templates have been returned, and the data is now being analysed.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Minister, can you outline any consequences that a Department will face if it does not balance its books? Will that affect us in coming years?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

A Department that fails to balance its books for whatever reason causes an overspend on behalf of the Executive. Under the Treasury's rules, the overspend is taken off the next year's expenditure. It is then a matter for the Executive to decide how that is dealt with in the following year's Budget.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

11. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Finance to outline any representations he has made to HMRC on behalf of childcare providers that face losing the 10% wear-and-tear allowance under the new Making Tax Digital for Income Tax system. (AQO 3314/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Question 11?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

We are getting through them rightly.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

We are, aren't we?

The removal of the 10% wear-and-tear allowance for childcare providers was first raised with me in January in correspondence that related specifically to the removal of that allowance for childminders with incomes of over £50,000 from April of this year. While affected childminders will still be able to claim tax relief on business expenses to levels over 10% where applicable, there is concern from the sector as to how the removal of the allowance might impact on some childminders and about the practicalities of implementing the new approach. My officials have previously raised these issues with HMRC. However, given the ongoing concerns, I asked for the matter to be escalated and for senior officials in my Department to raise the matter with their senior counterparts in HMRC. At a senior-level meeting on 4 March, my officials pressed HMRC on the importance of recognising and acting on concerns from the sector ahead of the proposed changes coming into effect. It is important that HMRC alleviates any impact on the sustainability of the sector. My Department has also liaised with the Department of Education on the matter, given its responsibilities for childcare provision. I understand that Education officials are monitoring any impact that the changes may have on childminder provision at a strategic level. My officials will continue to engage with the Department of Education and HMRC to understand how the sector’s concerns are being responded to.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he engaged with the Economy Minister on the need to assess how this tax change might affect the childcare sector and the many parents across Northern Ireland who have seen childcare costs increase or settings close? Will the Minister revise his proposal to impose a real-terms cut on the childcare allocation in his multi-year Budget?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The lead for childcare in the Executive is the Department of Education, hence we have engaged with that Department on this matter. As the Member will have noted, it has been raised at the highest level of HMRC. I have a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (CST) on Thursday — that is an opportunity for a bilateral — at which I will raise the issue. There is no need to raise it with the Department for the Economy at this stage. I have set out Budget proposals under the framework within which I am operating. None of the Departments have received the funding that I would like them to receive. I have delivered what I believe is capable of being delivered at this stage, but the final decision on the Budget is a matter for the Executive.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Minister, constituents have already been in touch with many MLAs, both childminders and parents, who are concerned that the change will result in the sector increasing its fees so that it feels more sustainable. Have you discussed with HMRC the number of those who might be affected in Northern Ireland? If not, will you undertake to have that discussion with HMRC so that we have a true assessment of the number of people that it will affect?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is worth reminding ourselves that affected childminders will still be able to claim tax relief on business expenses to levels over the 10% where applicable. However, there is concern in the sector. I recognise that, hence my officials have engaged with HMRC on this, the Department is monitoring it at strategic level and I will be engaging with CST about it on Thursday.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Diane, you have one minute and 30 seconds.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

12. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister of Finance to detail what the outworking of the open-book exercise will mean for special educational needs services. (AQO 3315/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

[Pause.]

Apologies, Deputy Speaker.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Do not worry about it; it happens to the best of us, John.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

To strengthen our case for fairer funding for public services, the Executive will work with the Treasury to review the Executive’s spending and pressures. The open-book exercise will support a fuller understanding of the significant challenges that we face. Each Department will have a crucial role to play. This provides Departments, including the Department of Education, with an opportunity to detail to Treasury the financial pressures related to special educational needs services.