Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 June 2026

373 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

It is unusual for me to address the House on Assembly Commission matters, but I inform Members that the Assembly Commission met this morning and formally agreed that a new electric vehicle (EV) system will be introduced, with payment being required for all EV charging points in the Assembly Commission's responsibility on a consistent basis. The arrangements for the retention of data will also be reviewed for the new system. Officials have been asked to take the matter forward as quickly as possible. In the meantime, it has been agreed that the use of EV chargers in the upper car park will remain suspended until the new system is in place. Officials will engage with Members who have been using the EV chargers to arrange reimbursement.

The current system was introduced in 2015. Decisions around the introduction and subsequent management of the EV chargers were operational ones that did not involve members of the Commission. Many Members have noted that, while they had seen the chargers, they were not aware of the arrangements for their use. However, the Assembly Commission has acknowledged this morning that legitimate public concerns have been raised. I thank Commission members for their cooperation in the meeting today and note the unanimous cross-party agreement to deal with the matter. A number of Members have tabled questions for written answer to the Assembly Commission on the matter, and that is the appropriate way for Members to raise further issues.

A Matter of the Day has been accepted. It will not be taken until after Members' Statements, because it was not announced in sufficient time.

Members' Statements

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I call on the Health Minister to ensure that families with children with severe, complex, life-limiting conditions do not have to lose out on spending precious time with their beautiful children because they are fighting for services to which they should have had access. I thank the Children's Hospice for its amazing services and support for such children and their families, both during their life and, unfortunately, at their death.

In recent months, I have helped two such families, including the parents of two amazing, beautiful little girls with severe complex needs requiring 24-hour palliative care. Both of the girls passed away unexpectedly, having been supported by the Children's Hospice, but both families spent precious time during which they should have been able to focus on their girls on fighting for the services that should have been in place to support them. They had to reach out to me, as one of their elected MLAs, for support. I was more than happy to offer whatever help I could. However, those families should not have been in that position. The services should have been in place to care for those children and support their families. Lila Dripps-Weir, aged two years and 10 months, died in the Children's Hospice last Sunday in the arms of her parents, Hayley and Robert, surrounded by her brothers and sister. The Children's Hospice was the beacon of light that could be relied on when all other services failed Lila and her family. We need a system that responds to the needs of those families so that an extremely difficult situation can be made a little bit easier, and so that families can focus on looking after their children and being a family.

The Health Committee recently completed an inquiry into palliative care services. There are recommendations from that inquiry that would go some way to improving services. The Minister needs to lay out a plan for the implementation of those recommendations. We also need to see real and meaningful change in how social care is delivered to support families in the community. Children with life-limiting conditions and their families deserve the opportunity to be a family, make memories and do normal, everyday things. They should not have to spend endless hours on the phone or at meetings, begging for the help that they are absolutely entitled to. The system is failing them. We can, and must, do better. Lila's mummy, Hayley, is asking that we all, as MLAs and Ministers, do what we can to create change in Lila's name. The last words of my statement are hers:

"I have fought for two years and 10 months, and I don't intend to stop now."

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

On this day last week, I spoke about the disgraceful Parades Commission decision, disregarding Scarva residents, on a contentious parade. On Saturday past, the outworkings of that decision, and the spectacular failure of the PSNI in policing the determinations, were on full display. High-level decisions put front-line police in a shocking position. Many political opponents have jumped on the bandwagon of attack and gaslighting, smearing others without any facts, but I was there, and here are the facts, if anyone wants to listen to them.

At 9.30 am, I arrived in the small rural village of Scarva to a police checkpoint, dozens of police Land Rovers and over 200 police. It was completely over the top. There was also helicopter and drone presence. It really upset the residents. The Parades Commission determined that the residents' peaceful protest was to be at Scarva bridge, but the police completely blocked the bridge and prevented those conducting their protest from actually doing so in accordance with the determination. After negotiation over where they were supposed to conduct their protest, the police finally said that they would close the road, and that the protest could be held on the road. A short time later, over a dozen police Land Rovers powered into the crowd, demanding that they clear the road and stating that, if they did not, they would be removed. Excessive force arrived, with water cannons, tactical support group (TSG), the dog unit and dozens of riot police lined up in the road to face a peaceful crowd. They would not speak to anyone. No one understood what was happening. There was no communication, and they antagonised everyone. Repeatedly, our MP, we as MLAs and our councillors tried to communicate with police, but to no avail, as they provoked the crowd. Then, without warning, the riot police, with their weapons in hand, ran towards the crowd. We, as elected representatives, stood between the police and the crowd. The police must have thought that we would move as they shoved into us. They thought that we would stand aside and let them ram the crowd of our people, but we did not: the DUP and UUP representatives stood shoulder to shoulder along that line. Clearly, once somebody senior in the police saw how the optics of their physically attacking two female elected representatives on the front line would look, they paused, and, finally, spoke to us. They were determined to ram into a crowd and start a riot on Saturday. We negotiated and agreed with the police that our elected representatives would stand amongst the people on the side of the law and peace. We did that, right along the line of the canal at the water's edge, but the media zoomed right in on our MP and vilified her for manning that front line.

The two-tier policing was on full display when the Palestine walk appeared: people on that walk unfurled banners and chanted at the crowd, but that was not policed at all. There were clear breaches of the determination. Those protesting rightly chanted back, because nothing was being policed.

I called on the police there and then, "What are you doing to police them? You rammed a peaceful, innocent protest". It was an absolute disgrace on the ground. I have never seen anything like it. The DUP unashamedly stands firmly —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

— with the unionist and loyalist community in Scarva and across Northern Ireland.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

This week marks Carers' Week 2026. This year's theme is "Building Carer-friendly Communities", and it could not be more timely. Across our communities, thousands of people care every day for someone, often quietly, often without recognition and, far too often, without the support that they need. Therefore, Carers' Week is a chance to say clearly that unpaid carers are not invisible.

The updated Carers' Week 2026 report shows that almost a third of unpaid carers do not feel that their caring role is understood or valued by their community. Nearly a quarter of current and former carers said that they had not been able to maintain a healthy lifestyle, and 22% said that they had been unable to take part in local groups or activities. That shows us that caring can still mean isolation. It can mean missing out on work, education, relationships, community life and, most important, looking after your own health. It also tells me that we too often wait until carers are at breaking point before the support that they need arrives. It is not fair, and it is not sustainable. We need to invest upstream. We need early intervention with carers before a crisis develops, and we need proper respite, replacement care and practical help before exhaustion becomes burnout. When we support carers early, we do not just improve their lives but help to protect the well-being, dignity and independence of the person whom they care for.

The report also shows where carers feel the gaps most sharply. Public transport was viewed as the least carer-friendly service in Northern Ireland, followed by financial services, workplaces and social care. Those are everyday systems that carers need to navigate just to get through the week. Building carer-friendly communities means practical change. It means all facets of civil society recognising that carers are part of each and every one of our communities. It also means legislation and policy that makes carers' lives easier, less arduous and much less lonely. We need a joined-up, cross-departmental approach that recognises that carers do not live their lives in departmental silos. Their needs cut across Health, Communities, Education, Infrastructure, Economy and Finance, so our response should do the same.

I want to highlight the Northern Trust's new carer support programme, which is being launched today. It includes walking groups and peer-support groups across North Antrim and beyond. It includes book clubs, journaling and a mix of in-person and online events for ease of access. I pay tribute to the trust's carer pathway steering group, which has shaped that programme for carers so that it feels supportive, practical and designed with carers in mind.

This Carers' Week, I pay tribute to every unpaid carer across Northern Ireland, including those who do not even recognise themselves as carers. If we are serious about building healthier, fairer and more compassionate communities, we have to build communities that recognise, value and support our carers not just this week but every week.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Government and politics should work for the hard-working people of our country, those who do the right thing, pay their taxes, obey the law, follow the rules and raise their families to the best of their ability. As I go round our great country, I begin to see that so many feel that it works the opposite way round. Working families who work so hard, juggling childcare, see no economic benefit to being out at work. We have farmers, businesses and householders who face bureaucratic obstacle after obstacle for trying to build a henhouse or get an extension or expand their business, yet, of course, we have statues to terrorists erected without planning permission and nothing is done. We saw that, of course, with that party during COVID: people were fined for walking their dog, but there are those who can flood the streets in a show of strength and nothing happens.

I speak to constituents all the time who have children with special educational needs and disabilities. They battle and battle for statements, yet there are people in our society — there are some whom other politicians do not want to talk about — who manipulate that system for their benefit to the detriment of those who really need it.

I am a great advocate of the Police Service. How many times have we seen law-abiding motorists who are taxed, insured and have their MOT get penalised for a minor infraction of the law from an automatic camera? Yet, when e-scooters are terrorising communities, the police cannot chase the e-scooter in case the rights of the suspect are infringed.

Our prison officers had to wait longer than anyone elsewhere in the United Kingdom to get a ban on smoking. Why? It was because the Justice Department put the rights of prisoners to smoke ahead of the rights of the prison officers to have clean air in their workplace. That sums up what has gone wrong in our society. When there is a balance to be struck between the rights of a perpetrator and the rights of a victim, consistently the victim's rights trump all. Ultimately, that will come when Ms Mulholland brings her amendment, which will mean that downblousing and upskirting and sexual assault and harassment in schools by anyone under 14 cannot be prosecuted. Under one of her amendments, someone aged 10 or 11 who replicated exactly the Jamie Bulger case could not be touched by the police, because the suspect's rights are far greater than the rights of the perpetrator. You can be a victim of a scandal, be that through the Post Office or in health, and you cannot get an inquiry, but if you are a family of a terrorist who went out to murder, you can get an inquiry at the drop of a hat.

All of that speaks to me about a society that is not standing for those who do the right thing and play by the rules and which does not properly stand for the most vulnerable in society. We should be laser focused on helping them and giving them support. As I go round the country, I feel a disconnect in society between government and politics and the people whom we are supposed to serve.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I take this opportunity to mark an important milestone in a piece of legislation on which I have been working for some time. Today, my regional balance Bill will complete its First Stage, formally beginning its journey through the legislative process. The Bill has been born out —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Ms McLaughlin, take your seat, please. It is a general principle that you do not discuss matters that are going to be brought up later. As you are introducing the First Stage —

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Sorry.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

— of that Bill today, it is not really appropriate. If you have another subject that you would like to talk about, that is fine.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

May I talk generally about regional balance?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

You can talk generally, yes.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you. For too long, communities across Northern Ireland have experienced vastly different economic outcomes. As a public representative from Derry, I know that only too well. We see it in employment rates, economic inactivity and health outcomes. We also see it in the distribution of investment in our public services. While every region has strengths and potential, the reality is that that opportunity remains unevenly spread. That is not good enough. I wish to ensure that regional balance is no longer treated as an aspiration but becomes a core consideration in government decision-making.

I am trying to make this not about the Bill. It would require every Department to have due regard to regional balance in their policies, strategies and public services. It is about recognising that every community deserves a fair opportunity to succeed and that the Government have a responsibility to consider the regional impact of decisions that they take. I firmly believe that a stronger and more prosperous Northern Ireland is one in which growth is shared more fairly and where every part of our region can realise its full potential.

Aisling Reilly (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The apology issued last week by the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, to the families of those killed in the Springhill massacre was an important but long overdue acknowledgement of what happened on the streets of Springhill and Westrock in west Belfast in July 1972. For more than 50 years, the families of Father Noel Fitzpatrick, Patrick Butler, John Dougal, David McCafferty and Margaret Gargan have carried the pain of unimaginable loss while also having to fight for truth and justice. The findings of the Springhill inquest, and the apology that followed, confirmed what the families always knew: their loved ones were innocent and should not have been targeted. In apologising, the British Prime Minister accepted the findings of the inquest and expressed regret for the grief and trauma that were endured by the families. That acknowledgement matters.

Springhill cannot be viewed in isolation. It forms part of a wider period in our history that left deep and lasting scars across many communities. The actions of the British state forces in places such as Derry, Ballymurphy, Springhill and the New Lodge caused immense suffering and had profound consequences for generations of families. For many, the hurt was compounded by what came afterwards. Efforts to deny, justify or obscure the truth deepened the trauma and left families facing years of struggle simply to have the facts recognised, but those families never gave up.

Their determination made sure that the truth endured despite decades of obstacles and delay.

We have seen similar acknowledgements before. Following the Saville inquiry, the British Government apologised for Bloody Sunday, and, following the Ballymurphy inquest findings, an apology was issued to the families. Those moments mattered because they represented official recognition of wrongdoing and vindicated families who had spent years seeking the truth. The Springhill acknowledgement is significant for the same reasons. It establishes a record that cannot be denied or rewritten. It reinforces the principles that no state actor should be beyond scrutiny; that everyone must be accountable under the law; and that everyone deserves equal respect and treatment. Above all, today and every day, our thoughts remain with the Springhill families and all the families who have fought and are still fighting to get truth and justice. They have my utmost respect, and I acknowledge the determination that brought them to this moment. Their perseverance, dignity and courage made sure that the truth prevailed.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Yet again, we witness the staggering hypocrisy of Sinn Féin laid bare for all to see. It is a party that lectures everybody else about respect, equality and the rule of law, yet, when it comes to its own agenda, there is always one rule for Sinn Féin and another for the ordinary law-abiding citizen. We saw it when Sinn Féin defended and justified the erection of an illegal statue in west Belfast of convicted IRA terrorist Bobby Sands without planning permission. We saw it again when Sinn Féin refused to remove its illegal billboard at the Egyptian Arch in Newry. The House backed my motion that it should be removed; indeed, in an act that Penn and Teller would be proud of, that billboard has gone. It seems that planning law matters to Sinn Féin only when it can be weaponised against something that it dislikes. We now have Sinn Féin representatives submitting what appear to be coordinated copy-and-paste objections to a commemorative stone marking the centenary of Northern Ireland. Frankly, their objections are as pathetic as they are predictable.

Northern Ireland reached its centenary despite decades of terrorist violence and intimidation carried out by Sinn Féin's IRA bedfellows, who attempted to destroy this place through the bomb and the bullet. They failed. Northern Ireland endured, Northern Ireland remains and Northern Ireland will continue into its next century. In a mature and confident democracy, the fact that unionist MLAs wish to mark that historic milestone with a modest memorial stone should offend no one. The fact that Sinn Féin could not tolerate the memorial stone inside the Stormont estate and now cannot tolerate it outside Parliament Buildings makes clear the level of intolerance that Sinn Féin has for Northern Ireland. There is not much "First Minister for all" about that.

What is truly revealing is Sinn Féin's inability to show even the slightest respect for the history and constitutional reality of Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin demands respect at every turn yet consistently refuses to extend it to those who cherish Northern Ireland's history and its place in the United Kingdom. Most embarrassing of all, perhaps, is the spectacle of elected representatives apparently incapable of producing original objections of their own. The volume of near-identical submissions tells its own story.

The centenary stone is not about triumphalism. It is about acknowledging history, recognising the significance of Northern Ireland reaching 100 years and looking forward with confidence to the future. Sinn Féin may refuse even to utter the words "Northern Ireland" while sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but that refusal changes nothing. Northern Ireland is here, people love living here and people love visiting here. Its history will be marked, and no volume of coordinated copy-and-paste objections will alter that fact.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Over the coming months, County Down will proudly take centre stage in a remarkable celebration of culture, music and community spirit. From the county fleadh in Downpatrick, hosted by Lecale Comhaltas, to the Ulster Fleadh in Warrenpoint and culminating in the all-Ireland fleadh in Belfast, we have a wonderful opportunity to showcase the very best of our people, places and traditions. Thousands of visitors will travel to our towns and cities, supporting local businesses, filling cafes, restaurants and accommodation providers and bringing a welcome buzz to communities.

The fleadh brings people together. It fills our streets with music, colour and energy. Young musicians, singers, dancers and Gaeilgeoirí

[Translation: Irish speakers]

will take to stages and competition halls carrying forward traditions that have been nurtured and cherished for generations. Seeing so many young people embrace and celebrate their culture is one of the most uplifting aspects of any fleadh and gives great confidence for the future.

Fleánna

[Translation: Fleadhs]

give us an opportunity to celebrate our culture, our heritage and the incredible talent that exists in every corner of the island. The fleadh would not happen without volunteers. Behind every performance, competition and event is an army of dedicated people who give their time, energy and passion throughout the year. Their commitment is extraordinary, and they deserve enormous credit for making such events possible.

In Downpatrick, Lecale Comhaltas has worked tirelessly to prepare for the county fleadh, supported by local volunteers and community representatives. As the fleadh season gets under way on 15 June with Fleadh Cheoil an Dúin

[Translation: County Down Fleadh]

, I encourage everyone to come along, get involved and enjoy the unique atmosphere that such events create. Together, let us celebrate the music, culture and community spirit that makes this place so special.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Over the past two days, we have seen political spin and opportunism go into overdrive. We have had elected representatives in the Chamber and beyond talk about Scarva who could not even spell the word. They talked about policing operations while they sat on their sofas, scrolling through social media. Meanwhile, there were targeted attacks on democratically elected politicians from the Democratic Unionist Party and other unionist parties who were on the streets in Scarva ensuring that a rightful, lawful act of protest that had been registered with the Parades Commission was able to go ahead. That was not good enough for some of the parties in this place. They have despicably targeted elected representatives and, in some cases, vilified and demeaned lady representatives who were on the front line, ensuring that there was peace and calm in Scarva.

Alongside colleagues, I have, for the past year, been engaging with the Parades Commission and the police on the tensions arising from the parade: a parade that deliberately and provocatively went through areas in which it was not wanted. Last year, it was banners of Hamas; this year, it was, "From the river to the sea". Those are the political connotations that go with that travelling circus wherever it goes. We have seen, in the United Kingdom, the consequences that those hate marches continue to push. It cannot be allowed to continue.

I witnessed first-hand the events in Scarva. I saw elected representatives' attempts to ensure that there was restraint. I saw a policing operation with police dogs, three water cannons and riot cops try to move in on democratic protesters who had the legitimate right to be there. If we had not intervened, there would have been a riot.

We must get some balance. The people of Scarva are law-abiding people, and, while political attacks may come, I will not stand for the decent, good people of Scarva and the surrounding areas being pulled through the muck and called "thugs" by political opponents. They are decent people; they are law-abiding people; and they deserve respect.

The SDLP is supposedly the party of civil rights; it is now no more than a bystander on social media. Sinn Féin is so drunk and high on power that it has forgotten the very people whom it represents. Alliance is sneering, condescending and high-browed; I would argue that it never had a community in the first place. As for the Democratic Unionist Party, we will unashamedly stand up and intervene for the people whom we represent, and no amount of sneering or degrading will stop us ensuring that their rights are represented.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In recent weeks, we have seen once again the appearance of racist imagery in the Moygashel area of Dungannon. It was rightly removed by the PSNI, which also commenced a criminal investigation of it. That banner has, disgracefully, been re-erected with the clear intention of sowing division, hatred, prejudice and fear in our community. I call on all political representatives and community leaders in Fermanagh and South Tyrone to strongly and immediately condemn the re-erection of the banner and to call for its immediate removal. The presence of masked men at a children's park is a further sinister development that must also be called out and investigated. There is no place in our society for racism. It is time to take a stand against division and to stand up for inclusion and respect.

Over the weekend, we also saw a deplorable arson attack in the Shankill area of Belfast. I utterly condemn that. Targeting a building because of who owns it is despicable, especially when areas are crying out for jobs and investment. The owner of the building has lived here for more than 20 years, investing in our community and seeking to build something positive. My thoughts are with him and all those affected by that appalling incident. There is no place in our society for hate crime, racism or sectarianism in any form. All political representatives and community leaders should strongly condemn the attack. Those responsible for it seek to spread fear and division, and they do nothing but damage their own communities. I urge anyone with information that can assist the investigation to come forward and contact the PSNI immediately.

In Scarva, we saw more masked men seeking to intimidate a peaceful march and Carla Lockhart standing shoulder to shoulder with them. The spraying of slurry on roads in Scarva is darkly reminiscent of a previous era when civil rights protesters were sprayed with slurry on the streets of Dungannon. Attempts by the DUP to deflect are pathetic. People see through those attempts and see them for what they are. Again, we see the DUP standing on the wrong side, determined to drag us all back to the past rather than looking forward. I urge all political representatives in the Chamber to call out those acts for what they are: hateful, racist and sectarian. They belong to the past. Our job is to build a better future.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

In a little over three weeks, the Alliance-supported parcel tax, coupled with the Alliance-introduced carbon tax on every maritime shipment into Northern Ireland, comes into force. The combined impact of those two measures on the Northern Ireland economy and consumers will likely be between £200 million and £250 million per annum. We would be delighted if those figures could be fact-checked or, indeed, even commented on by the Agriculture Minister, the Executive and the Economy Minister. However, judging by the responses to my questions for written answer, that is highly unlikely. We have asked the Northern Ireland Office, the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State directly what the likely costs will be. Again, there has been no answer, apart from, "We're working on it". Unofficial messages from Brussels are that the costs are undefinable. Given that we are in a negotiation tunnel for the new UK-EU agreement, do not expect any answers soon. The United Kingdom's official line in Brussels is that His Majesty's Government will be seen as faithful implementers of all existing agreements.

There is still no answer to where the £200 million Irish Sea border tax will go. Will it go to Rachel Reeves's coffers or the Northern Ireland Executive, or will it pay for the new Irish Sea border infrastructure, including the very expensive sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) structure at Larne? His Majesty's Government's EU Relations Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds has also given us no answers. Why should he tell 1·9 million British consumers who are of absolutely no interest to him?

In 'The Times' today, he states that he is working tirelessly on the UK-EU reset. That will, he hopes, involve changes to the SPS agreement; rejoining the EU internal market for electricity; changes to carbon trading and — this has been said very quietly — opening up a youth movement scheme between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union.

With talks clearly at a critical stage — when are they not? — between Nick Thomas-Symonds and the EU, the added cost to Northern Ireland from the Alliance parcel tax and the Alliance maritime fuel surcharge, for which, remember, Scotland has achieved a derogation, is clearly the price that has to be paid for appeasement to an EU that, quite frankly, could not care less about us. The least that the Secretary of State could do is tell us how much the latest round of keeping Brussels happy will cost us and just where the money will go. Maybe we will just get a press release along with a £5 duty bill from HMRC when all our Temu parcels arrive.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes Members' statements. We now move to the next item of business, which is a statement from Mr Carroll on the Matter of the Day. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker will chair this item, as I have already spoken on the matter. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Matter of the Day

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry Carroll has been given leave to make a statement on the racially motivated attack on the former Shankill Gospel Hall, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should indicate that by rising in their place and continuing to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has concluded.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Speaker's Office for selecting this important Matter of the Day.

In the early hours of Saturday morning, a former gospel hall on the Shankill Road was burned to the ground by a fire that was deliberately set. The building had been bought by a family who intended to open a food shop and bring a much-needed service to the people of the Shankill. The incident is being investigated as a racially motivated hate crime. The man at the centre of the tragic incident has lived, worked and contributed here for almost 20 years. He put his life's savings into the building that went up in flames, and Belfast City Council and the Executive should step in and support him financially at this time. Today, I say these words to that man and his family: you are welcome here; you are part of the community; and this Chamber values your input in Belfast and beyond.

It has to be said that, unfortunately, the fire did not come from nowhere. For weeks, poison was pumped out online, with cowards filming videos in which they sneered at so-called "foreign food" and warned that there would be an influx of people. There were attempts to intimidate the family before the shop even opened. Incitement came first, and arson followed. Guilt for the crime is shared by those who struck the match and those who stoked the hatred. A special mention must go to TUV councillor Ron McDowell, who repeated great replacement theory nonsense that a shop would change the character of the area.

The fire is, unfortunately, not an isolated event; it is the latest in a series. The Assembly cannot ignore the fire in the Shankill or any of those other events. Unfortunately, racist hate crime in the North has reached record levels. Four race hate crimes are reported to the police every day. Racist violence is spiralling out of control. Just a few days ago, the Assembly heard that migrant people are stockpiling food because they fear another summer of pogroms and racist violence. What does that say about this society and where it is going?

I represent West Belfast, including the Shankill. The man who was trying to open the shop is not the enemy of the people of the Shankill or anywhere else, be they Protestant, Catholic or neither. The system that denies jobs, housing, hope and investment to the people of the Shankill and the Falls is the enemy, and its biggest defenders in this place are often the unionist parties. I condemn and stand against the racist violence. I welcome everybody who comes here, be they migrant, Muslim or anything else. They are welcome on these shores, they contribute to society, and they are very much part of its fabric.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for West Belfast for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Chamber. I associate myself with a lot of the remarks that he made.

What happened to this gentleman and his family on Saturday was wrong, and I welcome the condemnation from across the House and society. A lot of the commentary has referred, in good faith, to the fact that the gentleman has been here for almost 20 years, that he has worked hard and that he buried his life's savings into the potential business, which has all been scuppered by the disgusting racism that was on show during the early hours of Saturday morning. However, it is important to remember that a person's worth is not measured by the financial contribution that they make. Nobody, regardless of their background, race or religion, should be subject to violence, intimidation or abuse of any kind. Nobody should have to justify why they deserve to be here. We should have a migrant population in the North of Ireland that feels free and safe to go about their business without having to give rationale as to why they should be allowed to live peacefully. As the summer continues, I hope that, across the House, we show that we are a welcoming community and that we have a place here for everyone.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I join others in condemning the appalling arson attack on the former Shankill Gospel Hall in the early hours of Saturday morning.

After closing five years ago, the hall was bought recently by a couple who are originally from India, with the intention of turning it into a grocery store specialising in Indian foods. As the Assembly Speaker said this morning on the radio, he and I met the owner some weeks ago at the invitation of Dr Singhal, the chair of the Indian Community Centre, to hear of his plans for the building. Regrettably, some people, mostly from outside the area, made it their business to stir up opposition to the proposal, with social media posts containing false information and suggesting that such a store should not be allowed on the Shankill Road.

On Saturday morning, I was passing the premises when out for an early morning run when I noticed a police car outside after the fire had been extinguished. I had to ring the owner to tell him the devastating news of the fire that had occurred on his premises, and I met him on-site later that day. He is, understandably, in deep shock at what has occurred and does not know how to proceed. I have been liaising with various statutory agencies and community representatives on his behalf, and I will continue to do so. The majority of people in the Shankill are appalled by the attack. To be clear, there are many stores along the Shankill Road that are owned by people from outside the area, including from overseas. That is quite normal, and they are supported locally and by the many people who visit the area to avail themselves of the shops. Indeed, that would not have been the only international food shop on the Shankill Road.

Those behind those inflammatory social media posts bear considerable responsibility for what occurred. I spoke to one on Saturday morning, who made a video of himself talking about the arson attack. I agreed with him that it is disappointing to see a church closing in the area and being repurposed, which has happened to many churches. I asked him whether he attended church himself, and he said no. Sadly, that is part of the reason why churches are closing and being repurposed. Whatever concerns people have, they should raise them with community and elected representatives. I will always listen to their concerns.

There are many people working on the regeneration of the Shankill Road to bring derelict buildings back into use and to maintain shops along the road. To have a former church building and future shop burned totally undermines that work and is setting back progress. It is a depressing crime, and I urge anyone who has information about the arson attack to bring it to the police.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Another racist attack in our community in Northern Ireland and, this time, a premises completely and utterly gutted. It was supposed to be a grocery store to bring investment into the area, create jobs and bring integration in the Shankill Road area. As many have said, the store was set up by a man who was originally from India. I reckon, and many others will agree, that it would not matter had Northern Ireland been his home for 18 years or 18 minutes; that was of little value to the people who carried out the attack.

The attack did not happen in a vacuum. It happened after social media commentary about the shop, with agitators attempting to whip up tensions by creating a racist narrative around its future opening. We saw that commentary continue after the attack. Indeed, the gentleman himself said that he heard people jeering and cheering as they noticed that the shop business was on fire. Those responsible for the attack certainly have no regard for his life or for any human life or property, and they must face the full consequences of their actions.

Like many others in the Chamber, I share the concerns and fears of the Indian community and other minority ethnic communities across Northern Ireland that the attack is just the latest in a string of racially motivated hate incidents. They fear for their lives.

Let us be honest: it does not start with the burning down of homes or businesses. It starts with disdain through looks, slurs, turning a blind eye, signs of "Not welcome" and "Locals only" and claims of "legitimate concerns".

It is particularly depressing to see such incidents happening in my constituency of North Belfast. Whether it is in the form of an arson attack, a racist mural, a poster or threatening graffiti that targets minority groups and anyone who seen to be providing support to those communities, absolutely every person — not only in the Chamber but in society — has a role to play in calling out that hate rhetoric and standing with the ethnic minority members of our society.

Over recent summers, we have seen growing racial tensions on the streets of Belfast and Ballymena. We have seen that tension erupt into trouble on the streets and people being driven from their homes. People are fearful for their lives, livelihoods and families. It is time that we all stood together, dialled down the rhetoric and understood that Northern Ireland can thrive as an open, welcoming and inclusive place for everyone.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I condemn unreservedly the vile arson attack on the premises of a former gospel hall. The gentleman who was trying to build a business, create jobs and provide a service is the polar opposite of those who whipped up hysteria and those who attacked his shop. They are not patriots, and they do not have legitimate concerns. They are cowards. If they are involved in paramilitaries, they are not loyalists, because they are loyal to no one but themselves; they are gangsters. I wish the police well in catching them and anyone who incited it.

Just yesterday and in the past number of days, we have been remembering the service and sacrifice of real patriots who got on a boat and went and liberated Europe. Let it never be forgotten that 2·5 million Indians volunteered to fight for freedom; the largest voluntary army in World War II. Indians provide a wonderful contribution to our society. They are entrepreneurial and hard-working. I am proud to have a member of the Indian community in my party. He rang me about this incident. I am trying to meet the victim of it. Those who committed this act and those who incited it are literally — I do not like to use this language in the Chamber — the scum of the earth. I doubt that they have done a day's work in their lives. When they are arrested and brought before the court, will we get the normal sob story and probably too much of a slap on the wrist?

I make this clear to the Indian community and all communities in this society: there is one rule of law; we all live under it; and you deserve as much protection as anyone else. I say this to the people who did it, if they are listening: you are vile, contemptible people. You are the opposite of loyalists and the opposite of patriots. You are just the scum of the earth.

I wish that family all the very best. They are very welcome in Northern Ireland, and I look forward to meeting them if I can.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I stand here filled with absolute fury. I refuse to look at the ash and ruin of the weekend's racist arson attack in Belfast and treat it as just another sad news story. It is an outrage. It is a stain on our society and demands our total, unyielding anger. Let us call it exactly what it is: it is not just vandalism; it is terrorism. When thugs throw petrol bombs into buildings, they send a sickening message to our ethnic minority neighbours: you are not welcome here, and you are not safe here. Well, the SDLP and, I am glad to hear, every party in the Chamber has said that we will not let that stand. I think of my many friends from different places who have made this place their home, especially, today, my Indian friends. They are people who are keeping our health service alive, looking after our vulnerable and elderly friends and neighbours and working hard and paying for the privilege. Some of them have looked me in the eye and asked whether they have a future here. How can we allow a small, cowardly minority of bigots to make our friends and neighbours live in terror? How dare they drag the name of this place — whatever name you give this place — through the mud?

We have spent decades crawling out of the darkness of conflict. We know exactly where hate leads, and we swore that we would never go back. Yet, here we are, in 2026, watching fires in our streets lit by racism, livelihoods ruined and lives turned upside down. Condemnation in the Chamber is easy. Words on a page will not put out those fires. The PSNI must hunt down those responsible, and the courts must hand down sentences that show that hate crimes will never be tolerated. No excuses. No complacency.

To the perpetrators, I say this: you do not own our streets. You do not speak for our people. You are losers, and you will lose. To the victim of the attack we send our support and our solidarity. I say to every person who has been targeted by such vile bigotry that we value you and will stand shoulder to shoulder with you to drive that hatred out of our home once and for all.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Not being from the Shankill, I thought that it was important to speak to someone with the Shankill Road in their DNA. My office reached out to my party's deputy leader, Councillor Ron McDowell, and asked whether there was any message that he wished to convey to the House. Unlike Mr Carroll, Ron works for the people of the Shankill Road every day

[Interruption]

not just when it is politically convenient to put the boot into the local community.

Ron's response was, indeed, telling. The message from the Shankill Road today is that many local people are astonished that Gerry Carroll, Paul Maskey and others who have rushed out to comment on the issue even knew that the Shankill Road existed. At no stage have they sought to be part of the solution, yet now that something has gone wrong, they are the first in line to offer criticism. If Members are genuinely concerned about the future of those buildings and those communities, they should not wait until there is a crisis before taking an interest.

I utterly condemn the arson attack

[Interruption]

, but those rushing out to gaslight the people of the Shankill Road —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— are not showing leadership

[Interruption]

—

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. Order.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— and it does nothing to ease community tensions.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order. The Member has a right to be heard. It does not matter how obnoxious people are when on their feet. There have been plenty of examples of that. The Member still has a right to be heard.

Mr Gaston, finish your remarks.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I refute the claim that I am "obnoxious". When you sit in that Chair, you should be impartial.

I will finish on this: I say to those —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston, take your seat. I did not say that you were obnoxious. I am making a general point, OK?

[Interruption.]

I do not need any support here, thank you very much. I am saying that you need to be careful about making accusations and challenging the role of the Speaker. Please continue your remarks. Thank you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

In closing, I say this to those who value our churches: if you do not want to see places of worship close or pass into other uses, we must attend them, support them and allow them to be sustained.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have already made remarks linked to the issue in my Member's statement. First and foremost, I send my sympathy and thoughts to the victim of the attack and his family. Rightly, we discuss the issue, sometimes in abstract terms, but it will feel like a personal and frightening attack on them. A man is here trying to invest in the community and trying to do something positive, and he finds that his future lies in ashes about his feet. That is just disgraceful.

There is a thread between the issues that I raised this morning in relation to what has happened in Moygashel in my constituency, on the Shankill Road at the weekend and at Scarva. That thread is intolerance. That is what people need to challenge and call out, because the other thread that links those issues is a lack of leadership. Only six months ago — it might be less than six months — Gordon Lyons, as Minister for Communities, was found to be in breach of the standards expected of him in relation to other attacks on families. His Facebook post was found to have fallen short of the required standards for leadership, accountability and community relationships.

Let us be clear, Members: the lack of leadership being displayed here lets down not just marginalised communities and vulnerable individuals but your communities, because they deserve to see investment, diversity and inclusion. People in the Chamber have a responsibility to lead us to that future, rather than looking at a bleak past.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Like others, I strongly condemn the deliberate attack on the former gospel hall on the Shankill Road on Saturday morning. I thank Gerry Carroll for tabling the Matter of the Day.

It was clear that the building, which was no longer in use, was being brought back into use by a man who was refurbishing it, planning to create much-needed jobs and seeking to do something positive for the Shankill Road community. The PSNI has called the attack a racially motivated hate crime, and that fills me with such despair. I am disappointed that that man's ambitions have been dashed by such an act of cowardice and intolerance. Those responsible were trying to intimidate that businessman and those who were supporting the establishment of his business, and we cannot let them win. We must all stand in solidarity with him in the Chamber. I thank Dr Singhal, who is chair of the Indian community centre. He has shown real leadership and practical support in recent days. We should follow his example.

We all know people living on the Shankill Road who seek to bring up their families in peace and with respect for others. Those who carried out the attack did not do so in their name, and they should be thoroughly ashamed of their actions. There have been decades of amazing efforts by a range of community-based organisations to regenerate the Shankill Road and address issues of deprivation and disadvantage. That crime runs totally contrary to those efforts.

We have seen the pattern before. The former Presbyterian church on Donegall Pass in my constituency was set on fire on two occasions during refurbishment works by the Belfast Multicultural Association in January 2021 and April 2022. That came off the back of an orchestrated attack through misinformation in that community — that appears to be the case with the Shankill Road fire as well — despite the important work that the association was carrying out to support people from all backgrounds across South Belfast and beyond during the pandemic. In that case, the public were rightly outraged, and I am pleased to see the same response in this case in the Shankill.

We need a robust response by the Executive Office. It has responsibilities through the racial equality strategy and that directorate. We hope to see the results from the consultation process on its latest strategic framework, which ended last Wednesday, being transformed into concrete and robust actions to stamp out naked intolerance and racism. Likewise, it is important that we see the Executive Office bring a revised race relations order to the Chamber without further delay and hopefully before the summer recess so that we can ensure that there are adequate protections against discrimination and disadvantage for everyone in this place.

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

I thank the Member for West Belfast for tabling the Matter of the Day. We are having the debate with a depressing sense of resonance and symmetry, because the riots in Ballymena last summer, which scarred and shamed this society, began on 9 June 2025, which will be one year ago tomorrow. One year on, what has happened to mark that anniversary? A gentleman from an Indian background who brought his family here decades ago to contribute to this society and wanted to invest, create jobs and opportunity in a working-class part of Belfast has been burnt out of that opportunity.

The working-class people of that community have been burnt out of the opportunity of additional investment and jobs in their area.

Those decent people, the vast majority of whom will be utterly disgusted by the events over the weekend, have been dragged into the mire by a small number of people who are consumed by hatred and violence. As my colleague Mark Durkan said, we know that the end point of hatred in this society is nothing good, so we should be standing against it. However, it is depressing to see the double-talk and the talking out of both sides of the mouth from some in the Chamber and from some in our society more generally about this, as there was last year.

The rise of racism and far right nonsense online is an extraordinary risk. It is a risk to the constituency that I share with Paula Bradshaw, who just spoke, which is probably the most diverse on the island of Ireland, but it is a risk to all of us who want a society for our children and grandchildren and the people whom we represent based on respect, tolerance and equality. Instead, we are being dragged back into something much, much darker.

I want to challenge the idea put forward by some that there are legitimate concerns. As we discovered last year in Ballymena, when people of colour or people who are not from this part of the world are burnt out of their homes, when pogroms are launched against them, when they are told that they do not belong here or are not allowed here, the comment that we often hear from people who take no responsibility for those actions and then, of course, condemn acts of violence is that we should listen to the legitimate concerns that are being expressed. When someone has invested legally in a business in a disused building, there is no legitimate concern that justifies torching that building. I will say to people in the Chamber and outside it who have positions of responsibility to think about where we are going and the society that we want our communities and our families to live in —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

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

— and step back from this grotesque rhetoric.

Private Members' Business

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to introduce the Regional Balance Bill [NIA Bill 35/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision for a statutory framework to improve regional balance in Northern Ireland; to impose a duty on the Executive to develop, adopt, maintain and implement a framework setting out how disparities in regional economic performance and living standards are to be addressed across government; to confer functions on the Department for the Economy in relation to the preparation of the framework, its reporting to the Assembly and providing guidance and research; and for connected purposes.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Well done, Sinéad.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 8 June 2026. — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On the first day of the Consideration Stage on Tuesday 2 June, Members debated the amendments in group 1 and voted on clauses 1 to 3. Members then completed the debate on the amendments in group 2, which deal with child bail, child custody and live links, but did not vote on any group 2 amendments. The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice moved amendment No 41 at the beginning of the group 2 debate. We will now proceed to the vote on amendment No 41.

Amendment No 41 agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will take a seat, because this looks like being a long one.

Clause 5 (Police bail after arrest)

Amendment No 42 made:

In page 19, line 37, after "maturity" insert ", vulnerabilities". — [Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice ).]

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 (Court bail)

Amendment No 43 made:

In page 22, line 22, after "maturity" insert ", vulnerabilities". — [Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice ).]

Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 7 to 11, so I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses for the Question on stand part.

Clauses 7 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 (Youth custody and supervision orders)

Amendment No 44 proposed:

In page 25, line 32, leave out "was aged 14 or over" and insert "had attained the age of responsibility specified in Article 3". — [Mr Frew.]

Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided:

Ayes 28; Noes 46

AYES

Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mrs Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden, Mr Wilson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Bradley, Mr Kingston

NOES

Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Ms Sheerin

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Dickson, Mr McReynolds

Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 13 to 19. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses for the Question on stand part.

Clauses 13 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We now, eventually, move on to the third group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 45, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 46 to 48, amendment Nos 70 to 73, amendment Nos 78, 88, 89, 123, 128, 130 and 132. Any links between amendments in the group will be indicated at the appropriate point. If all of that is clear — I am sure that it is — I call on the Minister of Justice to move amendment No 45 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I beg to move amendment No 45:

After clause 19 insert—

" PART 2A

ORGANISED CRIME GROUPS

Organised crime groups: definitions

19A.—(1) The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Part.

(2) An “organised crime group” means a group that—

(a) has as its purpose, or as one of its purposes, the carrying on of criminal activities with a view to obtaining (directly or indirectly) any gain or benefit, and

(b) consists of three or more persons who act, or agree to act, together to further that purpose.

(3) A person participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group if the person does an act and knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that—

(a) the act is part of criminal activities of an organised crime group, or

(b) the act will facilitate, or is likely to facilitate, an organised crime group to carry on criminal activities.

(4) Criminal activities are activities falling within subsection (5) or (6).

(5) Activities fall within this subsection if— (a) they are carried on in Northern Ireland, and

(b) they constitute an offence in Northern Ireland punishable on conviction on indictment with imprisonment for a term of 4 years or more.

(6) Activities fall within this subsection if—

(a) they are carried on in a country or territory other than Northern Ireland,

(b) they constitute an offence under the law in force of the country or territory where they are carried on, and

(c) they would constitute an offence in Northern Ireland of the kind mentioned in subsection (5)(b) if the activities were carried on in Northern Ireland.

(7) The Department of Justice may by regulations amend the definition of criminal activities.

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 46: After clause 19 insert—

"Participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group

19B.—(1) A person who participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group commits an offence.

(2) For a person to be guilty of an offence under this section, it is not necessary—

(a) for any criminal activities capable of being facilitated by the person’s act to be carried on,

(b) for the person to know any of the persons who are members of the organised crime group, or

(c) for all of the acts or omissions comprising participation in the group's criminal activities to be carried on in Northern Ireland (provided that at least one of them is).

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine or to both.". — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 47: After clause 19 insert—

"Directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group

19C.—(1) A person who directs the criminal activities of an organised crime group commits an offence.

(2) For this purpose, a person directs the criminal activities of an organised crime group if the person—

(a) participates in the criminal activities of an organised crime group, and (b) does so by directing criminal activities of the group, at any level.

(3) Directing criminal activities of an organised crime group includes—

(a) instructing one or more persons to participate in the criminal activities of an organised crime group; (b) controlling one or more persons participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group.

(4) In subsection (3)(a), “instructing” includes threatening another person and any other means of putting pressure on the other person.

(5) For a person to be guilty of an offence under this section it is not necessary—

(a) for any criminal activities capable of being directed by the person’s act to be carried on,

(b) for the person to know any of the persons who are members of the organised crime group, or

(c) for all of the acts or omissions comprising participation in the group's criminal activities to be carried on in Northern Ireland (provided that at least one of them is).

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or to a fine or to both.". — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 48: After clause 19 insert—

"Organised crime groups: amendments

19D. Schedule 5 makes further amendments relating to the offences of participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group.". — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 70: After clause 23 insert—

"Repeal of public order offences

Repeal of public order offences

23A.—(1) Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 is repealed.

(2) The Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 is repealed.

(3) In Schedule 5—

(a) Part 1 makes consequential amendments relating to the repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824;

(b) Part 2 makes consequential amendments relating to the repeal of the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847.

(4) The amendments made by this section and Schedule 5 do not apply in relation to an offence committed before this section comes into operation.". — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 71: After clause 23 insert—

"Offence of trespassing with intent to commit criminal offence

23A.—(1) A person commits an offence if the person trespasses on any premises with intent to commit an offence (whether or not on the premises).

(2) In subsection (1) “premises” means any building, part of a building or enclosed area.

(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (or both).". — [Mr Frew.]

No 72: After clause 23 insert—

"Arranging or facilitating begging for gain

23B.—(1) A person commits an offence if, for gain, the person arranges or facilitates another person’s begging.

(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).". — [Mr Frew.]

No 73 after clause 23 insert—

" Abolition of offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel

Abolition of the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel

23A. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are abolished.". — [Ms Egan.]

No 78: After clause 23 insert—

" Advertising sexual services

Advertising sexual services

23A. After Article 64A of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (paying for sexual services of a person) insert—

“Advertising sexual services

64B.—(1) A person (A) commits an offence if A—

(a) publishes or displays, or causes or allows to be published or displayed, including digitally, an advertisement whose purpose is to promote, facilitate or offer sexual services provided by another person (B) in exchange for payment; or

(b) coerces B to publish or display, including digitally, an advertisement whose purpose is to promote, facilitate or offer B’s sexual services in exchange for payment; and

(c) A knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the advertisement has that purpose.

(2) A commits an offence under paragraph (1) regardless of whether A secures personal financial gain, or personally benefits in any way, from publishing or displaying the advertisement, or causing or allowing it to be displayed or published.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this Article is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

(4) In this Article “sexual services” has the same meaning as in Article 64A(4A) and (4B).”.". — [Mr Frew.]

No 88: After clause 26 insert—

" Domestic abuse involving threats or harm to animals

Domestic abuse involving threats or harm to animals: amendment of Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998

26A.—(1) The Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In Article 2 (interpretation)—

(a) in paragraph (2) at the appropriate place insert—

'"'animal" means, for the purposes of this Order, a vertebrate other than man that— (a) is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or (b) is not living in a wild state;',

(b) after paragraph (5) insert—

'(5A) for the purposes of Articles 11(6)(c), 13(6)(c), 14(6)(c) and 20(1)(c), an animal is cared for by a person if that person participates or has participated in meeting any of the animal’s needs as set out in section 9(2) of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, whether on a permanent or temporary basis.'.

(3) In Article 11(6)(c) (occupation orders where applicant has estate, etc or has home rights)—

(a) after 'parties' omit 'and';

(b) after 'relevant child' insert ', and of any animal owned or cared for by the applicant or by a relevant child'.

(4) In Article 13(6)(c) (one former spouse or former civil partner with no existing right to occupy)—

(a) after 'parties' omit 'and';

(b) after 'relevant child' insert ', and of any animal owned or cared for by the applicant or by a relevant child'.

(5) In Article 14(6)(c) (one cohabitee or former cohabitee with no existing right to occupy)—

(a) after 'parties' omit 'and';

(b) after 'relevant child' insert ', and of any animal owned or cared for by the applicant or by a relevant child'.

(6) In Article 20(1) (non-molestation orders)—

(a) for 'either or both' substitute 'one or more';

(b) after paragraph (b) insert—

'(c) provision prohibiting the respondent from harming, threatening or interfering with any animal that is owned or cared for by the applicant, a relevant child or, in a case falling within paragraph (2)(b), the person for whose benefit the order would be made.'.". — [Mr Frew.]

No 89: After clause 26 insert—

"Domestic abuse involving threats or harm to animals: amendment of Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021

26B.—(1) The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section 2 (behaviour amounting to domestic abuse)—

(a) after subsection (2)(c) insert—

'(d) behaviour directed at or in relation to an animal owned or cared for by B, or by a child of B, that—

(i) has as its purpose (or among its purposes) one or more of the relevant effects, or

(ii) would be considered by a reasonable person to be likely to have one or more of the relevant effects';

(b) after subsection (4)(b) insert—

'(c) in paragraph (d), “animal” means a vertebrate other than man that—

(i) is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or

(ii) is not living in a wild state,

(d) for the purposes of paragraph (d), an animal is cared for by a person if that person participates or has participated in meeting any of the animal’s needs as set out in section 9(2) of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, whether on a permanent or temporary basis.'.

(3) In Section 27(6)(d) (domestic abuse protection notices and orders)—

(a) after the first 'given' insert '—(i)';

(b) at end insert—

'and,

(ii) any animal owned or cared for by the person for whose protection a notice is given or any child of that person.'.

(4) In Section 27, after subsection (14) insert—

'(14A) For the purposes of subsection (6)(d)(ii)—

(a) “animal” has the meaning given by section 2(4)(c);

(b) an animal is cared for by a person if that person participates or has participated in meeting any of the animal’s needs as set out in section 9(2) of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, whether on a permanent or temporary basis'." — [Mr Frew.]

No 123: After Schedule 4 insert—

"SCHEDULE 5

Section 19D.

ORGANISED CRIME GROUPS: AMENDMENTS

Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994

1. In Part 3 of Schedule 7A to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (cross-border powers of arrest: Northern Ireland offences), after paragraph 68 insert—

'69 An offence under either of the following provisions of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2025—

(a) section 19B (participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group); (b) section 19C (directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group).'.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

2. In Schedule 5 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (lifestyle offences: Northern Ireland) after paragraph 9A insert—

'Organised crime

9B An offence under either of the following provisions of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2025—

(a) section 19B (participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group); (b) section 19C (directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group).'.

Serious Crime Act 2007

3.—(1) The Serious Crime Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part 2 of Schedule 1 (serious offences in Northern Ireland), after paragraph 29A insert—

'Organised crime

29B An offence under either of the following provisions of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2025—

(a) section 19B (participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group); (b) section 19C (directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group).'.

(3) In Part 4 of Schedule 3 (offences under particular enactments: Northern Ireland), after paragraph 49 insert—

'Organised crime

49A An offence under either of the following provisions of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2025—

(a) section 19B (participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group); (b) section 19C (directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group).'.

Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008

4. In Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (serious offences), after paragraph 31B insert—

'Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2025

31C. An offence under either of the following provisions of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2025—

(a) section 19B (participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group);

(b) section 19C (directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group).'.

Procurement Act 2023

5. In Schedule 6 to the Procurement Act 2023 (mandatory exclusion grounds), after paragraph 28 insert—

'28A An offence under either of the following provisions of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2025—

(a) section 19B (participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group);

(b) section 19C (directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group).'." — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 128: After Schedule 4 insert—

" SCHEDULE 5

Section 23A.

REPEAL OF PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES: CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

PART 1

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SECTION 4 OF THE VAGRANCY ACT 1824

Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907

1. In section 81 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907, omit the words from 'shall', in the first place it occurs, to 'public place, and'.

Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1935

2. Section 57 of the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1935 is repealed.

House to House Charitable Collections Act (Northern Ireland) 1952

3. In section 2(3) of the House to House Charitable Collections Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, omit paragraph (c).

Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1958

4. Section 18 of the Summary Jurisdiction and Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 is repealed.

New Towns Act (Northern Ireland) 1965

5. In section 20(4) of the New Towns Act (Northern Ireland) 1965, omit 'or against section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824'.

Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969

6. In Schedule 2 to the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, omit the entry relating to the Vagrancy Act 1824.

Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983

7. Article 7 of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 is repealed.

Magistrates' Courts Rules (Northern Ireland) 1984

8. In Rule 122(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules (Northern Ireland) 1984, omit sub-paragraph (a).

Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986

9. In Article 37(3) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, omit 'or against section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824'.

Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986

10. In Article 10(4) of the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, omit 'or against section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824'.

Museums and Galleries (Northern Ireland) Order 1998

11.—(1) The Museums and Galleries (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In Article 7(2) omit—

(a) the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (a); (b) sub-paragraph (b).

(3) In Article 13(2), omit 'or against section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824'.

Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011

12. In Schedule 7 to the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, omit paragraph 1 and the italic heading immediately before that paragraph.

PART 2

AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE REPEAL OF THE VAGRANCY (IRELAND) ACT 1847

Magistrates' Courts Rules (Northern Ireland) 1984

13. In Rule 122(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules (Northern Ireland) 1984, omit sub-paragraph (b).

Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003

14.—(1) Schedule 2A to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 2(4), omit paragraph (a).

(3) In paragraph 4—

(a) omit sub-paragraph (4);

(b) in sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), omit “or (4)”.

Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015

15. In Schedule 1 to the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, omit paragraph 17 and the italic heading before that paragraph.". — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 130: In the long title, after "detention;" insert "to make provision about involvement in organised crime groups;". — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 132: In the long title, after "functions;" insert "to repeal certain offences relating to public order;". — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Amendment Nos 45 to 48 create two new offences: participating in the criminal activities of an organised crime group and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group. Specifically, the proposed provisions are intended to create specific legislation for prosecuting an individual involved in criminal conduct linked to serious organised crime in Northern Ireland; criminalise those who, at any level, are involved in the commissioning and undertaking of serious organised crime; and pursue those who work together to commit or conspire to commit serious crimes that are intended to generate material benefit directly or indirectly. The legislation will provide a more effective approach to addressing the specific issue of involvement in organised crime, and the clauses define what constitutes an organised crime group and set out what it means to participate in the criminal activities of an organised crime group.

Some might ask why the amendments are needed. To that, I would reply that Northern Ireland is the only area of the United Kingdom or Ireland without bespoke organised crime legislation. While existing offences are utilised for prosecuting individuals for their specific offending, they do not accurately reflect the extent of offending or the potential larger role that those individual offences play in the overall operations of organised crime gangs. The provisions will bring us in line with neighbouring jurisdictions and ensure that Northern Ireland does not fall behind in its response to organised crime.

The new offences will be an additional tool for law enforcement to tackle organised crime, and the provisions, coupled with the associated significant penalties, will provide reassurance to the public by sending a strong message that no one is untouchable. I am sure that all of us have heard complaints from our constituents that, often, it is those on the fringes of organised crime who get prosecuted and those at the centre directing it who get away. This is a deliberate attempt on our part to ensure that those who orchestrate organised crime gangs and direct their operations are as amenable to justice as everyone in that organisation. I trust that the amendments will have the full support of all Members.

Amendment No 70 introduces a new clause and a new schedule to the Bill to repeal section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which criminalises rough sleeping, and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847, which criminalises begging. That outdated and archaic legislation criminalises some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Rough sleeping and begging are often linked to underlying issues such as homelessness, poverty, alcohol, drug addiction, poor mental health, sexual and domestic abuse, family breakdown, adverse childhood experiences and low educational attainment. I firmly believe that those complex and cross-cutting issues require a multi-agency response of support rather than the criminalisation of people simply because of their personal circumstances.

My decision to repeal without the need for replacement legislation followed a detailed review of existing legislation and public consultation on the legislative proposals. The aim of the review, carried out in liaison with the PSNI and preceding the consultation, was to determine how existing legislation was used and whether replacement legislation was needed in the event of repeal in the context of existing offences that could be used to deal with associated problematic behaviours that crossed the criminal threshold. No criminal behaviours encountered by the PSNI when dealing with those who beg or sleep rough were identified by the police as incapable of being addressed under the existing criminal legislative framework. The only gap left by repeal would be an inability to deal with what was referred to as "simple begging" through an out-of-court disposal or prosecution. In a modern society, no one should be criminalised for simply begging who is not otherwise behaving in way that would attract criminal sanction for people who are not begging. Poverty and destitution should not be a crime.

The public consultation that followed the review sought views on my proposals to proceed with the repeal without the need for replacement legislation. The majority of respondents supported my proposals, stating that criminalisation exacerbated the existing vulnerabilities of those who begged or slept rough. Some respondents were keen to change the narrative around homelessness and begging, with the view that, rather than punitive measures, we should focus our collective efforts on providing support to those involved in such street activity, and I concur with that. Many commended the police for their compassionate and supportive approach, which I echo unreservedly. Police initially adopt an engage-and-explain approach and direct those who rough-sleep or beg to wider partners in the statutory voluntary and community sector, a sector that I want to recognise for the incredible and difficult work that it does in providing support to some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society — work that is often done with limited public interest or support.

While I received significant support for my proposals, I am fully aware of the concerns of the business sector. Two Belfast business improvement districts, representing a large number of businesses in the city centre, responded to the consultation that repeal would require replacement legislation. I subsequently met retail representatives, as did my officials separately, to address related concerns and explain the rationale better. Where people begging or rough sleeping conduct themselves in a manner that is disruptive or causes a breach of the peace, there are laws to deal with that. Harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour are genuine policing matters, just as they would be if someone who was not begging or sleeping rough was behaving in that way.

The vagrancy laws that I seek to repeal with the amendment criminalise poverty, destitution and desperation. Poverty is not a crime. Being destitute is not a crime. Being desperate is not a crime. In this day and age, we must have better methods to address those who are in poverty or destitution, coping with trauma, addiction or poor mental health, and find themselves with nowhere to go but the streets. The phrase "There but for the grace of God go I" is a reminder of the role of chance, luck, upbringing and opportunity in people's life outcomes. I know that Members would agree that they would not swap their lives for those who find themselves in such desperation, but none of us knows what lies ahead for ourselves or, indeed, for members of our families. The response to seeing others in desperate straits should be one of compassion, not censure. It is Dickensian that people can be threatened with arrest simply for sleeping rough or asking for a cup of coffee or a sandwich in a town centre. My amendment will repeal those outdated and harsh laws, and I commend it to the House.

I now want to discuss two amendments that Paul Frew, Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston tabled, which are contingent on repeal of the vagrancy amendment. Their first amendment, amendment No 71, would provide for a new offence of trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence and would replace the provision in section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 of being found on premises for any unlawful purpose, which, in the past, has been used to target individuals who were sleeping rough. A similar offence is provided for in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and it was that provision that led the PSNI to raise concerns at Committee that a similar offence might be needed in Northern Ireland, although those concerns were not raised with the Department during the review.

The current section 4 offence is primarily used as a support charge in cases in which, for example, proof of burglary is not made out. It does not appear to have been used to arrest offenders; rather, it has been added to the principal charge in case it has not been made out in court. While I understand that the use of the offence in recent years has been declining year on year, I am willing to support the Members' amendment, provided, of course, that the vagrancy legislation is also repealed. I am concerned that, in the absence of repeal, such an offence would have unintended consequences and could be used simply to target those who sleep rough or beg. That aligns with the approach being taken by the UK Government, who intend to commence the new trespass offence in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 in tandem with the commencement of vagrancy repeal. The same approach can apply here.

The second of the amendments, No 72, relates to organised begging, which the Justice Committee raised as a particular issue during its scrutiny of my proposals. It was concerned about the PSNI's ability to deal with organised begging in the event of repeal. I highlight the fact that the existing legislation in the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 does not address organised or coerced begging. The 1847 Act criminalises only those who beg, not those who coerce others to beg. Therefore, my proposed repeal does not create a gap in that provision. There is current law to address such behaviour. Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 on slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour and section 2 of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which was introduced by Lord Morrow, are available to prosecute those who are found to have forced persons to beg or who have arranged or facilitated the travel of others with a view to those persons being exploited in that way. No evidence and no concerns have been raised by the police, the wider organised crime task force (OCTF), the modern slavery human trafficking subgroup or the NGO engagement forum, with which we regularly engage, that organised begging is an issue in Northern Ireland. That said, the amendment provides for a new offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain. Again, that mirrors provision in the UK Crime and Policing Act 2026 to be enacted on repeal of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as it applies there. While I remain of the view that the provision of new offences should be developed only on the basis of an identified gap, I am willing to support the amendment, as it will not impact negatively on those who simply beg or sleep rough.

I turn to amendment No 73. I very much welcome Ms Connie Egan's proposal to repeal the blasphemy offences. The common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel are archaic and have no place in a modern society. When I was in Parliament, I was the parliamentary champion of Open Doors. We remarked that, where there is freedom of and from religion, other rights are often better protected; yet, around the globe, many places continue to have and, indeed, to implement blasphemy laws that are often not just archaic but draconian. That is something that I have been committed to changing for most of my adult life and that we need to show leadership on in this corner of the globe.

I am fully committed to freedom of and from religion, so I am sympathetic to and support the removal from the law of those outdated and mainly unused offences. Northern Ireland is now the only jurisdiction in these islands that has not abolished the offence of blasphemy. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression and religion without fear of prosecution, however remote that fear might be. I ask why any religion would continue to have or to need more protection under blasphemy law than others. I am grateful to Ms Egan for tabling her amendment, and I am happy to support it.

Amendment No 78, another provision tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston, aims to tackle the advertisement of sexual services. As Members know, I am fully committed to protecting victims from all forms of abuse and exploitation. Sadly, such deplorable behaviour is mainly targeted at women and girls. Advertising people who are trafficked or sexually exploited as though they are merely a commodity to be used and abused is completely unacceptable. The terrible thing is that many people do not know that they are being traded and objectified in that way. Pimps and traffickers create the profiles and collect the profits, while their victims are powerless and continue to be exploited and abused.

I therefore very much support the intention behind the amendment to strengthen protections for those who suffer such sexual exploitation, many of whom are also victims of human trafficking.

I will always support measures that are designed to help reduce the terrible harms and abuse inflicted on some of the most vulnerable in our society by some of the most despicable in our society. While I support the intention of the amendment in principle, I have some concerns about the intended scope of the offences, in their proportionality and where they may encroach on telecommunications law, which, as Members will recognise, falls within the reserved space. As such, the consent of the Secretary of State would be required for us to legislate on that. However, if the Member indicates that he is agreeable, I am willing to work with him between now and Further Consideration Stage to ensure that the amendment is an appropriate fit within our existing legislative framework and that it meets its aims in addressing relevant behaviours.

The last amendments in this group are amendment Nos 88 and 89, which, again, have been tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston and Ms Diane Forsythe. I begin by acknowledging the intention behind the amendments: to introduce the corollary of Ruby's law in Northern Ireland, with a view to strengthening domestic abuse legislation by explicitly recognising harm or the threat of harm to companion animals as a form of coercive control. I recognise that that is a growing area of concern and have met, for example, the Links Group, which includes the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection and others. I am aware of the work that it is doing with the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) and the British Veterinary Association (BVA) to raise awareness in both professions of the linkages between harm caused to animals — companion animals and, indeed, farm animals — and domestic and sexual violence and abuse. I very much recognise Members' concerns about the role that pets and animals more generally can play in patterns of domestic abuse and coercive control. There is no doubt that threats against animals, harm to animals or animals being used as a means of intimidation can form a part of domestic abuse. Those behaviours are wholly unacceptable, and it is right that they should be condemned without any qualification. I therefore understand the desire to frame those matters explicitly in the legislative framework.

Amendment No 88 would make changes to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, with a view to enhancing protections for victims of domestic abuse by preventing anyone from perpetuating abuse by harming or threatening to harm a pet or animal. The amendment would require a court, when considering whether and how to make an occupation order or a non-molestation order (NMO), to have regard to the likelihood and likely effect of any such order or decision on the welfare of an animal cared for by the person whom the order is intended to protect or their child.

Responsibility for the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 falls to the Minister of Finance, who has advised that it is already implicit in the 1998 Order that a court must have regard to all circumstances when determining whether to issue an occupation order or an NMO. It is therefore already possible for animals to be referenced in such orders. However, it is the Minister of Finance's view that, on balance, making it an explicit requirement in the 1998 Order could serve to reinforce the legislation and therefore assist the courts in making the orders and victims when applying for such orders. While the Minister believes that further policy development and engagement with stakeholders would be beneficial, both he and I recognise the potential benefits of the amendment. As such, I will be supporting it, and I encourage others to do so.

Amendment No 89 would amend the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to give effect to two separate key provisions. First, it would amend section 2 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 to explicitly include harm or the threat of harm to an animal within the behaviours that constitute domestic abuse in the Act. As I have noted, I recognise that the threat of harm and harm to pets and animals can be used to perpetuate domestic abuse and coercive control, and I wholly condemn it. As an animal lover, I need no convincing that harm to pets and animals could be part of domestic abuse and coercive control. I have heard numerous stories from victims with direct experience of that kind of abuse, who have written to me and met me. However, for that reason, I was determined to adopt the broadest possible definition of domestic abuse in section 2 of the 2021 Act. Section 2 of the Act does not provide an exhaustive list of behaviours, but rather was intentionally framed in broad and flexible terms to empower the courts to consider the full context of abusive conduct rather than relying on a prescriptive list. Ruby's law was originally conceived as an amendment to the English legislation, which had a prescriptive list that did not include the abuse of animals. In that context, it made sense for the abuse of animals to be specified. However, as our law is framed differently, with a more expansive approach that can include animal abuse, it would seem slightly contrary to have only animal abuse listed and specified as a form of abuse.

Neither harm nor the threats of harm to pets are explicitly listed in section 2 of the Act. We sought to make it absolutely clear in the explanatory notes, which provide insight into the policy intent, that the provisions extend to behaviour concerning animals, and we provided some specific examples of behaviours towards animals that could constitute abuse under the Act. The broader approach to defining abusive behaviour was previously accepted and supported by the Assembly when the Act was first passed. As such, I am satisfied that the existing framework already permits the courts to take account of behaviour involving animals where it is relevant. I have also not seen any evidence that the current legislation fails to address the issue in practice. Whilst I acknowledge Members' intent that explicitly referring to animals could provide additional clarity, there is a risk that rather than filling an identified gap in the law, the effect of that aspect of amendment No 89 would be to inadvertently place more focus and emphasis on one type of abuse than on others, which would not be helpful, and I do not believe that that is the Members' intent.

The second part of amendment No 89 would amend section 27 of the 2021 Act, which provides an enabling power for my Department to make regulations to give effect to protective measures for victims of domestic abuse, now commonly referred to as domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs). Members will be aware that DAPNs and DAPOs have not yet been introduced in Northern Ireland, and my Department continues to work with partners to develop a model that will be appropriate and effective in this jurisdiction, having first been informed by early lessons learned from pilots in England and Wales. I hope to introduce regulations and to launch a pilot DAPN and DAPO scheme for Northern Ireland towards the end of the financial year.

That aspect of amendment No 89 would allow regulations made under section 27 of the 2021 Act to provide powers for the court to include such requirements for pets as it considers relevant in a DAPO. I believe that that could help to prevent the use of harm or the threat of harm to pets to perpetuate abuse and/or coercive control over a victim. In addition, subject to amendment No 88 receiving the support of the Assembly, the provision will allow the regulations for DAPNs and DAPOs under section 27 to be framed in such a way that there would be a consistent and aligned approach with non-molestation orders and occupation orders made under the 1998 Order. There is a benefit in ensuring that those various protective regimes can operate consistently with one another, and I am supportive, in principle, of that aspect of amendment No 89.

Given that it is important to have consistency, we need to look at how we handle amendment No 89. The first part of the amendment is not helpful, but the second part is very valuable. Whilst I support the intention behind amendment No 89, and of the proposed amendment to section 27 of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, I am concerned about the unintended consequences of the amendment to section 2 of the Act. However, again, if the Members who brought the amendment will undertake to review the provisions and amend them at the Further Consideration Stage to remove the changes to section 2 of the 2021 Act, I would be content to give it my support today.

That is all that I wish to say about the amendments in the group, and I look forward to hearing from those who have tabled complementary or competing amendments in those policy areas. I look forward to a healthy debate on those matters.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Before I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice, Mr Paul Frew, I remind Members that we will suspend the debate or take our ease just before 2.00 pm to facilitate Question Time.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. It will come as no surprise to you that I will get a wee break from my speech during Question Time before continuing with it thereafter. I know that my speech will be riveting and that you might not be able to sustain Question Time with the excitement.

I begin my remarks by saying that I thought that the first day of this debate was very good and very productive. It showed that we can work together as a Department, a Minister, a Chairperson, a Committee, an Assembly and all who take part in that. I commend the House for the debate that we had last Tuesday on the first two groups of amendments.

I will begin my comments on the ministerial amendments in group 3 as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. I will then speak in a personal capacity. As the Minister outlined, amendment Nos 45 to 48 add four new clauses and a schedule to the Bill that define what constitutes an organised crime group and what it means to participate in the activities of an organised crime group. The amendments also create new offences of participating in and directing the activities of an organised crime group. The amendments were broadly supported by all the respondents to the Committee who commented on the proposed clauses.

The concerns expressed mainly centred around the potential exploitation of children and the vulnerable by organised crime groups and the need to ensure that they are not treated purely as perpetrators of crime, as they could, in fact, be victims themselves. The children's rights group Children in Northern Ireland suggested the need for statutory recognition of child criminal exploitation and a welfare-first approach, rather than criminalisation. The Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland raised similar issues. In response to such comments, the Department clarified that the recent Westminster Crime and Policing Bill created a specific child criminal exploitation offence that was being extended to Northern Ireland. The Department said that the introduction of such an offence should act as a deterrent to gangs from enlisting children in their criminality, as they would be charged as child exploiters, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The House will no doubt be aware of the concerns raised across the UK about the use of children and young people in so-called county lines and other organised crime. Protections that may be afforded by a specific offence are therefore welcomed. The Human Rights Commission highlighted the risk that people who are victims could be prosecuted under the legislation, particularly women who are subject to coercive control, children and victims of trafficking and modern slavery.

The Department advised that some thought had been given to how the legislation could be drafted so that children, women or vulnerable people were not innocently captured by the offence — for example, by considering the inclusion of statutory defences, which the Department tested with justice partners. It was determined that that is already covered by the common law defence of duress, which could potentially apply where there has been evidence of threats. In addition, the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 provides a statutory defence in relation to certain criminal offences. The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People queried why, through the amendments, the Department was seeking to introduce penalties that are different from those in other jurisdictions and how the Department envisages the new offences working for cross-border organised crime in the context of exploitation and trafficking. On those issues, the Department advised that it was apparent that neighbouring jurisdictions have their own nuanced version of serious organised crime offences. The proposed offences in the amendments that we are considering today are akin to those in neighbouring jurisdictions while also taking into account the unique challenges in Northern Ireland. Having considered the evidence received and the Department's response to the concerns raised, the Committee concluded that it was content with the proposed ministerial amendments.

I turn now to amendment No 70, the repeal of public order offences via new clause 23A, and amendment No 128, the new schedule associated with it, which I will call the Minister's "vagrancy amendments", just to make things easier. The Committee heard detailed evidence on those amendments and spent some time considering them. Having received the text of the Minister's vagrancy amendments in December 2024, the Committee included them in its call for evidence on the Bill. The amendments aim to repeal section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847. I think that we can all question the continued use of such antiquated legislation. Indeed, if you read the 1824 Act, you will see that some of its language, with references to "rogues and vagabonds", is certainly not what we would use today.

The Committee was advised by the Department that there has been considerable criticism by homelessness support organisations, the media and some of the good folk in the Chamber that that outdated legislation criminalises homelessness and begging. The Committee's call for evidence attracted universal support for the notion that simple begging should not be an offence and that more work was needed to address the wider social and societal issues that lead to begging and rough sleeping. The Committee heard the view that rough sleeping should be considered a crime of "status", which, in the words of Professor Kevin Brown, is:

"arguably indefensible in modern criminal law or human rights terms."

However, some respondents who supported repeal expressed the view that simply repealing the legislation may leave a gap in the powers for the police to deal with certain other behaviours that can arise from begging and rough sleeping. The Committee heard from the Simon Community and Homeless Connect that it is not appropriate to criminalise someone for simply begging or sleeping in the street. They supported the PSNI's decision not to prosecute for rough sleeping despite the powers being available to do so. The witnesses from Homeless Connect stated that they recognised:

"it is important for the PSNI to have the tools necessary to address disruptive behaviours that go beyond simple begging".

They pointed out, however:

"that is not necessarily a straightforward thing."

The Committee heard that view echoed and expanded in other evidence. Retail NI, for example, agreed with the repeal of the legislation but felt that there was a need to address replacement powers for when rough sleeping and begging crossed over into problematic or criminal behaviour. Again, it was clear that this was a complex issue.

Some of the most detailed and considered evidence that the Committee heard on the issue came from Professor Brown, who is a criminal law specialist at Queen's University Belfast. Professor Brown advised that he fully supports the repeal of the relevant section of the 1824 Act and of the 1847 Act, providing his view that a complete ban on begging and rough sleeping would criminalise a person for being destitute or without shelter. He went on to explain that, in most cases, begging is passive and harmless but that, in a small number of cases, it can become:

"aggressive, intimidating, obstructive or exploitative."

Professor Brown argues:

"In those limited categories, proportionate legal tools are justified."

Professor Brown did not consider that existing legislation would appropriately fill that gap and that repeal might leave us without a replacement. He argued that there should be:

"narrow, purpose-built provisions that target harmful behaviour without stigmatising poverty."

He provided the Committee with the draft text of an amendment for begging causing harassment, obstruction or public order concerns. He also pointed out that a further unintended consequence could be the gap on trespass with intent. The Committee forwarded Professor Brown's comments and suggestions to the Department for its views. The Department responded to advise that it did not support the proposals:

"as they would continue to criminalise people who are simply begging and marginalise some of the most vulnerable in our society."

The Department also advised of the potential interference of the proposed measures with article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

"Right to respect for private and family life".

The PSNI, when giving its initial evidence to the Committee in April 2025, advised that it did not believe that simply arresting people for begging was the appropriate pathway or response to the issue. It also said that, where it feels that there is no alternative to a criminal justice process, there were other offences that could be used. Those include disorderly behaviour, breach of the peace, public nuisance or provocative behaviour, to deal with problems in the behaviour of those unfortunate enough to end up on the streets. However, in subsequent evidence that was given in November 2025, the PSNI indicated some concerns that repeal without replacement legislation may leave some gaps, noting that provisions for alternative offences had been implemented elsewhere in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The PSNI suggested that powers similar to clause 10 of the Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, in England and Wales, and section 11 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 could be used to plug the gaps for trespass with intent. Clause 11 of the Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, could be used to tackle the facilitation of begging for gain.

In our deliberations, it quickly became clear that all members supported the repeal of the antiquated legislation. However, we had to decide whether that could be done with or without putting replacement legislation in place. The Department wrote to the Committee on 27 February to ask whether any agreement had been reached and whether the Committee proposed to make any amendments in that area. The Committee had draft amendments drawn up to incorporate elements of Professor Brown's draft text along the lines of clause 10, the offence of trespassing with intent to commit criminal offence, and clause 11, arranging or facilitating begging for gain, in the Westminster Crime and Policing Bill, as introduced, which is now an Act.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

The Committee considered the draft text of the amendments in March. Members were in agreement that the 1824 and 1847 legislation should be repealed, but we could not reach a consensus on the way to do that. Formal proposals were put on two options: to proceed without replacement legislation or to proceed with replacement legislation. However, as the votes for and against each proposal were equal, both proposals fell. Therefore, while it was keen to see the legislation repealed, the Committee did not reach an agreed position on an amendment by which that should be done.

That ends my speech as Chairperson of the Justice Committee. I will make comments as an individual MLA and spokesperson for the DUP. However, I suspect that you will want me to stop now if that is in order.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Yes. We will take our ease for the next two minutes or so, and will then move to Question Time. Thank you for that, Mr Frew. Members, please take your ease for a moment or two.

The debate stood suspended.

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

1. Mr Stewart asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the work of the high street task force. (AQO 3657/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The high street task force concluded its work when it published its report in March 2022. It made a number of recommendations, which have been taken forward by ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities, Department for the Economy, Department of Finance and Department for Infrastructure. We recognise the significant pressures facing small businesses here, particularly the impact of rising costs of food and fuel, and the challenges that they create for the sustainability and vitality of our high streets. In response, the Department of Finance has extended support through the small business rate relief scheme, which supports around 30,000 small businesses, to 2026-27.

Local councils also play a vital role in supporting and revitalising our high streets. The £45 million regional balance fund supports councils in identifying and addressing specific economic challenges in their areas. It will be important to continue to engage with them, as key delivery partners, to ensure that we have thriving, sustainable high streets for us all to enjoy.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. She will know that high streets in our towns and cities are under massive pressure. Rising rates bills, declining footfall and changing shopping habits are having a huge impact on those retailers. Given the cross-cutting nature of the work that she outlined and those recommendations, will she consider re-establishing the high street task force so that it has full oversight of the matter and can try to make a meaningful, positive impact on our high streets?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member raises an important issue about the challenges that we know are faced by our high streets. Many units on our high streets are now occupied by small businesses, and they are really struggling. Those small businesses are particularly hit by the rising costs of food and energy, as I indicated. Very often, those businesses survive on very small margins, and, when prices increase, that eats into their ability to do that and their sustainability. We recognise that they need support, but it has to be much wider than that particular grouping.

The task force's work has been completed, but that does not mean that the high streets do not require additional support and help. We are acutely aware of that. That is why growing the economy is a priority in the Programme for Government. Of course, each Department is taking forward those 14 recommendations, and we will continue to liaise with them, but we believe that getting the right, UK-wide support, particularly through the tax system, is critical. That is why we have been lobbying the UK Government hard to make sure that they move towards a position of our having a Budget that is fit for purpose for business.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Deputy First Minister, many businesses in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, especially those on the high street, are struggling at the moment, particularly with overheads. What additional support can be provided to address that?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. Again, we have to be particularly vigilant about that. We are aware that global events that are utterly outside our control impact on energy prices. We have been doing a significant amount of work — I think of the group that the head of the Civil Service set up — and regular monitoring to look at what is likely to be coming down the line. We are also participating on a UK-wide basis to push the UK Government on energy support schemes. We anticipate that additional proposals will be brought forward in the summer by the UK Government, but we want to make sure that those are fit for purpose for Northern Ireland and that we are included in the development of that policy so that the support can get to the businesses and people of Northern Ireland where and when they need it. We are very aware of the issues, but, unfortunately, we are limited in what we can do, and we cannot control global events. When it comes to energy security and costs, we have, thus far, been subject to headwinds from elsewhere. We can, however, try to get our energy policy right. That is why, increasingly, we have been articulating not only our concerns but the opportunities that we feel exist, particularly around east-west connectivity, so that we make sure that we have stability of supply and support with costs, including for small businesses and those on our high streets.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

There is no doubt that our hospitality sector faces considerable challenges given the cost of doing business. Does the deputy First Minister agree with me that the UK Government should introduce a hospitality VAT pilot to reduce VAT in Northern Ireland and help revitalise that sector?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. Week in and week out, we see some of our favourite coffee shops, cafes, restaurants and bars closing because of the immense pressure that they are under. The cost of doing business is much too high in Northern Ireland and across the UK. We need the Chancellor to step up and ensure that there is a Budget that supports business and our economy. However, there are other things that we can do. I call on the Economy Minister to do what she can to support our businesses. I know that the Member wholeheartedly supports, as do I, the VAT reduction campaign. I raised that issue directly with the Prime Minister in our meeting with him. He engaged with us and promised to come back to us on the VAT reduction pilot for Northern Ireland. On the back of my engagement with Hospitality Ulster, and aware of all the good work that it has been doing, I indicated that organisations across the UK were content for Northern Ireland to be used for that pilot. That is important, because, as I said to the Prime Minister, the roll-out of that pilot provides an opportunity to evaluate it and determine its effectiveness in, importantly, protecting small businesses, many of which are the backbone of towns and villages across Northern Ireland.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Deputy First Minister, I appreciate your comments about the global effect on our high streets, the report that was delivered in 2023 and the actions that flowed from that. However, with the exception of rate reduction, it is genuinely difficult to see how those actions have hit home on our high streets. I think particularly of my home town of Carrickfergus where more businesses are closing down than are opening up and where there is dereliction on the high street. What support will the Executive give to my colleague, Minister Muir, on the Dilapidation Bill? Do you agree with me that that is one aspect that will help to revitalise our high streets?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. Tackling dereliction and dilapidation on our high streets is important. There is no doubt that that causes a sense of decay and decline in our villages and town centres. It puts people off from coming to sit outside a cafe — mind you, you will not sit outside a cafe in this weather — or visiting the various things that our towns have to offer. However, it is important to say that we have incredible businesses in all of our towns and villages. I often get the opportunity to visit small businesses that are doing their best. Many of them supply high-quality local produce or locally made products. We should be really proud of those small businesses, and we all need to go into our towns and villages and support them. Often, when we criticise the fact that shops are disappearing from the high street, we do not highlight the many that are still there and need our support. As elected representatives, we can highlight those small businesses, which are doing their best, and encourage people to go into our villages and town centres to support them.

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

The reality is that some high streets are suffering more than others for whatever reason, be that local authority neglect, their location or because businesses have opened elsewhere. Is there a way, via the high street task force, to provide extra bespoke assistance for towns — Downpatrick could be on that list — that are suffering more than others?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member is absolutely right, but it is important that we do not punish success. The towns and villages that are doing well have put in a huge amount of effort, but there is no doubt that they still require additional support. The way that we shop is changing — we are all guilty of it — and that is having an impact. Businesses on the high street are often disadvantaged because they pay for rent, rates, electricity and everything else, while online businesses do not have those overheads.

It is really important that we start to look at what the high streets of the future will look like. That is about much more integration. For example, I would like to see the Department of Finance looking at public-sector estates to see what support it can give to our towns. I am always happy to welcome the Finance Minister to Lisburn, for example, where there are great opportunities to put more public-sector jobs in the city centre to support it.

We have to be realistic, however. People's behaviour and the way that they shop have changed, and our high street needs to change to keep pace with that. It has not done so thus far, but support from government, Departments and elected representatives will be critical in making sure that we can create the new, re-envisaged and fit-for-purpose high streets of the future.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

2. Miss McIlveen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of whether attributing problems in administering devolved functions solely to Westminster funding risks undermining confidence in the devolved institutions. (AQO 3658/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Members can be assured of our commitment to making devolution work. We have an agreed Programme for Government and have committed over £230 million pounds over the next five years to a range of innovative projects to support and drive transformation across our public services. It will make a real difference, but much more needs to be done. The reality is that the current funding package for Northern Ireland does not match the scale of the challenges facing our public services. Our firm view is that the current fiscal position is unsustainable and that Westminster can and should do more. We have presented a case directly to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister and will continue to make the strongest possible case for a funding settlement that reflects local needs and supports the sustainable delivery of public services.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Does the deputy First Minister agree that the public expect more from their political leaders than simply blaming others for all the challenges that we face, and that we can do things at a devolved level to put our finances on a more sustainable footing?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Absolutely. That is such an important issue and goes to the heart of the fact that we in Northern Ireland are the custodians of each Department. I have often said that it is not just about how much money we get; it is about what we do with it. People out there are really frustrated when they see some political parties and Ministers constantly blaming problems on the Brits, the Brits, the Brits. They want us to step up and take some responsibility. That means driving efficiency and effectiveness in all Departments. It also means driving down waste where it occurs. There is still too much waste in our system. We do not have the finances or resources available to facilitate any waste or inefficiency in our system. The Member is absolutely correct. I know that she feels strongly about the issue. We must step up to the plate, step forward, do what we can and be responsible. We cannot simply just blame it on the Brits.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

To continue the theme of undermining public confidence and public effectiveness, I ask you this, Minister: why do you and your DUP colleagues continue to block the 'good jobs' Bill, particularly the measures for parents whose babies require neonatal care and, indeed, other measures that will support workers who are struggling with the cost of living?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Since receiving the Bill, I have taken time to go through it, line by line and clause by clause. Last week, I had a useful meeting on it with officials from the Department for the Economy. It is absolutely clear that Members across the House support a number of things in the Bill, such as neonatal parental leave. However, it is absolutely wrong for some in Sinn Féin and on the Benches opposite to use the issues on which, they know, there is consensus to try to bully and bounce the DUP, and me in particular, into supporting other ideas in the Bill that are, frankly, half-baked. For example, the clauses on trade union access are the most aggressive and expansionist not just across the UK, Ireland and the European Union but across the globe. The Minister had to go to New Zealand to find such a regime to put forward. It is also clear that there is not a single business in Northern Ireland that supports the Minister's proposals.

There are many questions that the Minister cannot answer. She says that everything will go into a code of conduct. That code of conduct has not even been started, never mind being available for us to look at. I advise the Member to look at some of the detailed proposals, and I say this to the Minister for the Economy: if you want to introduce clauses on neonatal care, do so. Put them in a separate piece of legislation, and I promise the House today that I will clear it by urgent procedure so that it can come to the Chamber and get going. The Minister knows that there is no consensus on some of the clauses. She can introduce a trade union Bill if she wishes, but do not use important issues such as neonatal care to manipulate anybody.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

3. Mr K Buchanan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the current level of funding for victims and survivors' groups. (AQO 3659/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The provision of funding for victims and survivors' groups remains a key element of the Executive strategy for victims and survivors. We are committed to ensuring that victims and survivors receive the support that they need. We also recognise and greatly value the vital role that those groups play in delivering essential support in our communities. Through the Victims and Survivors Service, the Department funds 38 groups across all programme areas, ensuring that services are delivered where they are most needed. In the previous financial year, a total of £12 million was awarded to those groups. However, we are aware of the pressure that those groups are under and that they are seeking additional funding in the current year due to an increase in demand. Whilst the draft Budget is still to be formally agreed, we have asked officials to explore options to enable the provision of further support.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, deputy First Minister, for your answer. The burden has been put on the sector to work with groups that deal with people who have suffered dramatically over the lifetime of the Troubles and up to the present time. Groups like Mid Ulster Victims Empowerment (MUVE), which I work with directly every week, do that great work. What more can you do to secure the money that they not just deserve but need to deliver those services?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for Mid Ulster for that important question. He is a great advocate for the victims and survivors' sector, particularly on this issue. There is not a week that goes by in which he does not raise the issue with me. He recognises the huge demand that there is on victims and survivors' groups, particularly in relation to mental health and support. More than that, I know that he cares deeply about what victims and survivors are going through at the moment.

There is no doubt that key initiatives such as the pension for severely injured victims, what is happening in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) and the very public conversation about legacy legislation are all having a huge impact on victims and survivors, particularly in relation to their mental health. I am acutely aware that, when we created the historical institutional abuse inquiry mechanisms and structures, there was support for people going through that. It was a trauma-informed approach. There was mental health and counselling support throughout that process. However, we do not have that for many of the issues in relation to the legacy of the Troubles. That needs to be addressed, because that pressure is now being put on victims and survivors' groups. I commit to doing everything that I can to see whether we can get that much-needed additional resource to those groups. I recognise that they are looking at unprecedented demand and pressure because of this really important issue.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Last week, the British Prime Minister apologised to the families of the five people who were shot dead by the British Army in Springhill in 1972. For 54 years, those families have been fighting for truth, justice and acknowledgement. Do you, as deputy First Minister, associate yourself with that apology and agree with the British Prime Minister's assessment that it is the duty of the state to hold itself to the highest standard when investigating state killings?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have always made it clear that, no matter what the circumstance, I will always stand on the side of victims. Victims and survivors across Northern Ireland, including those whom the Member has referenced, have been denied justice for much too long. I speak to many victims and survivors, including many victims of terrorist organisations across Northern Ireland, who have never had justice. The hurt that they felt at the time of their loved one's murder is just as acute today. The continued denial of truth and justice to those victims continues to cause that pain.

The Member referenced the state, but I would say more than that: everybody has a responsibility to step forward. If you were a member of a paramilitary organisation or if you have justified the behaviour of paramilitary organisations or unlawful behaviour, wherever that comes from, that is simply wrong. People should step forward and try to give that help, support, truth and justice to the victims who have suffered the most.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

We in the Committee for the Executive Office have received a lot of correspondence about the assessment of funding into the next financial year. In the arena of mental health support, what conversations have you had with the Health Minister to see whether the public service could pick up some of the weight in that regard?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I absolutely recognise that it is challenging for our mainstream health service to pick that up. At the moment, the services are not fit for purpose to get people the help and support that they need when they need it. The waiting lists are too long. I know that the Health Minister is looking particularly at that issue. It is part of the challenge that we face. If somebody is going through an application process in which they have to go through their experience again, that can be deeply re-traumatising, understandably so. That is even more the case when, often, they are trying to articulate the impact of that event on the mental health trauma and post-traumatic stress that they are going through. When they are at that point, they need that help almost immediately. If you go through a GP to get that support, you are likely to be waiting for a sustained period, sadly, unless you are at absolute crisis point. That is why victims and survivors' groups are seeing a significant increase in demand. From talking to some of the groups, I know that demand has increased by as much as 30% to 40% from people applying to some of those schemes.

There is a need there. We have always fought hard to protect the budget for victims and survivors from reductions or cuts elsewhere, but the reality is that, with rising costs, that budget is getting more and more squeezed. That is why I have been having a series of discussions to see what we can do, not just to work with the Health Department but, being realistic, how we can get additional resource to victims and survivors' groups.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the First Minister and deputy First Minister table an amendment to the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill to deal with the posthumous date? The Bill will, in its current form, do a real injustice to those who died before the stated date.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

First, I thank all of the victims and survivors who have campaigned so hard for the inquiry and the redress scheme. Many of those people, as the Member has highlighted, are no longer with us and will not get the benefit of the scheme. Those who are will, and that is why the scheme is set up in the way that it is. It does not deal entirely with posthumous claims. It is too late for those who, sadly, have passed away to get payments in acknowledgement for what they suffered. Some of their family members will be able to apply for that acknowledgement payment.

We carefully considered the issue in the Executive Office. We were advised about what happened in other jurisdictions. In the Republic of Ireland, for example, the posthumous date is 2021. We felt that that was not far enough back, so we went back to 2011, and we have been advised objectively by officials that that is the date on which a legitimate expectation could first have been raised. That is further back than any other jurisdiction, as far as I am aware. While it is, of course, a difficult issue, we have tried to be as generous as we can while prioritising, undoubtedly, those who have needs right now and ensuring that they get the most support possible.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

4. Mr Harvey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on discussions with HM Government regarding funding for Northern Ireland. (AQO 3660/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We have written to the Prime Minister outlining the scale of the pressures on public finances and the implications for service delivery. The Secretary of State responded on 28 April on the Prime Minister’s behalf, reaffirming his view that funding is sufficient overall. However, our view is that the current fiscal position is unsustainable and that more should and could be done. We have sought a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss the issues further, and, of course, we have asked for an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister as well.

The Finance Minister continues to engage with the UK Government to underline the scale of the Executive’s financial challenges and to seek additional support to help to stabilise public finances. The Executive are united on this. We believe that the current allocation does not reflect our service pressures. Our focus remains on securing a fair, sustainable settlement while considering ongoing cost-of-living pressures.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. You will be aware of the recently announced summer travel scheme for children in England as part of the Great British Summer Savings scheme. We are likely to receive a Barnett consequential from that. Has there been any discussion with Treasury following that announcement?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is no doubt that that proposal has been welcomed by many people, but it goes only a small way towards supporting hard-pressed families. This is the reality that we face: the median income is lower in Northern Ireland than it is anywhere else across the UK. That means that our families, including working families, are most impacted by a rise in energy costs, for example, or any increase in bills. We must recognise that.

I will always have the backs of hard-working families. We recognise the pressures that they are under. The increases in childcare costs, energy bills and the cost of the petrol or diesel that they need to put into their cars to get to the places that they need to go are hitting families hard, hard, hard, and we need to be there to support them. I will continue to lobby the UK Government to provide more support and help to our hard-working families, but, of course, again, our Departments must do everything that they can to use the money that they get in the best possible way to support those families.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Minister outline what risks arise from Departments operating within contingency planning envelopes rather than an agreed Budget and how those risks are being managed?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. Again, it is an exceptionally difficult issue. I do not think that anyone around the Executive table does not want to have an agreed Budget. However, we have to weigh up the implications of agreeing a Budget that would be woefully inadequate to support front-line services. The moment such a Budget was agreed, accounting officers in Health, Education, Justice — every Department — would be telling Ministers that they could not spend what is required on vital public services. The impact of that on ordinary working families would be catastrophic, and it is not something that I am prepared to stand over. Of course, the current system is also inadequate. I do not want to be in a situation where we can spend only 45%, for example, of the allocation until July, but every Member needs to be aware of what would happen if a Budget were set with £1 billion-plus missing from what is required and assessed to be required to run our public services.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I am sure that the deputy First Minister is aware that the extra spending required to run our divided society has been calculated at almost £1 billion a year. Could the case for more funding from the UK Government be improved if the Executive Office took more seriously the issue of the cost of segregation?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Executive Office takes seriously the cost of segregation. I have been a special adviser or a Minister in this Department for almost 20 years. In that time, one of the policy areas that I have worked on is Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC). It is not just about taking down the physical structures of division — for example, we had a signature project relating to the so-called peace walls — but about breaking down the barriers in people's minds and hearts. There have been hugely successful projects, including our Urban Villages initiative and T:BUC camps. Well in excess of 20,000 young people have been through those camps. They bring people together. Of course, it is not just a single approach. We need to address the issue across the piece, and I am fully committed to doing so.

The Member's point goes much wider than just that issue; it goes to everything that we do. I have said at the Executive many times that every Department should be doing a line-by-line assessment of its budget and making sure that the money that we have is being used in the best possible way. We do not have the luxury of having waste, inefficiency and duplication. We must get it right. It is not just about how much money we receive but how we use that money.

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

Crisis? What crisis? We are two and half months into the financial year and no Budget has been set. We all agree — the Opposition included — that we want a maximum settlement from London. You talked about not having a £1 billion gap, but will you confirm that if you and your colleagues cannot or will not set a Budget, you will have to cut more than £1 billion on last year's Budget? Is that the legal position? If you do not set a Budget, you will have to cut services and wages and plunge this place into crisis. Is that the reality of the crisis that the Executive are creating?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The shortfall in the Budget this year is at least £1 billion, and you can try to find that in only two ways — by slashing public services or raising £1 billion in revenue in this financial year. Each of those options would be devastating to the people whom we serve. That is why, as I have often said, I do not subscribe to begging-bowl politics. This is about a partnership with the Treasury and the UK Government, wherein we meet them halfway, saying, "We are going to be proper custodians of public funds. We're going to drive inefficiency and waste out of our system. We're going to do everything that we can." However, we need to build credibility with the UK Government and the Treasury in order to ask them for the much-needed support because, if we set a Budget and try to make up that shortfall, public services will be utterly devastated in this financial year, and that is not something that I am prepared to do at this stage.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, having noted that everybody knows what they saw at Scarva — racist and sectarian abuse hurled at a peaceful march, toxic waste sprayed on a public road, journalists intimidated and abused while doing their job, and an MP from the deputy First Minister's party in the middle of a scrum of masked men — whether, given all that she has said about positively promoting Northern Ireland and creating a showcase for the region, the deputy First Minister is not embarrassed. (AQT 2411/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The situation in Scarva was an incredibly challenging one. Elected representatives, including from the DUP, and the MP for Upper Bann, Carla Lockhart, were in Scarva and stepped up, trying to de-escalate the situation and liaising with the PSNI to resolve issues before they gave rise to violence. That is leadership. That is not easy, and it is, of course, much easier for people to sit on the sidelines and criticise, based on a handful of photographs. If he was not there and did not see what happened, I suggest that the Member listens to the Member's statement that my colleague from South Down Diane Forsythe made this morning about the situation on the ground. The public representatives from the DUP were there to de-escalate the situation and support a peaceful resolution at a peaceful protest.

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

I repeat, deputy First Minister: people saw what they saw with their own eyes. They did not see that MP de-escalating a situation. They saw a Member of Parliament from your party right in the middle of a scrum of masked men. I repeat: masked men, shouting racist and sectarian abuse. They did not see de-escalation. Deputy First Minister, you talk about a positive image for our future, and that is one that I wish to share in, but those images looked like they were from a Paisleyite past. That could have been Burntollet Bridge. It is shocking and unacceptable that you, in that role, cannot accept the gravity of those images —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Right, Mr O'Toole —

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

— so, I repeat, deputy First Minister, are you not ashamed of those images —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Deputy First Minister.

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

— and do you condemn the masked men —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Deputy First Minister.

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

— the racist abuse and the spreading of toxic waste on the public road?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr O'Toole, I have called the deputy First Minister. You have had a very good score at this, so please.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is shameful that you stand in this place and spin a narrative on the basis of a handful of photographs when people are telling you what happened on the ground. The protest was happening. The situation was volatile. Elected representatives from the DUP, the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV were on the ground, including Carla Lockhart, Diane Forsythe and Jonathan Buckley. They were there to de-escalate the situation. That is why I asked you to listen to the Member's statement. The photographs that you are referring to show Carla Lockhart standing, not on her own but with a line of public representatives, holding the line, calming things down, so it is very easy for you to criticise.

Shame on you to use that volatile situation to politically point-score when elected representatives from the DUP were there, on the ground, trying to ensure that the protest remained peaceful. The DUP has always been more than clear: we stand against thuggery, we stand against paramilitarism, we stand against terrorism and we stand for the rule of law. It was not easy for the public representatives to be there in very difficult circumstances, but violence was avoided, and I say well done to those who worked hard to ensure that that was the outcome.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

T2. Ms Ennis asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after noting that it is disgraceful that the deputy First Minister has not condemned what happened in Scarva last Saturday, whether the deputy First Minister will take another opportunity to condemn the presence of masked men in the crowd who hurled the most extreme racist and sectarian abuse at peaceful protesters, and whether she distances herself from her party colleague Carla Lockhart, who gave political cover to those masked men, after her disgraceful and dangerous comment that what happened in Scarva could have ended in a "bloodbath". (AQT 2412/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That is absolutely pathetic point-scoring. In reality, I have been clear on every occasion that, without reservation, I stand against thuggery; I stand against sectarianism; I stand against racism; I stand against paramilitarism; and I stand against terrorism. Unfortunately, you do not have to look very far around you to find others who cannot be as clear as I am being. I say this to the House: I will take no criticism that I have been, in any way, ambiguous. I condemn, without reservation, any criminality, any thuggery and any intimidation. Ask your colleagues whether they can do the same.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

It is deflection and smokescreen: you condemn the presence of masked men, deputy First Minister, but just not on Saturday. On the subject of masked men, will you explain why your party representative challenged the PSNI's decision to remove the hate banner in Moygashel? Will you condemn the re-erection by masked men of that hate banner at a play park in Moygashel?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will reiterate what I said earlier. What we hear from Sinn Féin when it comes to budgetary issues is, "Blame it on the Brits", but, when it comes to everything else, we hear, "Blame it on the DUP; blame it on Emma Little-Pengelly". We have all heard it. Over past weeks, we have seen coordinated posts from Sinn Féin, trying to elbow my name into every criticism that it puts across. Do you know what? I have absolutely no reservation about this and will say it again, because there is no ambiguity about it: I stand against thuggery; I stand against intimidation; I stand against sectarianism and racism; and I stand against terrorism. I say this to the Member: if all the members of your party could do the same, we would be in a much better position.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

T4. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given the deputy First Minister's party's links to Ulster Resistance and the red berets, whether the deputy First Minister, following on from her performance just now, will take the opportunity to condemn everyone in the DUP and every family member of people in that party who has associations with Ulster Resistance. (AQT 2414/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Here we have, once again, personal attacks being directed at me. Would the Member call out her children and the children of her colleagues? To the Member, who was convicted of IRA criminal activity, I say this: I hope that when you look at your colleagues to your left and right on your side of the House — people who were members of the IRA, an organisation that killed people, carried out punishment beatings on children, killed women, planted bombs that killed innocent civilians and shot people in the back from the darkness of the night — you call them out. Calling out someone for the alleged actions of their father, which you have done before, despite your own actions, is disgraceful.

To the people who are watching us, I say that I stand on my own two feet. I have always been absolutely clear about where I stand on terrorism, paramilitarism and thuggery. I say it without reservation and can do so openly and honestly, because I believe in the future of this place. While Members on the other side of the House want to look back, I believe in building a better Northern Ireland for everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of the community that they come from. I will work with people who have a past to try to build a future for them, provided that they can say, honestly and with hand on heart, "What happened in the past was wrong. There was always an alternative", and we will then move forward together. Shame on you. One person here let themselves down; it was not me.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I have not let myself down at all. My remarks were to the rest of your party

[Interruption.]

At the end of the day, guns were used to kill Catholics — Davy Payne; surface-to-air missiles in South Africa and Paris and then some. I will give the deputy First Minister another opportunity not to deflect but to condemn her party's involvement in Ulster Resistance and with the red berets that they wore.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Again, that is absolutely pathetic. A blind man on a galloping horse can see what Sinn Féin is all about. In past weeks, it has been all about repeatedly attacking me. I have put on the record my determination to move forward, to look to the future, to champion Northern Ireland and to support people from all communities. It is really sad that you have decided to come to the Chamber and try to drag this down into what is, very clearly, a personal attack on me.

Let me repeat: all terrorism was wrong. Your terrorism was wrong. Your colleagues' terrorism was wrong. Terrorism, be it from the loyalist side, the republican side or wherever, was wrong. There was never any justification. There was always an alternative. I can say that clearly. I wish that you could; I wish that your party leader could; I wish that your colleagues could. I will say this: it is shameful that, as I stand here, people watching today see this display, which is a really blatant attempt to attack me and to bring me down. I look to the future. I look to the positivity of the future. I look to working in partnership and driving forward our Programme for Government, because what matters to people is health, education, building our economy —

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Do you condemn it?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

— and getting Northern Ireland going.

I condemn all terrorism. I have said that very clearly. It is all about distraction and deflection, and everybody can see through it.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T5. Mrs Guy asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of the fact that Alliance has long advocated for reform of power-sharing to stop single parties from blocking the functioning of the Executive, because it believes that pulling down this place has caused damage to our education system, health service and economy, and that the First Minister's party has just published its reform proposals, whether the deputy First Minister will commit to talks with other parties in the Assembly and the UK and Irish Governments to bring about institutional reform. (AQT 2415/22-27)

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. We all know that we want this place to work, and we want it to work better. The DUP has, of course, set out its stall on a number of areas where, we believe, that should and could be the case. Real partnership working comes from relationships. As I stand here, I am a little bit disappointed and sad about what I have just witnessed across the Chamber, because that is not partnership working. When I stood in the Chamber on the very first day that I took up this post, I said that it is about recognising that we have differences, that we are from different backgrounds and that we have different aspirations. However, you can only force partnership working to some extent. Partnership working must be based on genuine respect. It is about trying to work on an agreed Programme for Government (PFG) for the betterment of the people whom we serve. As I have said, I look to the future. It is really sad that some people are looking to the past. With an election coming up, this is all about landing blows and bringing people down, when what we really need to do is to work together for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the deputy First Minister for that response. You mentioned the PFG. The latest annual report on the Programme for Government that was published recently by TEO highlights the fact that economic inactivity and low productivity are key challenges for the Executive and for delivery of the PFG. Does the deputy First Minister recognise that those challenges are compounded by the fact that, due to stop-start government, we have had six different Economy Ministers and three different economic strategies during the past 10 years?

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

First, we have to recognise that the Northern Ireland economy is an economy transformed. There is no doubt about that. Even when I graduated from Queen's University as a young lawyer in the early 2000s, your options were somewhat limited. To get into some of the bigger companies, you would have had to go to London. Today, we have Citigroup. I recently had a meeting with Bank of America. It is going to create up to 350 jobs here in Northern Ireland by the end of the year. Given the advancements in back-office services, professional services, cybersecurity, research and innovation and advanced manufacturing, we have really transformed our economy.

The Member is absolutely right: economic inactivity and productivity are two significant issues that we need to tackle. Unfortunately, economic inactivity goes well beyond stop-start government. It is a community issue. It can be a family issue. There can be long-term transgenerational unemployment and economic inactivity. It can be to do with poverty, lack of ambition and educational underachievement.

There are many different elements, and I feel incredibly passionate about the issue.

I did not go to a grammar school; I went to an excellent non-grammar school, Markethill High School. I want every child, regardless of the school they go to —grammar or non-grammar — to achieve, get their qualifications and change their lives for the better. Economic inactivity does not do that. You are absolutely right: they are big issues that will not be resolved by simply one aspect. All of the Departments must work together.

Oral Answers to Questions — Infrastructure

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

1. Mrs Guy asked the Minister for Infrastructure, in light of the number of collisions at the Saintfield Road and Old Ballynahinch Road junction, to outline a timeline of actions being taken to improve safety at the junction. (AQO 3672/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Road safety is a high priority for my Department, and we are committed to working proactively to make our roads safer and address the needs of all road users. I fully recognise the concerns about the junction, which have been raised with my Department by a number of elected representatives, including Michelle Guy. My officials have identified this junction, along with Ballymacbrennan and Crossan’s Crossroads, as three locations where improvements are being developed. Those works are considered to be a priority, and a consultant has been commissioned to take the proposals forward. However, Members will appreciate that progressing junction improvements of that nature involves detailed design, land acquisition, engagement with landowners and procurement, so delivery will take some time.

In recognition of the timeline associated with the full junction improvement scheme that is required, we have already taken proactive interim steps to improve safety at the junction. Most recently, during nearby roadworks, we carried out roadway and drainage cleaning, renewed road markings and cut back vegetation. We have also started work to renew the high-friction surfacing and upgrade the road markings with increased performance road markings at the junction, as well as cleaning signs and replacing catseyes in the area, all of which will support road safety while the full junction improvement scheme is being progressed.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her response. I have seen some of the improvements that have been carried out over the last week, and they are welcome. However, Minister, the residents are at a loss to understand the lack of real action at the junction. I spoke to a resident who lives beside the junction who acted as a first responder during a fatality at one of the collisions at the junction. Over the last three-year period, from 2022 to 2025, there were 18 recorded collisions, of which 10 were serious, and there were 42 serious injuries. Minister, how many more serious collisions are required at the junction before the Department will take action to resolve the problem?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

First, we take this very seriously, particularly given that there have been fatalities. In my response, I acknowledged that the Department is treating the junction as a priority. Unfortunately, a complex process is needed to do exactly what we need to do, which is a full upgrade and improvement of the three locations that I have mentioned. However, we need to make sure that we do it right. In my previous response I stepped the Member through the work that is required to get to that stage, which is why we have commissioned the interim works to increase safety until the work is completed. For example, it can take some time to engage with landowners about land acquisitions, and it is not within the Department's control. We can dedicate our resources to that, but it takes time because we are required to work with external parties, such as landowners. I have seen that in many other projects, and it has been a learning curve for me since I came into the role, having dealt with constituency issues where it has been difficult to comprehend why things take the time that they do.

I assure the Member that we will not be found wanting in terms of the pace of this, and we will ensure that it keeps pushing forward. It has been strongly acknowledged that the junction requires the improvements that have been approved, and we will work hard to make sure that the improvements are delivered at the earliest possible stage, with all the work that is required.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, what plan do you have to improve the condition of the road network?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member may be aware, the consultation on the draft road maintenance strategy ran from 2 December and closed at the end of January 2026. I am grateful to all those who provided feedback to the consultation, because it has been overwhelmingly positive. I am working closely with my officials to finalise the consultation report and update the draft road maintenance strategy to reflect the feedback from the consultation. I hope to publish the consultation report and the road maintenance strategy in the coming weeks. The new strategy will ensure that my Department can deliver road maintenance in a more organised way, which will improve effectiveness and enhance our ability to respond to incidents and weather events that impact on our road network. Once that is published, my Department will be in a much stronger position to progress a more modern, more data-driven approach to road maintenance across the North.

As I have said before in the House, I am prioritising building long-term resilience into the road network, albeit in a constrained financial environment. That is why we have also included workforce recruitment and development as part of that approach. That puts us in a good position to make a real, tangible difference to our road network and what the people whom we represent see day-to-day.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister will be aware of the need to improve safety and reduce congestion at the York Street interchange in north Belfast. However, we now know that the extra funding secured for that — it was a named project as part of the 2017 confidence-and-supply agreement — was all spent elsewhere. What plans does the Minister have to deliver the new York Street interchange?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member will know from my response to his questions on that issue, that predates me, so I cannot speak to the decisions that happened at that time. However, as the Member will also be aware, we do not have an agreed Budget, and that will factor into Budget discussions. I have met the consultants to discuss the York Street interchange in recent months, and I know that they are looking at options. I know the importance of it. I come along the Westlink every day when coming here to work, and I know how significant the congestion is. Any challenge along that route creates bigger problems not just for people on the route but for the wider city and for people coming to and going from Belfast. That issue is very much still on the agenda, and it is about looking at what we can do. However, everything that we do is related to budget, and, hopefully, we will get an agreed Budget in the not-so-distant future.

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

The original question was about the Saintfield Road in the constituency of Lagan Valley. Well, a mile or two east of that is the Saintfield Road in Carryduff, which is in my constituency and has been a hotspot for collisions. The community in Carryduff wants urgent action. An elderly woman died on the Saintfield Road earlier this year. That community is crying out for attention from your Department to traffic calming and road safety, particularly pedestrian safety measures. I ask you and your Department to take a hard look at what actions you are taking, particularly in Carryduff and that stretch down the Saintfield Road, because it is not safe enough for pedestrians in that community, and something needs to be done. I ask the Minister to look at that and to task her officials with prioritising road safety in Carryduff.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

If there are issues that have not been addressed or assessed, I am happy to look at them again. Everything that we do is about striving to ensure that we improve road safety across the North. The Member will know that everything is a priority but that, due to budget, it is not always possible to fulfil everything. However, we work hard to ensure that we do what we can and do it in good time.

I am more than happy to take that issue away and speak to officials to see whether more can be done in those specific locations. If there are sections along the Saintfield Road that the Member wishes me to give particular attention to, I am happy to do so.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

2. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Infrastructure for her assessment of the pollution entering Belfast lough as a result of recurrent flooding of the NI Water sewer at the Shore Road and Mill Road. (AQO 3673/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The recurrent flooding on the Shore Road near Mill Road is caused by a combined sewer overflow on the NI Water sewerage network. That overflow should discharge directly to the nearby watercourse that flows into Belfast lough but is instead surcharging directly on to the Shore Road. That is due to deficiencies in the existing sewerage network. Officials from my Department and NI Water have been working together to develop a joint solution to that complex issue, and NI Water hopes to be in a position to have the works completed by October this year.

More widely, the water quality issues in Belfast lough can be solved only through sustained, significant long-term investment in the waste water infrastructure that services the entire city, and those needs are set out in the Living with Water in Belfast plan. As part of my three-pronged approach to waste water issues, I will continue to work with the Executive to try to secure the appropriate investment that we need to ensure that NI Water can unlock capacity as well as improving the environmental performance of its assets, such as the one impacting on the Shore Road.

In parallel, as the Member will be aware, my Department is progressing developer contributions to waste water infrastructure upgrades on a phased basis, beginning with a voluntary scheme, which I announced earlier this year. That is complemented by the progression of my Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill to make provision for future regulation on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and natural drainage options. I have also been successful in securing £15 million of transformation funding to progress a pilot project in the Whitehouse area to retrofit SuDS interventions, such as swales and rain gardens, into the urban environment. Those nature-based features help to store and reduce the flow of rainwater entering the sewerage network during periods of heavy rainfall, and therefore reduce the volume of water that is spilled from combined sewer overflows. While that alleviates pressures, I accept that it does not solve all our problems. I hope that that gives you a clear outline of the work that we are doing in an accumulative way to really help to deal with the issues, particularly in the challenging financial situation.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her answer. The £15 million investment in that area is much welcomed. The Alliance Party has met NI Water, the Department for Infrastructure and the council a number of times over the past few years on the issue. It is great to hear that it will be completed on time by October. Do any other steps need to be taken to ensure that that pollution is stopped permanently so that we do not have another Lough Neagh situation in the heart of Belfast lough?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The requirements when it comes to the investment that is needed to deliver the Living with Water plan for Belfast are well rehearsed at this stage. It is important to recognise that the challenges that we face are the result of a significant increase in costs — 50% over two years — from the original figure of £1·2 billion to £1·6 billion. That is a significant jump from what we were expecting originally. That having been said, we have looked at how NI Water can deliver those projects with the funding that is available, working through that at a pace that is more achievable. That is not easy, and I think that that is well recognised. That is why it is so important that, when we are around the Executive table, all Ministers have a good understanding of what the consequences of not investing in NI Water will be for delivering the upgrades that are needed. Not only does that impact on capacity when it comes to development, but, as the Member has set out in her example, it has an environmental impact, particularly on Belfast lough.

In my previous answer, I set out the steps that I am taking to move us closer to making progress. I continue to work with NI Water to find solutions, because that is what I am focused on: solutions. It is not about sitting on my hands but about ensuring that we find ways in which we can make progress, albeit with the challenges that we all face financially.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

An important part of your three-pronged approach is natural drainage, which keeps rainwater out of the waste water system, freeing up capacity for vital housing. Can you provide an update on the urban drainage transformation project?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I have mentioned, the Department has secured £15 million from the transformation fund for that four-year period from 2025-26 to 2028-29. The allocation of £370,000 during 2025-26 has already been fully spent, and £4·625 million has been allocated for this financial year. That funding will be used to support the nature-based solutions pilot project over the next four years. The overall target for the project is to provide approximately 10,000 cubic metres of temporary storm water storage by retrofitting those nature-based SuDS interventions into urban areas to reduce the pressure on our constrained drainage and waste water infrastructure, which will help to reduce flood risk and spills from sewers.

Work during the first year of the pilot project has focused on identifying suitable locations. There has been extensive engagement with stakeholders, including Belfast City Council, Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council and the Housing Executive. That has included completing ground investigation surveys at 11 locations in the Whitehouse and Fortwilliam areas to assess their viability for potential SuDS projects.

Two other potential locations have been identified at Drumglass Park, Lisburn Road, and Castle Place in the city centre; that is actually three. Work has also commenced to deliver a natural flood management scheme in partnership with the National Trust at its property at Lisnabreeny and Cregagh Glen and to help to slow the flow of water in the Glenbrook river during periods of heavy rainfall.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Previous reports confirm that Northern Ireland Water dumps approximately seven million tons of raw sewage into Northern Ireland waterways each year, with three million tons of that in the Belfast metropolitan area. Farmers are made the scapegoats while Northern Ireland Water continues to pollute our waterways without fear of sanction. What discussions have taken place between you and the Agriculture Minister to bring an end to the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SoRPI) agreement?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member will be aware, the Minister has outlined his suggestions on SoRPI, and we continue to engage with him on that.

It is important to recognise that the removal of SoRPI will have significant consequences if it is not done in a planned and managed way. It was established to recognise the waste water infrastructure challenges that we face. However, I continue to work with the Minister to find a solution that helps us move forward on that, because we all have a responsibility when it comes to environmental protection. I am keen to address the issues that you outlined about NI Water at the earliest possible stage. That will require investment, but I am keen to continue working with the AERA Minister and all Executive colleagues on that to ensure that we can find a solution at the earliest possible stage.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

It is the view of many people that developer contributions should be compulsory. If they are voluntary, they will be as much use as a chocolate teapot. Will the Minister indicate whether she is looking at implementing a system of increased fines for organisations that are polluting the lough, including any work with the AERA Minister to tackle those businesses, especially if they are agribusinesses, that are polluting the lough? Is there any work being done on increasing fines for those businesses?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member may not be aware of this, but enforcement is the responsibility of the AERA Minister; it is not my responsibility. AERA has the remit for water quality. However, as I said in my response to the Member who asked the previous question, I am committed to continuing to work with the AERA Minister because I respect the responsibilities that he has for the remit of his Department, the impact that that has on the remit of my Department and, importantly, the way in which we need to work together to serve everybody we represent to ensure that we are meeting our responsibilities on the environment and on the capacity of our waste water infrastructure. The two issues are interlinked. Our key objective is to find a solution that benefits everybody. No group or sector should be pitted against another. We can all play a small part, and we are keen to do that by working together through all of those issues.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

3. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any plans to commission a business case for the reopening of the Knockmore railway line. (AQO 3674/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Translink is working closely with my Department to examine the options for reopening the Antrim to Knockmore railway line. A business case is already in development and will be submitted to my Department by Translink later this year. As the Member will have heard me say before, ensuring airport connectivity for communities and businesses is vital to the economy and is an important step towards the delivery of the all-island strategic rail review recommendations. I have met representatives of both Belfast City Airport and Belfast International Airport, so I know how keen they are to see rail links in the future, because they will be hugely important for their future plans and for connecting our communities and people right across the North.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Minister, for your response. The Knockmore line is already there. It links communities in Ballinderry, Glenavy and Crumlin and, as you say, connects to the airport, which is really important and is part of that all-island review. Is there a timeline in the business case for that work coming forward? What will the next stage be in seeing its objective realised?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is too early to give precise dates on the reopening of the Knockmore line. It is recognised as a major project in the rail reprioritisation strategy and work will not begin on it until after 2030. Apologies, that is for work on the new line. The historic track on the line and the signalling need to be upgraded to modern standards, as the Member will know. That represents a major investment. Before work begins, it is important that the right solutions are identified. The Member will agree that we have one chance to get that right. It is important that we do so and that I can be confident that we get value for money on that work.

The delivery timeline for the Knockmore line will, like all projects, be subject to the availability of funding, approval of the necessary business cases and securing statutory consent. As we get more information on more concrete timelines, I will be happy to share it with the Member and keep in contact with him. I know how important it is to him and to his constituents, and, more widely, it will serve the needs of the people of the North.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Minister, you will be aware that the reopening of the Knockmore to Antrim line is effectively a cross-party priority, supported by all elected representatives in the constituency. It also commands a significant interest from an economic, commercial, business and community standpoint in South Antrim. Your news today is positive and helpful. However, can you specifically tell us what progress has been made on the proposed new halts from Knockmore to Antrim?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his comments. It is all very positive. We have set out very clearly, particularly through the announcement of the prioritisation strategy, what we want to do. It is incumbent on me and everybody involved to continue to work to ensure that that is delivered. The Department continues to work with Translink to look at the potential new halts at Crumlin, Glenavy and Belfast International Airport as part of that Knockmore to Antrim route. The Department is progressing the necessary technical modelling and the development of a business case to assess options for improving services along that corridor. That work in respect of the halts is scheduled for completion later this year, and its findings will inform any future decisions on the viability of new halts and how we can fully realise those in the time ahead.

As I said in response to the previous question, progress on reopening the line is subject to the completion of those business cases, the wider pieces of work, budget availability and securing the required consents. We still have some way to go to get through all of that, but work continues. We are working very closely with Translink, and I hope that we can soon make Members aware of what progress has been made and what we can expect in the near future.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

My question stays on the theme of public transport. The Translink chief executive recently gave evidence to the Infrastructure Committee and warned of very serious consequences for future service delivery. Minister, how do you justify potentially significant service cuts that will, ultimately, under your watch, hit our most vulnerable the hardest?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member will know, there has been no detail about what Translink has been looking at. I have been engaging with Translink representatives. I met the chair of the board just last week, and I will have a meeting with Translink's wider board next week. The Member referred to information that the chief executive provided at Committee and alludes to the fare freeze that I announced a number of weeks ago. I took that decision in the context of the continuing cost-of-living crisis, as households face significant and rising costs that are beyond the control of us all and as we deal with the rising fuel crisis and things like that. For me, that was about protecting the public and people who are already struggling. It was about giving them some certainty and the option to use public transport instead of having to fill up their car to get to and from work, medical appointments or wherever they may need to go, so that they know that they have a lower-cost option that can help them to keep their head above water in these uncertain and challenging times.

We continue to work with Translink, because I do not want to see any service cuts. In fact, I want us to be able to enhance services. We have to be honest with the public, however, and say that those comments on the current assessment of what might be needed in the future are a result not of a fare freeze but of long-term underinvestment in the Executive's Budget and my budget for the Department for Infrastructure and of our inability to fully fund the needs of Translink and all our arm's-length bodies (ALBs). We have to put it in that context, but I continue to work hard with Translink to ensure that we avoid any potential service cuts. While those are operational decisions for Translink, when it comes to anything that it feels that it has to do, we will ensure that it protects its most vulnerable users, particularly those in rural communities, who, for many reasons, are more reliant on public transport.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister, it is well past your two minutes.

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

Will the Minister provide an update on the business case for the reopening of the Armagh to Portadown rail line and outline when she plans to have trains departing from Armagh station back on track?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Similar to what I said in response to a previous question, that project was identified in the prioritisation strategy, as the Member will know. I was very pleased to include it, because I recognise the importance of that line. Officials are working closely with Translink to progress those business cases. Everything is subject to budget availability, as the Member will also know. I have been working very closely with my counterparts in the South. I met Minister Darragh O'Brien again last week at the Transport Ireland conference. There is a huge feeling of positivity and ambition across our island about what the future holds for rail. I am very keen for us to be a key part of that and that we see the full realisation of what has been set out in the all-island strategic rail review and the most recent prioritisation strategy.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

4. Mr Martin asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any assessment that has been made as to whether the Ards and North Down Borough Council area gets a fair share of the roads maintenance budget. (AQO 3675/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The distribution of the funding that is available for capital structural maintenance for allocation to the four DFI Roads divisions are made based on need, using a range of weighted indicators that are tailored to each maintenance activity. Divisions broadly use those indicators when apportioning funding across council areas in order to ensure, as far as possible, an equitable distribution of that funding. Those indicators encompass usage, general surface condition, structural deformation, public enquiries and public liability claims.

The factors that are taken into account when distributing the available funding for essential maintenance activities such as patching and grass cutting include, for example, defect information, areas of grass and numbers of gullies. The capacity of our internal contractors is also a factor in the allocation of funding. Where our internal capacity cannot fully deliver the current requirements, my Department’s divisions or section offices must engage the services of external contractors. That cost will differ across council areas, depending on relevant capacity and external contract rates.

My Department’s four Roads divisions broadly use the indicators that I mentioned when apportioning their allocation across council areas in order to ensure, as far as possible, an equitable distribution of funds. Therefore I would like to assure the Member that Ards and North Down receives a fair and proportionate share of the funding that is made available to my Department for road maintenance, based on all the factors that I have outlined. We have discussed these matters previously and they were the topic of a recent Adjournment debate, so we have explained how all of that is worked out.

My officials will continue to carry out inspections. Any defects that meet the current limited service maintenance policy will be reported for action and will be dealt with as soon as possible. The Member will be aware that we are also considering our budget for 2026/27, and the programme of works will be finalised once a budget is available.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, according to data from your Department, my constituency has the lowest level of DFI expenditure across the 11 council areas. The Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area, for example, receives 253% more than mine, yet the roads in my constituency, according to Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) data, are the second worst in Northern Ireland. Can you explain that discrepancy to me and will you, today, commit not only to re-examining how the roads budget is apportioned but to accepting a list of roads and pavements in my constituency from me, in order to see whether anything can be done about roads that are in a really bad state?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Every council area could probably make the same arguments about the numbers of defects and the level of maintenance that is required.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

They are the second-worst in Northern Ireland.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have set out clearly what the current methodology is. Based on the information and advice that is available to me, that is the fairest way to do it in order to ensure that distribution is proportionate. I do not wish to dismiss the statistics that the Member outlined, but it is important to look at what the capacity of the workforce may be in that area. That is a key aspect of all of this. I have said before in this Chamber that even if I had all the money that is required to fulfil the total road maintenance needs of our network, it is no good to me if we do not have the staff to deliver that work. There are vacancies, and, as the Chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee, the Member will be aware that we have undertaken a significant recruitment drive in order to increase our workforce capacity. That is what will help to deliver.

I said in my initial answer that when we do not have capacity, we have to use external contractors, which, naturally, comes with an increased cost. There are so many different factors. If the Member writes to me, I will be happy to provide him with more details in relation to Ards and North Down and, perhaps, on where there are issues that affect staff, which may be contributing to the statistics that he has outlined.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Minister, what are you doing to give rural communities their fair share? People in those communities are, very often, furthest from critical services such as hospitals, and have to travel on some of the worst roads in the country in order to access services?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member will know, I serve a large rural constituency. There is no doubt that many of the roads in south Armagh and in Armagh city are in a dire state. I travel on them every day, so I know just how bad things are. Rural roads make up about 75% of the entire road network and, therefore, a significant proportion of the overall budget for structural and essential maintenance will be targeted towards those roads. I have set out very strongly when working with officials that we need to properly invest in our rural roads, albeit from a constrained financial position. That is something that I am very keen to do, in conjunction with all the work that we are doing on our road maintenance strategy and to address the issues that have had an impact on our roads. In addition, we will use the digital survey in order to properly inform officials as to where we need to target resources.

That is key, particularly in more rural areas where, in the past, we have had to rely on staff to go out and inspect roads when a defect has been reported. That data is now readily available to us, and we have to make sure that we use it efficiently and effectively. As I said in my previous response, we also have to increase our workforce to increase our capacity. That is how we will build in long-term resilience so that, even without additional funding, we can make a real difference.

Last year, I invested £9 million in the roads recovery fund, which targets more rural areas, recognising the challenges that our rural communities face. I want to continue in that vein. I want to continue to enhance the funding that we can allocate, particularly in rural areas, because I know how important that is for those communities. They feel, rightly, that they have been left behind for many years, since long before my time, in essence because we have had to target A-class roads due to the lack of investment not just in my budget but that of the whole Executive.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move on to topical questions.

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

T1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline her Department's approach to removing flags erected illegally on her Department's lamp posts and signposts. (AQT 2421/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member will know, that is a long-standing issue. I am pleased to say that my Department has been working closely with the PSNI and other statutory bodies towards a memorandum of understanding to deal with what we know is a sensitive issue. My constituency office has had complaints about flags being erected outside Ardmore police station in Newry, as one recent example. It is a challenging position. We want to ensure that everybody feels that, no matter where they go across the North, it is inclusive and safe. We all have a responsibility to show leadership on these issues.

My Department's responsibility is about whether something is a public safety issue. That is why we work with the police on these such issues, particularly where hate crimes have been committed and offensive signage has been erected. We work off police advice on whether we should remove whatever the attachment may be, whether it is flags or signs or whatever else. That work continues. We look at everything on a case-by-case basis. I hope that we, as elected representatives across the House, can show leadership about anything that impacts negatively on people in our communities.

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

Minister, under the Terrorism Act 2000, there are new legal powers to take down the flags of proscribed terrorist organisations such as the UVF, the UDA and the IRA. What are you and your Department doing, using those new powers, to proactively work with the police and other statutory organisations to ensure that any such flags are quickly removed from departmental property?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Member will also be aware that that is a policing decision. The police have outlined that, where a crime is committed, they are willing to assist in the removal of materials that are essentially a crime, and they have done so in the past. As I said in my previous response, we continue to work with the PSNI. I also have a duty to protect my staff in the removal of offensive materials. A balance needs to be struck all the time. Regardless of who puts up the material, we have to recognise the risks that may be associated with its removal. That is why I work with the PSNI, as I hope do all statutory bodies. It is not just on DFI property that we see those signs or flags erected. I want to ensure that, whatever we do, we build an inclusive society for everybody here.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T2. Ms Murphy asked the Minister for Infrastructure to provide an update on the introduction of graduated driver licences. (AQT 2422/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I am pleased to report that the four statutory rules (SRs) necessary to support the introduction of the graduated driver licence (GDL) have successfully passed the Infrastructure Committee's initial scrutiny. That allows me to request the scheduling of a motion to debate the draft specified restrictions regulations that will specify the new, two-part, post-test R plate and will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, which I have done. The need for the Assembly to approve the draft regulations before summer recess is, in essence, holding back the making of the other three SRs. The interdependency of the four SRs means that they must all be made at the same time. I am confident that, once the legislation is in place, the Driver and Vehicle Agency will be operationally ready to deliver GDL on 1 October 2026. I thank the Committee for Infrastructure and all the stakeholders involved for their work in ensuring that we have reached this stage. I cannot overstate how important that work has been. I was speaking at the weekend to members of my family who are parents of young people getting ready to start driving. They really welcome the intervention and recognise that it will keep their young people safe.

I am keen that we continue to move at pace and get this operational for 1 October, as I originally set out to do, so that we keep working towards making all our roads safer for all road users.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I am glad to hear that the legislation is progressing. Does the Minister agree that, given that we hope to see, due to graduated driver licences, a reduction in the number of collisions, insurance companies should reduce the ridiculous premiums that they are quoting for many young people?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. Whilst I outlined that the primary purpose of the work on graduated driver licensing is to improve road safety, and the safety of our new and young drivers in particular, it is also acknowledged that one of the key factors in the cost of insurance premiums is the number and severity of collisions that we see across the North. Any impact on insurance premiums will ultimately depend on the insurers' assessments of evidence demonstrating lower risk and reduced claims, which will take some time to bed in, but I have already had meetings with the Association of British Insurers to make sure that it is aware of what we are setting out to do so that it can factor that in when engaging with insurance providers. That is a huge issue for our young people here. I want to ensure that we look at all aspects of car insurance so that we can get people on the road who are safer and that it is affordable for them to do so. As a representative of a rural community, the Member will know how important it is for people living in her constituency to have access to their own transport. They need it to get to work or, depending on their age, school and for all their other activities. Recognising that, we need to make sure that it is affordable and that we improve road safety for everybody.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

T3. Mr Kearney asked the Minister for Infrastructure, given that she is aware of the priority that he attaches to road safety and to rural road safety in particular, for an update on the safer journeys to school initiative, which he strongly welcomes, following the conclusion of the consultation. (AQT 2423/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for his comments. I am really keen to progress that work, given some of the very sad experiences that we have seen, particularly in the past number of years. The consultation on safer journeys to school closed in May. I am pleased that there was a very strong level of public engagement: more than 600 responses were submitted as part of the consultation. That, in itself, reflects the public feeling out there about doing something about how our children travel to and from school safely. My officials are undertaking a more detailed analysis of those responses. That is happening alongside ongoing engagement with our key partners, including the PSNI, to ensure that proposals are evidence-based and deliverable, which is a key aspect of the work. We do not want to do something just for the sake of it; we need to ensure that what we set out to do is deliverable and that we base it on evidence.

Alongside the consultation, wider work is being progressed to strengthen education, enforcement and more practical safety measures. We are working across Departments in that regard. As I said, this is an absolute priority for me. I am determined that we see it through and that we get really good legislation in place that will make a real difference so that we, as parents and a community, can feel confident that our children are safer when they travel to and from school.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that response. It is an area of road safety, including rural road safety, that is within our control and in which improvements can be delivered in a very tangible way at low cost. Minister, when will that very important legislation be introduced to the Assembly so that we can expedite its passage?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I concur with what the Member has said about rural road safety, and that is why there has been a specific focus on school buses in rural areas. Given the experiences that we have had and the fatalities that we have seen, there is an amount of work that is required to make those routes safer for children and young people. Following final decisions on the outcome of the consultation, I intend to bring legislation on the overtaking of stationary school buses that has been informed by the consultation responses and a wider analysis, with a view to introducing it to the Assembly in autumn of this year, subject to the necessary approvals, including Executive agreement. I really encourage all Members to get behind this. We all have said very clearly in this House that we want to ensure that our roads become safer, particularly for our children and young people, so I hope that I can get the Assembly's support to get through as soon as possible.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

T4. Mr Robinson asked the Minister for Infrastructure, given that the condition of many roads across Northern Ireland is getting worse, what additional action she and her Department are taking to address the growing backlog of road repairs. (AQT 2424/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said in response to previous questions, I recognise that there have been significant challenges with our road maintenance and the road network. We all see it, and we live with it every day. It is not something that any of us in the House is immune to, and I am very aware of that. I am also very aware of how the public feel about that and the importance of it. Having served as a councillor before becoming an MLA, I know that it is probably one of the key issues that we have always had raised with us as elected representatives.

For me, it is about looking at what the problem is and how we solve it. That is why I have set out the key areas that I am focusing on at present and into the future. Those are increased investment in road maintenance for the year ahead and increased recruitment to build the workforce capacity so that we have the people to deliver so that we can respond effectively to road maintenance issues. It is also about using the technology that we now have available to us to target the resources and make the best use of the resources that we have and about looking at better inspection-repair policy. We have also looked at utility openings, and the Member will be aware that there has been a PAC report.

I am bringing together a range of work that I hope will really help to tackle the challenges that we face, not just for this year but for well over a decade. I am keen to see that we can eventually get to a place where we are not working off a limited service policy, which I do not think is good for anybody in the long term because that would cost us more. It is about investing to save so that we can build resilience into our road network, which will benefit everybody.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for that response. At the weekend, I was speaking to someone who drives a small scooter, and he told me that he spends as much time looking down at potholes, for his own safety, as he does looking around him for traffic. Temporary pothole repairs are not cutting it. What do you say to road users who are becoming fearful to use the road network here?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I have said, I know how the public feel. I think that it is fair to say that we all feel the same. I think that we should and do expect better than what we have. As the Member will know and as his colleagues in the Executive know, because of the hugely challenging situation that we have from a financial perspective, none of these decisions is easy. For me, it is about how we learn from what has happened in the past and how we make better decisions that will have an impact so that your constituent on their scooter does feel safe, is not dodging defects in the road and can see the level of maintenance that we should all expect.

As the Member will know, the Executive are doing a wider piece of work, negotiating with Treasury to ensure that we get properly funded so that we can have good public services, which include a good road network. That is a wider piece of work. With the financial envelope that I have, I am looking at what I can do to maximise the resources available to me so that everybody can see a real, tangible difference in the not-too-distant future.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T5. Mrs Guy asked the Minister for Infrastructure, having pointed out that one of the issues most consistently raised by constituents in Moira is the lack of lighting on Station Road between the railway station and the village, whether she can tell residents when the Department will finally install lighting on that route so that pedestrians can walk safely between the station and the village. (AQT 2425/22-27)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member will know, I was out on-site last year and saw it for myself. Work is ongoing. I can get a more detailed update on that. On the day that I was on-site, we looked at a number of different issues in and around Moira, including the connection to the railway station. I am happy to come back to the Member in writing with a more detailed response. I am not sure off the top of my head where things are sitting, but we are keen to do that.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her response and for saying that she will come back to me. Given that she has invested in a park-and-ride, has objectives to reduce journeys in cars and is trying to encourage the use of public of transport, walking and cycling, will she acknowledge that the failure to provide the lights is undermining those objectives?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Absolutely. We are looking at it in the round. There have been historical budgetary issues regarding what we want to do, what we need to do and what we can do on street lighting. It is challenging, but we have to look at where lighting must be prioritised. You gave a good example. The park-and-ride at Moira is well progressed. It is fantastic. I was there to cut the sod less than a year ago, I think. I am pleased to see the good progress that has been made. You have made a valid point. We talk in the Chamber about ending violence against women and girls. That is an issue that I have embedded in my conversations around street lighting in particular, so that we can make all our routes, particularly the active travel — walking and cycling — routes safer for women and girls and everybody. Given the times that we are living in, what we are seeing and tragic events that are becoming too frequent, these are practical solutions. I am keen to see how we can do more of that. As I said, I will give more detail in relation to that specific location.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes questions to the Minister.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it acceptable for a Minister to only get to question 4 in listed questions during Question Time?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member knows my views on that. Ministers should try to answer as many questions as possible. It is hugely unfortunate to only get to question 4. The Infrastructure Minister is not the first to have done so. I encourage Ministers to be concise in their answers.

Assembly Business

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Orders, Deputy Speakers must act with impartiality and fairness when occupying the Chair. Earlier today, the Principal Deputy Speaker, Carál Ní Chuilín, appeared to allude to some Members' contributions as being "obnoxious". That falls far short of the impartiality that is required. Will you and your office review those comments and make a ruling, please?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will review them.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Further to Mr Buckley's point of order, there have been a number of occasions on which, I believe, the Principal Deputy Speaker has not acted impartially. This morning's degrading comments were further evidence to that end. I understand that the Principal Deputy Speaker should be impartial when she takes that Chair. I urge you, Mr Speaker, to review the comments from this morning's session.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

As I indicated to Mr Buckley, I am happy to do that.

Executive Committee Business

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, you can rest assured that you will not get anything obnoxious from me

[Laughter]

as I speak on the Justice Bill in my capacity as the DUP's justice spokesperson and as an MLA.

I will repeat what I said at the start of my speech as Chairperson of the Committee. The first day of the debate was a good day for the Assembly. We moved on some law and voted on amendments and clauses. The spirit in which the debate was conducted was good and healthy, and it was a standard that we should set for the rest of the Consideration Stage.

There are some good things in this group of amendments, if I do say so myself. My party has brought forward some amendments. I commend my colleagues Brian Kingston and Maurice Bradley who sit with me on the Justice Committee and who worked diligently alongside me. I also place on record my heartfelt thanks to all members of the Committee. I am speaking now as a justice spokesperson for the DUP, but I want to make it clear that I respect all members of the Justice Committee for their work ethic, the way in which they work as a team and the way in which they scrutinise legislation. Hopefully, some of the things that I am going to say are taken in good spirit.

I start with the Minister's amendments around organised crime groups — the new Part 2A. We recognise the need for robust legislation to tackle the growing influence of organised crime and the global nature of it. Those groups do not respect boundaries or borders, and they do not respect our people. We must do all in our power to protect our people as best we can by having robust tools at our disposal, at police and court level, to deal with organised crime, which is truly global, scientific and advanced and is hurting people in Northern Ireland.

I welcome the proposed new Part 2A regarding organised crime groups. I hope that, when that law is enforced, it will make a real difference to people's lives by keeping them safer and that people can see how it keeps them safe. Most people get on with life and do not really know how they are being protected or how the police, or bodies higher up, deploy in certain situations, but I hope that we can make a real difference to people's lives.

I move on to vagrancy. It is the Minister's position that begging and rough sleeping should not be treated as a law and order issue as it is societal. I agree with her about the social aspects. It has always been the DUP's position to support the repeal of that legislation while making sure that the law is modernised to suit the present day.

I will paint a picture. The Vagrancy Act 1824 came into force nine years after the Battle of Waterloo and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. You can imagine the scene of so many Tommies or redcoats, as they were called in those days — I prefer to call them soldiers — who had fought in the Napoleonic Wars coming home from those endeavours with limbs missing, after cannonballs took off legs, arms and all sorts. In those days, there was no social services. Worse, the state not only did not help — there was no social safety net — but actually made things worse not only for the soldiers but for their dependants. Many soldiers went from these shores to fight against a tyrant and totalitarian power, leaving behind wives and children who would be destitute if their husband or father came back unable to work. Yet, the state thought it right to pass laws such as the 1824 Vagrancy Act, which refers to "rogues and vagabonds". In those days, soldiers got a really hard time. That law typified how they were treated during and after their service to this country and, in many respects, the world in fighting for freedom in the Napoleonic Wars. There was then the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act of 1847. That was the worst year of the Famine, yet the state thought it right to pass legislation that prevented people getting help.

It is simply right and proper that we look to repeal such laws, mindful as we stand in this great place — this Assembly Chamber — of representing our people and making sure that the laws that we pass are appropriate. I am glad that we do not live way back then. The Minister said earlier that it was Dickensian; in many respects, it was before Dickens. It was this that led the way, not the Dickens's novels, which illustrated the poverty on the streets of England, particularly in London. That was the mindset of the state — those were the laws that were passed — and it is little wonder that people struggled through poverty and in trying to find a means of living. It is therefore right and proper that no one should be criminalised, even in the modern day, simply for begging, being poor or having no home to live in or bed to sleep in, so it is right that those laws be repealed.

I thank the Minister and her Department for working with us so that we could illustrate and address our party's position on the laws and so that she could support the modernisation provisions in the new clauses in amendments Nos 71 and 72. We believe that they are required. They are required because similar provisions have been made through sections 11 and 12 of the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Section 11, on trespassing with intent to commit a criminal offence, creates a very narrow offence whereby, if a person trespasses on any premises — a building, part of a building or an enclosed area — with the intent to commit an offence, whether or not that is on those premises, they commit an offence with a summary sentence of up to three months in custody or a level 3 fine.

Section 12 of that Act creates the offence of arranging or facilitating begging for gain, which has a summary-only penalty of up to six months' custody, rising to 51 weeks on commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which should be read alongside existing public order and antisocial behaviour measures that are used to deal with problematic aspects of begging. That, again, does not deliberately criminalise begging, activity around begging or "beggars", if you want to use that term, but criminalises problematic aspects of behaviour around begging.

We can all visualise and recognise how and why someone ends up being homeless or rough sleeping. I repeat that such people — they could well be our family members; who knows what the future holds? — should be treated with respect and dignity and that we should support and assist them where we, as a state and as a people, can do so.

I mentioned Professor Kevin Brown in my speech as Committee Chairperson. I do so again at this point to place on record the assistance that he gave, to the Committee and to me as an MLA, from his informed expertise on these matters, which was really helpful and insightful. He offered an amendment on some of these matters that I thought it best not to table, because, at that point, we had reached a compromise with the Department, so it did not go ahead. I commend Professor Brown for his work on these matters and on the amendments that we, as a party — Brian, Maurice and I — tabled.

However, it is not right to say that there is currently enough law to adequately deal with the problematic aspects of begging and rough sleeping. Whilst the Department acknowledged that the repeal of the vagrancy laws would repeal an existing offence of trespass with intent, it stated that there was no need for a replacement offence. The Department referred to three existing offences, stating that they were adequate to deal with criminal trespass. It cited section 9 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, on burglary, under which it is an offence to trespass in a building with intent to steal, cause damage or commit grievous bodily harm.

It cited article 10 — "Wrongful taking possession, or use, of premises" — of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and sections 68 — "Offence of aggravated trespass"— and 69 — "Powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass" — of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Now, those are all very relevant laws and should be effective in dealing with everything that they are targeted to deal with. However, I believe that there is still a significant gap around trespass with intent. Importantly, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which is UK-wide legislation, only covers trespass on land in the open air. That is relevant when a group of protesters is causing disruption on someone else's land. It was very clear that many people out there are nervous about repealing the vagrancy laws — archaic though they are, with horrendous wording — how that would work in practice in the modern day and how they would be protected, whether they be shopkeepers, people who live on the street or people who commute, shop or work in certain areas, impacted on or affected by the repeal of those laws.

When Retail NI gave evidence to the Committee — I have spoken to it since — it said that none of the above legislation covers cases where a person enters a shop with the intent to cause antisocial behaviour, harassment or assault below the level of GBH, which is what is required for burglary. There are, I believe, clear gaps. For the life of me, I could not understand how the police had not got to that position at that time. Thankfully, the police clarified their position. The Minister said at the time that, when the Department was engaging with the police, they had not offered up any concerns or problems. I acknowledge that, and the Minister and the Department can only take people at face value in that regard.

The Committee wrote to the PSNI on 2 December 2025. We got a response back, dated 7 January. I will read from that letter into the record:

"the PSNI believes that gaps in the police powers will occur under the current proposals in the Repeal of Vagrancy amendment ... Existing vagrancy legislation acts as a preventative measure towards persistent and/or nuisance begging. Arrest is a last resort."

You will be glad to know that.

It continues:

"Alternative public order type offences might be used to address aggressive or nuisance begging, only where the criminal threshold is met. However, in many cases this may not be the case, therefore on the repeal of vagrancy amendment, police will be disempowered to address unrelated begging behaviours. Anecdotally, for example, we see that in Northern Ireland, begging specifically is prevalent at ATMs; outside shops, hospitality venues, hotels, transport hubs and outside venues involved in the night time economy. On the repeal of vagrancy amendment police would not have the power to address begging at such locations. When police respond to incidents of begging, we take the opportunity to be intrusive but supportive about the person’s situation; to consider what support they might need and understand whether they are being exploited. The repeal of vagrancy amendment will mean that police may not respond to such incidents unless there is a suspicion of offending behaviour, and therefore that opportunity is lost. We note s.5 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2011 used by An Garda Síochána: offence to direct or organise begging. It is an offence to control or direct the actions of another person for the purposes of begging; organise or be involved in the organisation of begging by another person; force another person to beg, or otherwise causes another person to beg. Also, the proposal within the Crime and Policing Bill of England and Wales; Clause 11; Arranging or facilitating begging for gain; making it unlawful for anyone to organise others to beg for gain. This includes anything from recruiting vulnerable people to take part in organised begging, to driving them to places for them to beg. Both of these provisions provide protections for exploited persons, without criminalising the act of begging per se. Given neighbouring jurisdictions consider it prudent to introduce such offences, it may be unwise not to do so here, as displacement of offending from one jurisdiction to another is always a possibility. The ‘unlawful purpose’ clause in section 4 of Vagrancy Act 1824 affords broad interpretation and is so applied to a range of offending behaviour to be considered by the Courts. There does not appear to be an alternative broad stand-alone offence of ‘trespass with intent’ in Northern Ireland. Without an equivalent replacement provision, persons that would otherwise be brought to justice for the offence of being found on premises for an unlawful purpose, also referred to as ‘trespassing with intent’ may not be so, and repeal will create this gap. On repeal of Vagrancy Act 1824, trespass with intent might otherwise be captured by the introduction of replacement provisions such as that used by the Gardaí in the Republic of Ireland: Section 11 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994; provides an offence to enter or be in any building or its curtilage as a trespasser, or to be in the vicinity of that building or curtilage intent to commit an offence or with intent to unlawfully interfere with any property situate therein. Or, That proposed by Clause 10 of the Crime and Policing Bill of England and Wales; Trespassing with Intent to commit Criminal Offence. Again, given neighbouring jurisdictions consider it prudent to introduce such offences, it may be unwise not to do so here, as displacement of offending from one jurisdiction to another is always a possibility."

That was the police's view at the start of this year. That is why it is so important that we modernise this law. Absolutely, we can repeal Acts that contain atrocious, historical and archaic language; in fact, it is right to repeal them. We should repeal more laws in this place, but let us see what happens later on. There is an issue here, which is that we need to be quicker at modernising law. A law that goes back hundreds of years to a different age takes no account of technological advances or, for that matter, the Industrial Revolution, so we have to sit up and take stock. If we can repeal such law, we should. It is important to modernise the law so that law enforcement agencies see no gaps whatsoever.

There is no doubt that some bodies are nervous about criminalising people who beg or are rough sleepers, and I want to address that. The evidence provided by Homeless Connect has been very helpful to the Justice Committee and to parties. Amendment No 71 from my party, which proposes new clause 23A entitled:

"‘Offence of trespassing with intent to commit criminal offence",

In response to that amendment, Homeless Connect stated:

"Given that the Homeless Connect position is to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the Vagrancy Act (Ireland) 1847, decriminalisation of rough sleeping and/or begging will mean that the amendment will not have direct impact on those experiencing homelessness in Northern Ireland. Should the Vagrancy Act be repealed, we would have no objections to the inclusion of this amendment to the Bill."

I thank Homeless Connect for that commentary.

Amendment No 72 is a proposed new clause entitled:

"Arranging or facilitating begging for gain".

On that, Homeless Connect stated:

"As noted during previous consultation, Homeless Connect does not have expertise in policy around the facilitation of begging. We would however caution the scenario whereby those who are experiencing homelessness are working together to support one another while sleeping rough. We would recommend that members should seek clarification from the Minister and the proposer of the Amendment that (a) this is not the scenario which this provision is intended to criminalise (b) to ask whether the Department working with the PSNI could produce guidance to this effect."

I do not wish to bring in any law that criminalises begging.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. It is just to say that the PSNI has also indicated that, when the amendments pass and the repeal happens, it will go on to provide guidance to officers on the application of the law and give them assistance when it comes to how it will be implemented in practice to avoid situations such as those described by Homeless Connect.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that very important intervention. I hope that that gives confidence to people out there and gives confidence to the House that it can vote positively for those two amendments to modernise the law around vacancy and to repeal the past law, which was archaic and included bad language to describe people. "Rogues and vagabonds" is the terminology that was used. The text of that legislation is damning — the history of the state and its lack of support for soldiers and their families and also people who suffered from hunger. I ask the House to support those two amendments to modernise the law and to arm the police with the tools that they require to deal delicately, passionately and effectively with people breaching and breaking the law. I also commend the Minister and the Department for the way that they worked with and engaged with me, my colleagues and my party on this stuff to get to the point where we can repeal vacancy law and modernise the law.

I will turn to amendment No 78, which is about advertising sexual services and is in my name and those of my two colleagues on the Committee, Maurice Bradley and Brian Kingston. First, I make it very clear to the Minister that I am absolutely agreeable to working with the Minister and the Department to try to make sure that this law fits our legislative framework and fits in with the scope of what we have the vires to do. That is a given, and I can state categorically that I and my party will work with the Department over the coming months before we get to the Further Consideration Stage. I can assure the Minister that, if we need to reword anything, we will work together to do that.

Amendment No 78 addresses a profound and evolving harm that has blighted the whole of the UK for over a decade and is now receiving the attention that it deserves, namely the role of online advertising that enables sexual exploitation and trafficking here in Northern Ireland. The recent BBC documentary on the life and death of Caitlin Hanna brought the issue into sharp focus. Caitlin was not brought here from South America or eastern Europe; she was a young woman who was groomed, drugged and trapped in the grip of a criminal gang and advertised on a website in Belfast for sexual services to which she did not consent. Caitlin was not alone. According to the BBC, over 500 women per day — 500 women per day — are advertised for sexual services in Northern Ireland.

Just last Friday, Christian Action, Research, and Education (CARE), the organisation that helped me with the amendment, checked three of the main sites used to advertise women for exploitation. On those three sites alone, there were 472 advertisements to purchase women in Northern Ireland. The SERP Institute in Dublin, in its study of one of those websites — the main website used by traffickers in Northern Ireland — estimated that 85% of the women on that site during that research period were coerced, controlled or exploited.

That is human trafficking on an industrial scale. It is happening on our doorsteps, yet we turn a blind eye.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Does the Member agree that one of the most disgusting things that we have learned from CARE's findings and our work in the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation has been that, on those sites, one user and one account can actually advertise hundreds of profiles? They are literally set up not just to facilitate trafficking but to profit from it. It is absolutely disgusting and wrong.

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

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I agree with everything that Connie Egan said. I thank her for her contribution and intervention. It is despicable that that has been allowed to happen. I am not blaming anyone for that; such has been the growth of that evil that we have not really had time to comprehend or deal with it. However, this is an opportunity to do so.

Women are moved from location to location across the UK and Ireland. They are also moved within cities and towns from one place to another. That is human trafficking under our laws. Women in those advertisements are described as being available for an "out call". That means that they are taken by a man from one location to another. That is trafficking. Not only that but adverts describe people as being "on tour". That means that they have been moved from Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester, Cork or from elsewhere outside the UK to Belfast. Those sites are filled with clear indicators of organised trafficking operations.

Police investigations bear that out. In one case, six women in their twenties were trafficked into Northern Ireland on false promises of employment and then forced into prostitution for the profit of an organised crime group. More broadly, modern slavery referrals in Northern Ireland increased markedly by up to 50% in a single year.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned the case of Caitlin Hanna, in which, I think, a total of 11 women were being trafficked and made available for prostitution and abuse by a gang of men here. Sadly, two of them died. One of the survivors, Rebecca, spoke very powerfully at recent events. When you hear the level of degradation, the harm that has been caused to those women mentally, physically and psychologically, and the damage that has been done, it is remarkable, frankly, that any of those women have been able, first of all, to get out of the situation that they were in and, secondly, to find the courage to speak out about it. I just want to put on record that I believe that she has done a real service to other women by speaking out about her experience. Sometimes, when people hear about others being trafficked, they think that it involves moving them long distances. It is not; it is about being made available for exploitation. Sadly, that happens in our communities and on our streets daily.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that really important intervention. I echo the sentiments in her speech on that. It is horrific. It takes great courage for a woman who finds herself in that position to actually speak up, get out and seek the support and help that she needs. For most of the time that she is in captivity and being trafficked, that will be denied to her. That is really important. It is vital that we get to grips with it.

Modern slavery referrals in Northern Ireland have increased. They went up by 50% in a single year and by 1,000% over four years. What is fuelling that increase? It is fairly obvious: it is demand. Those websites drive demand for women to be bought and sold across Northern Ireland. That is happening in each and every constituency that is represented in the House. It is organised by criminals. Critically, it all happens online.

The shift from street corners or adverts in telephone boxes or magazines to online is the defining feature that has led to the massive increase in modern sexual exploitation. The Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner's recent report makes for alarming reading. Tens of thousands of such adverts appear across the UK, and almost 60% of those adverts contain multiple indicators of trafficking or exploitation. It is trafficking on an unimaginable scale. The National Crime Agency describes those websites as:

"the most significant enabler of commercial sexual exploitation"

in the UK. I do not apologise for labouring the point and for setting out in detail the exploitation that the amendment seeks to end. It is important that the issue is set out fully and comprehensively, so that no one can turn a blind eye and say, "I didn't know the scale of this problem".

Members may ask, "If the problem is so prevalent, why is nothing being done? Why have those sites not been shut down?". The reality is that we have a plethora of laws on the statute book relating to combating pimping and ending the demand for the purchase of sexual services, but those laws were designed for an analogue era. The problem is this: while individuals involved in prostitution may be criminalised, the platforms and intermediaries that build the infrastructure and profit from exploitation often sit beyond the arm of the law. There is no explicit offence in Northern Ireland prohibiting the publication of advertisements for sexual services, whether online or offline. We have no law to dismantle the infrastructure that connects trafficking gangs and the people in our cities who seek to exploit the women who are brought here. Many police forces, including ours, have sought to cooperate with those websites, but evidence given to the Home Affairs Select Committee at Westminster confirms that voluntary cooperation does not work. The Committee found that cooperation led to limited prosecutions and resulted in absolutely no dismantling of the structures of trafficking.

In a recent debate on the issue that was secured by colleagues on the all-party group on modern slavery and sexual exploitation, the Minister rightly pointed out that she has no power over regulation. Regulation of telecommunications is a reserved matter. However, combating this issue is not just about regulation; it is about helping people exit prostitution and getting our criminal law into a state that is fit for purpose. We do not have the power to regulate, but we do have the power to make modern criminal law. We have the power to be a leader across the UK's legislatures and pass the law that is needed to start the process of dismantling the infrastructure of trafficking. That is what the amendment seeks to do. Criminal law change is needed to ensure that those websites are shut down. All that we can do in the House is play our part, which is to bring in a criminal sanction, and the amendment gives us the chance to do that. Hopefully, our actions will be a spur to Westminster to bring in the change to regulation that is required there and that will cover us. That is what is needed.

What exactly does amendment No 78 do? Having set out the policy background, it is important to take some time to do exactly that, so I will now turn, in detail, to the provisions of amendment No 78. The amendment creates a new offence under the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. It provides that a person commits an offence if he or she:

"publishes or displays, or causes or allows to be published ... an advertisement"

for sexual services. That extends to coercing someone to do so against their will. Therefore, if someone tries to get around the law by having a trafficked victim publish the advert themselves, that will also be caught by this law. The amendment is carefully constructed. It captures the entirety of the infrastructure of trafficking: the website owner, who publishes and displays the advert; the pimp, who may control and advertise women in Belfast; the individuals who manage those women on a day-to-day basis and allow that to happen; and those who go out into our communities and entice girls into exploitation. They will all be captured if a victim is advertised on one of the online platforms.

Paragraph 1(a) applies to all adverts, whether they are online or offline. The amendment is technologically neutral and future-proofed. It is extraordinary to think that there is no law here against such advertising already. The amendment ensures that old-fashioned, analogue adverts as well as those on websites, apps, AI and social media will all, hopefully, be captured. It will close a gap in our law.

Paragraph 2 makes clear that the offence applies regardless of whether or not a person profits financially. That is essential, because the infrastructure of exploitation networks often utilises layers of intermediaries. Some people in the exploitation network will facilitate the posting of the advert, some key in the data to the online platform, some coordinate activity, and others ensure that the online infrastructure is managed and remains online. Many receive no payment, or, at least, no traceable payment, for that work. Paragraph 2 ensures that all facilitators at every level of the trafficking infrastructure are captured, not just those who take a visible cut of the money.

Paragraph 3 aligns penalties with existing offences in the 2008 Order, providing for imprisonment for up to six months on summary conviction and up to seven years on conviction on indictment. That ensures proportionality and consistency while also recognising that some people in the trafficking infrastructure will be more culpable than others.

Amendment No 78 is not the end of the matter. The Assembly has much more work to do, and Westminster and Dublin also have work to do if those sites and the exploitation that they enable are to be ended. The Assembly needs to make better provision for those who have been exploited, and Westminster needs to make the necessary regulations to ensure that Ofcom can enforce the necessary court orders against the owners of those websites and shut them down for good. The amendment, however, represents the first step in what we can do as an Assembly. Whilst it will not fully solve the problem, it at least ensures that Northern Ireland sends a signal to criminal gangs and platform owners that we will not tolerate the infrastructure of trafficking and exploitation here.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Member very much for giving way. I applaud his passion and the work that he has done on amendment No 78. It is clearly very important. No one wants anyone to be in prostitution, but I am mindful that I have worked with some sex workers who have come to me for support. They have often felt very far away from support. If, as a society, we are trying to help people in whatever way that we can, will the Member speak to how people who are already vulnerable will not be made more vulnerable as a result of the legislation?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for that intervention. In all examples that we give and all opportunities that we have in the House, we should acknowledge that anyone who has been exploited, trafficked, held in captivity or forced to do any activity against their will, including sex, needs to be supported. The police need to reach into those activities in the darkest corners of our Province, streets and towns, so that those people can be found, rescued and supported to recover and get justice.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Can I come back in?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes.