Northern Ireland Assembly, 9 June 2026

307 contributions from 46 members. The official report.

Matter of the Day

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Jon Burrows has been given leave to make a statement on the serious stabbing in north Belfast that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I recognise the concern of Members and the community about the attack and the desire of Members to express their concerns. I caution Members, however, that arrests have been made and the matter is now sub judice. What Members say in the Chamber carries weight and will still be part of the official record if and when the matter goes to trial. Therefore, while I am content for Members to discuss the matter, I warn them that they should not, in the heat of the moment, say something that may prejudice any trial.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Like everyone across Northern Ireland, I was deeply shocked by the barbaric scenes that I witnessed on social media of a man clearly being horrifically injured on our streets. My first thoughts are with the victim — I pray for him and for his recovery — and with the medics who are treating him today. I thank the members of the public who evidently intervened to save that man's life and the Police Service for its swift actions.

It is clear that, at such times, there can be tensions in our community. It is right that political leadership says that we need to give the police the time and space to do their investigation, to secure evidence and to go through due process. I have already spoken today to the police at a senior level. As I mentioned in an interview on 'The Nolan Show' earlier, when there is such tension — there is some national practice for this — the police should be proactive in giving out as much information as they can to the community that is factual, accurate and objective. Otherwise, in a vacuum, we get disinformation. The community should know what the facts are that can be released.

It is imperative on all of us in political leadership to show calm leadership to our communities. I say to anybody across Northern Ireland today that the way to respond to such issues is never to break the law and never to incite hatred. It is to show solidarity with our community, to send our best wishes to the victim, to ensure that we all do what we can to promote good relations in our country and to make sure that we have the protections and laws that are required to keep our people safe.

I am glad that the Matter of the Day was accepted and that we have an opportunity to show political leadership, to appeal for calm in our communities, to wish the victim the very best recovery possible and to thank our police service, medics and members of the public who intervened. I reassure people that the police service has promised me that it will mobilise resources this evening to keep the community safe, keep tensions down and open up lines of communication with the local community. Now is the time to think about the victim and wish the police all the best. I encourage the police to be proactive, to give as much information as they can to the public and not to allow a vacuum that can be filled with disinformation.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

When I saw the video this morning, I, like all Members, was deeply shocked by the barbarity of the attack that took place on Kinnaird Avenue in north Belfast last night. A man was pinned to the ground and seemingly in a helpless state, yet the attack by another man, using a knife and slashing at his face and repeatedly at his throat, continued — a man in a helpless state being mutilated. In the video, residents can be heard shouting, appealing for the attack to end. I commend the residents who intervened to help to bring the attack to an end and the police officers who arrived on the scene to end the attack.

I spoke to the PSNI commander for north Belfast this morning. The police have put out a statement to confirm that a 40-year-old man is in hospital. Our thoughts are with him. We hope and pray that he will survive and recover from those horrific injuries. We think of his family at this time. A 30-year-old man from Somalia has been arrested. The police tell us that they are not seeking anyone else in connection with the crime at this stage. They told me that both the victim and the perpetrator live in the area.

We need to keep hearing information from the police. It is important that factual information is put into the public domain, whatever the circumstances were and whether or not it suits everyone's agenda. It is important that, in this era of social media, false information is not circulated online. I appeal to the police to make that information available. They also need to increase their presence on our streets at this time of anxiety and fear that such a thing could happen.

There may well be questions for other statutory services about the circumstances in which the attacker was living here and whether he was meant to be receiving supervision. We need to hear honesty — not half-truths but the full information.

There is great anxiety. I visited Kinnaird Avenue this morning. Obviously, it is covered with media. I also visited the lower Old Park community, on the other side of Girdwood. I am told that there was no trouble there last night. It was not an interface-related issue. What are the circumstances? We need to know the facts. This is a time for assurance. We are concerned that people may try to cause other people who are not connected with the incident to suffer consequences, and we make the appeal that that should not happen. The response should be fact-based, with statutory and community agencies working together.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

In the Chamber yesterday, I was ridiculed by the self-righteous MLAs to my left, including the Justice Minister, for daring to highlight issues around immigration and the impact that it has on working-class communities. The word that Sinn Féin Member for North Belfast Carál Ní Chuilín used was "obnoxious". I wonder whether anyone in the Chamber today would dare to find fault with anyone who used stronger terms to describe the events that took place last night. That murderous attack was not just savage in itself but was indicative of the alien culture that has been imported through unchecked immigration.

Last night's events cannot be divorced from the immigration debate, and anyone who attempts to do so is gaslighting our communities.

Watching the video of the attempted beheading, I was struck by two things: one was the fact that the attacker was a foreign national, and the other was the fact that it had a striking similarity to the Islamic attacks that we have witnessed across the world. My party has already called for the nationality, immigration status and religion of the suspect to be published by the police. That needs to happen, and it needs to happen now. Shortly after the Liverpool incident, the police and the BBC positively rushed to say that the attacker was a white male. Let us see whether they are as quick to comment on last night's attack and to say that the attacker was not white.

The issues that the case raises need no longer be off limits to the Chamber and the Committees of the House. The most basic duty of government is the defence of its citizens. People need to know that they are safe to walk the streets without fear or danger of someone attacking them or, indeed, trying to cut off their head. Those who attempt to shut down discussion of those issues are not liberal. They are not standing up for the marginalised and oppressed in our communities to defend the policies that led to last night's attack. Advocating them is, positively, a danger to our communities in Northern Ireland.

Some people dare to say that raising such issues is not Christian. We are warned in Deuteronomy of:

"A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old nor shew favour to the young."

That is what we saw last night. It is time to close our borders —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— it is time to stop the boats —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Michelle O'Neill.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— and it is time that the House faced up to the realities. It is time that the British Government took a stand —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Michelle O'Neill.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— and did the right thing for the people of the United Kingdom.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Like others, I unequivocally condemn the violent and brutal attack that took place in north Belfast yesterday evening. It was an appalling and horrifying attack that has deeply shocked our entire community. There is no place for violence of any kind in our communities, and my thoughts are very much with the victim and his family at this time. The perpetrator of that heinous crime must face the full weight of the law. We are all united in saying that those involved in violent criminality have no place in this society. Anyone who engages in violent criminality has no place in our community.

I commend the courage of all those who intervened to remove the attacker in advance of the police arriving. I commend the first responders, the PSNI and the Ambulance Service who responded to that serious incident. I urge anyone with any information to come forward to the PSNI immediately so that a full investigation can be carried out and the perpetrator can be brought to justice.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Last night's horrific attack in north Belfast should be condemned by all, and I join everyone in the Chamber in condemning the brutal attack that everyone could see in the hours that followed.

One thing that made it even more barbaric is the fact that it was caught on camera. I urge people not to watch the video and to allow the police to do their job. It is not something that anyone, especially young children, needs to see, and I am aware that the video has been circulating already.

What is most important this morning is that everyone's thoughts are with the victim. We understand that he is in a critical condition, and we hope that he will fully recover. We thank the brave people who attempted to step in and stop the brutal attack.

Such violence has no place on our streets. It has no place in public, and it has no place even behind closed doors. It is not what we know of north Belfast. It is not what we need to see. It has left the community feeling anxious about where we go from here, but today is not a day for politics; it is a day for being calm, for allowing the police to do their job and carry out their investigation and for the public to come forward with any information that they may have.

I urge everyone, not just those in the Chamber but the wider public, to ensure that tensions are not raised, that there is no violence on our streets and that we ensure that our community in north Belfast and Northern Ireland remains calm in the days ahead. It is important that we do that to allow the police to do their job and to ensure that that man is brought to justice and feels the full weight of the law.

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

The events that took place in North Belfast last night — the act that was carried out — were horrific and depraved. I have, unfortunately, seen the video that was widely shared, as, I am sure, many in the Chamber have. I hope that no one else sees the video, and I urge people not to watch it or share it, not just because it is depraved and shocking but because we do not want people to have to see that, and we do not want to compromise the dignity of the victim any further while, as we hope, they recover in hospital. My thoughts and those of my party and virtually everyone in the Chamber are with the victim who is recovering in hospital, with those who witnessed the horrific attack and with the brave soul who intervened to rescue the man and potentially prevent loss of life.

The attack was so unspeakably depraved that it has shocked people. It is important to acknowledge that shock is a natural and understandable reaction to such images, but it is important for those of us in political leadership, which is an immense privilege for those of us in the Chamber who lead, to choose our words carefully and to reflect on our role as leaders and the impact that our words can have.

The person responsible for this should feel the full weight of the law. There should be nothing that prevents them from feeling the consequences and prevents public safety from being prioritised. I thank the police and the other emergency services for their response last night. It is important that the police are allowed to do their job without intervention or unhelpful public commentary. It is also important, at a time of real anxiety about the safety of all communities in Northern Ireland, that we choose our words carefully. We cannot ignore the fact that there are dark actors who will want and are already trying to take advantage of the situation to create more tension and more fear.

Let me say that no ethnicity or race has a monopoly on violence. The scenes that we witnessed last night were utterly horrific, but we need to bring calm to our community and act and speak responsibly. Those of us in positions of leadership should reflect on our role. Today, we should seek to bring unity and a calm response to the public who are watching.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I say unequivocally that the violent attack on a person in north Belfast last night was totally unacceptable, wrong and horrific. My thoughts are with the victim of the attack and their family. This was a dangerous and horrific attack that nobody should ever have to experience or witness. Like others, I commend those who intervened in a quick-moving but dangerous situation to help the person who was attacked. I commend them for their quick actions and intervention. There is no doubt that the event will have a lasting and traumatic impact on the family of the person who was attacked and the wider community in that part of north Belfast, and they need to be given the space to process what has happened, but also services should be put in place to support the people who experienced, saw and heard what happened last night.

I also appeal for calm in the wake of the attack. Undoubtedly, anybody who has seen the footage or heard about it will be deeply troubled — that is a natural response to such a horrific event — but organised violence and escalating the situation is not the answer.

That will serve only to bring more harm, more fear and more hurt to our communities.

Attempting to use this tragic event to whip up racism should be called out and absolutely condemned. I condemn that this morning, and I call on other people, who are troubled and horrified, to also condemn that and not to go down that very dangerous path. We have seen where that leads to. We saw the events of last summer in Ballymena, when refugee and migrant families were burnt out of their homes in retaliation attacks that solved nothing and only instilled fear. People are now stockpiling food because they are fearful of another hot summer, and I am fearful of that as well. This should be a warning sign for us to act. No community should be singled out or blamed for the heinous attacks of an individual, regardless of their skin colour or the country or city that they were born in.

The local community in north Belfast is, no doubt, deeply troubled this morning. People are reeling, upset and anxious, and they do not deserve or need more violence or intimidation on our streets. They need our support and understanding and to have the ability to begin to try to process this horrific event.

Emma Little-Pengelly (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Last night, people in north Belfast witnessed horrific scenes that have absolutely sickened and appalled people across Northern Ireland. It was a shocking and barbaric act of violence that has left a victim fighting the consequences of a truly savage attack. Today, our thoughts, prayers and deepest concerns are with that victim and his loved ones, but they are also with the local community and those who witnessed what happened at first hand. I have no doubt that they are deeply shaken today. I pay tribute to the bravery of those who stepped forward to intervene in particularly difficult and dangerous circumstances.

What happened last night was not simply a criminal act; it was an assault on the very values that bind us together as a society. Every person has the right to walk their streets, live in their community and feel safe in their own neighbourhood. This type of brutality has no place in Northern Ireland.

This morning, I spoke with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister. I made it clear that, at a time when people are understandably anxious and concerned and are understandably demanding answers, we must have very clear communication with the public. There must be the giving of as much information as possible. Clear, timely and transparent communication is essential to establish the facts but also to address any misinformation or rumour. We also need to be very clear that, no matter how potentially uncomfortable it is for some, the full truth must be made public.

I have also been in contact with the Prime Minister, because the PSNI has confirmed that the 30-year-old male who has been arrested is believed to be of Somalian heritage. I engaged with the Prime Minister this morning to ensure full commitment to full and urgent cooperation with the Home Office to see the status of that individual and, indeed, what information it may hold about him.

My message is simple: there can be no excuses and no tolerance of such violence. I know that emotions are running high, and I know that there is anger and concern across the community, but I urge everyone to remain calm, to allow the police to carry out their investigation and for people to establish the full facts.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I condemn the vile and horrific incident that took place on the streets of north Belfast last night — streets where people should feel safe and families should feel secure. That incident has undoubtedly and understandably caused huge distress and anxiety amongst our community.

My immediate thoughts are with the victim and his family, and I sincerely hope that he will make a swift and full recovery. My thoughts are also with the brave and courageous members of the public who stepped forward to intervene and with the first responders to the incident. It is vital that all of us in the Chamber support the PSNI in its investigation and give it the time and space that it needs to ensure that due process can take its course and the facts can be established and set out in full.

This is a time for responsible leadership. It is essential that all of us in the Chamber stand united to ensure that violence and hate will not be allowed to divide our communities. I appeal for calm, for responsible leadership and for the police to be given the space that they need to ensure that justice can take its course. I sincerely hope that the individual who is responsible will face the full weight of the law.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Like many in the Chamber and across Northern Ireland, I woke up this morning to the horrific scenes in north Belfast. Our first thoughts must always be with the victim, his family and those who witnessed such a barbaric act of violence. I pay tribute to the members of the public who risked their own safety to intervene and provide assistance and the PSNI, which was there within minutes.

Many sections of the media have branded this a stabbing, but the video footage that is circulating online shows that it was far more than that. It was a sustained, vicious and murderous attack. It was not simply an assault but a calculated attempt to inflict the most severe and life-changing injuries imaginable on another innocent human being. The brutality that was displayed has shocked people not just across Northern Ireland but across the world. It has left many people asking how such violence could be carried out so openly, with such apparent disregard for human life, in our country.

The PSNI must be frank and forthcoming with information as its investigation progresses. Residents will, understandably, be concerned. They deserve to know the facts. Rumour and speculation will thrive in the absence of information, particularly when that horrific footage is being circulated online. It has recently been reported that a 30-year-old Somalian man is responsible. He must be brought before the courts as quickly as possible and feel the full weight of the law, ensuring that there is justice for the victim.

This is now on our doorstep. Something like that can never happen again. Above all, the Assembly must send a clear message that there can be no excuses, no qualifications and no mitigation for violence of that nature. The victim deserves justice. The family deserve answers. The people of north Belfast and Northern Ireland deserve to know that the individual responsible will be held fully accountable for his actions.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

This morning, we woke to one of the most graphic and sickening videos imaginable. The violence on display in north Belfast was utterly reprehensible: a man pinned helplessly to the ground while being brutally stabbed and slashed in live time on a street in Belfast. The sheer savagery of the attack should never be witnessed on the streets of any civilised society, least of all north Belfast. The scenes of an attempted beheading will stay with the people of Northern Ireland and far beyond for a long time.

Our thoughts are primarily with the victim. I am angry, but I am appealing for calm. Violence is never the answer.

In the immediate aftermath, there can be no room for hesitation from the PSNI or, indeed, the Home Office. They must place all the facts surrounding that disgusting attack in the public domain. Bring the facts into the open and bring them out now. We know that the attacker is of Somalian descent. I want to know his immigration status. I want to know who came with him into this great country. I want to know whether he has a criminal history; no ifs or buts.

For years, ordinary people have been raising concerns about safety on our streets and the direction in their communities that is changing beyond belief. Too often, those concerns have been dismissed. Those people have been patronised or simply ignored by sections of the political leadership.

That cannot continue. When we have constituents coming to us time and time again and telling us that they feel unsafe on our streets, we have a duty to act.

No one who warned about open borders and illegal immigration desired to see our streets unsafe. Let us call a spade a spade. Those in political office, the open-border brigade and the media, who have targeted us and labelled us as far right and racist, have nowhere to hide. Our communities are our strength, and, for years, they have been systematically undermined. The national Government are a joke. They are rudderless, with no ability to deport illegal criminals and no ability to stop small boats. Their responsibility, first and foremost, is to protect the public.

To the people of north Belfast and those in communities across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom who are anxious about the pace and nature of change in the place that they call "home", I say this: I hear you. The DUP hears you. We hear your concerns. We are listening, and it is high time that every other political party did just that.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I had not intended to speak, but, following the interventions from Jonathan Buckley and Timothy Gaston, I feel compelled to.

What happened last night should never have happened. It was the most brutal, depraved and horrendous attack. I watched the video as well. I wish that I had not, and I wish that no one sees it. It was awful. It was horrific. We have to condemn the attack, and we have to ensure that everyone feels safe. Yes, people will be frightened right now, and I acknowledge that. Right now, our job as leaders is to come together and ensure that there is calm. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate with such dignity and responsibility, because we are dealing with a highly emotive topic.

I have different views from other people on so many of these issues because I have worked with people who have come here from other countries. I know that small children are not a threat. They have come here just to make a new life. I do not want to get into that discussion now. On another day, let us have a grown-up, respectful conversation about how we manage migration, how we ensure that support is in place, how we ensure that there is integration and how we manage our services. Today, however, is about something awful that happened in our society: something that should never have happened. Everyone is reeling from it. What happened was wrong. We need to come together. This is a test of our leadership, and it is about how we go forward. This is not just about Northern Ireland, because we are being watched from everywhere else. It is on the news in Britain. Actors across the world are watching how we react.

This is a place that overcame the insurmountable. This is a place that is a testament to politicians coming together to work through difficult issues to ensure peace and safety for all. That is the situation that we are in right now. There has been a sea change. We are in a volatile place right now, and I am worried for everyone in our communities. I want us to have a society in which everyone is safe and protected.

The narrative today is about calm. It is about making sure that the police have the space, access and information that they need and that communities — people in their homes right now — are not frightened that there will be retaliation. Communities have seen what is happening in their streets and are worried that it may happen to one of them. I acknowledge that there are real concerns and that they are not far-right. What happened last night was terrifying. We can show leadership now by coming together and seeing how we can get through this peacefully. We must not agitate. We must not stir things up. It is dangerous to talk about anger. It is dangerous to —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

[Inaudible.]

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

That is not for today, Timothy. Let us have that conversation on another day. Today is about coming together —

Hear, hear.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We have just had a Matter of the Day on that issue; we will not have a question for urgent oral answer as well. That is not our practice. The Justice Minister will answer topical questions today. There will be an opportunity to question the Justice Minister at that point. We will move on.

Members' Statements

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Last Friday, I had the privilege of walking alongside the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, his dedicated team and veterans as they completed a six-day journey: the Somme 110 walk. The final day coincided with the 82nd anniversary of D-Day. It was not simply a walk; it was about remembrance, and it was community spirit at its very best. Over six days, the team travelled 60 miles across all six counties of Northern Ireland, marking 110 years since the Battle of the Somme, one of the most defining and devastating chapters in our shared history. At every step, there was reflection. At every mile, there was purpose. At every stop, there was a sense of unity that reminds us why remembrance still matters so deeply today.

The Battle of the Somme is not just a story from the past but one that lives on in families, regiments and the hearts of those who continue to serve. It stands as a stark reminder of the sacrifice, suffering and bravery of those who fell and fought. Those men faced unimaginable conditions so that others might know freedom. Their legacy endures not only on the now silent battlefields but in the hearts of the communities that they left behind. The courage that was shown in 1916 echoes in the courage of our veterans today, men and women who have worn the uniform with honour, dignity and quiet strength.

The walk was also about giving back. The team raised vital funds for two outstanding charities: the Somme Association, which works tirelessly to preserve the memory of those who served and fell, and Air Ambulance Northern Ireland, which does life-saving work that touches families in every corner of our Province. The efforts of the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, his dedicated team and all those who took part remind us that remembering is not something that we just talk or think about. We show it by helping others, giving our time and supporting our community. We will remember them.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The 'good jobs' Bill is about building a society that values people, families and workers. The Bill would establish new rights for parents whose babies require neonatal care and new protections for carers, who provide support to loved ones every day. Each of us, whether through our families, friends, communities or our role as elected representatives, is familiar with the heartbreaking stories of people across the North who have had to give up work because of caring responsibilities, whether those are for their child, spouse, elderly parent or another relative who is unwell.

Our role as legislators is to identify and support those who are most marginalised by current legislation. Providing a pathway to change that reality for those whose dedication, care, love and compassion is punished by a lack of job security, fair pay, carers' leave entitlements and fair conditions is a critical component of that.

By blocking the 'good jobs' Bill, the DUP has shown its hand and proven what many of us already know: it is anti-worker, anti-equality and anti-rights. It is for the DUP to look workers in the eye and explain its reasoning, but no amount of spin will change the facts. The reality is that the DUP is blocking the 'good jobs' Bill.

What does blocking the 'good jobs' Bill mean? It means no entitlement to leave for carers, no entitlement to paid neonatal leave for families and no guaranteed tips for workers. My appeal is simple: stop playing politics. Stop playing games with the lives of workers and support the introduction of the 'good jobs' Bill in the Assembly. Support proper scrutiny. Support democracy.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

At the weekend, I attended the Hillsborough Boys Junior Football Club's end of season awards event. The club has more than 500 playing members on boys, girls and adults teams as well as Football for All and walking football teams. The club is at the heart of the community in Lagan Valley, and the awards were a fantastic evening to celebrate players, volunteers and coaches. I want to say "Well done" to everyone concerned.

One message came through really clearly, however, which was that as the club continues to grow, it needs more facilities and pitches. Club members urged us to get on with developing the Maze/Long Kesh site. That brought me back to a statement that we heard in the Chamber last week. I want to be really clear about this. The future of Northern Ireland will not be built by bulldozers, but through jobs, investment, sport and the arts and by creating opportunities for future generations. Ultimately, however, it will be built by sharing this place. No young person at Hillsborough Boys Junior Football Club will get on to a new pitch because we demolish a building. They will get on to a pitch because we choose to build a better future for all of us.

The Maze/Long Kesh site offers the opportunity to provide sports pitches for local clubs and facilities for Commonwealth Games teams that we do not have in Northern Ireland. There is a chance to create jobs, attract investment and unlock economic potential. It is a strategically important site on the Dublin to Belfast economic corridor. Yes, the site also offers the opportunity to tell our story honestly and factually, while welcoming visitors from across the world who want to understand it. The site will never be about glorifying the past, creating shrines or anything else. It must be about building a better, shared future for all of us, and that the hope for tomorrow is better than it is today.

What struck me most last week was how quickly a bulldozer can generate headlines. Yet, positive conversations about sharing this place and about jobs and opportunities for tourism and sport never attract the same amount of attention. Have we become so comfortable that we would rather argue about yesterday and score cheap political points than plan and work for a better tomorrow? The choice is really simple. We can either focus on the dead end of tearing things down, constantly encouraging division, or we can focus on building things up and sharing this place, creating better opportunities and a better future for everyone who lives here. For clubs such as Hillsborough Boys Junior Football Club and others in Lagan Valley and for the future of this region, we need hope, not the scaremongering that we constantly hear in here.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the opportunity to mark Carers Week and to recognise the extraordinary contribution that carers make to our society every single day. Across Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of people provide unpaid care for a family member, a friend, a neighbour or a loved one. They support elderly parents, they care for children with complex needs and they provide comfort and dignity to those who are facing illness or disability. Their contribution is invaluable, and I thank them.

Without carers, our health and social care system would struggle to cope; indeed, I would argue that it would collapse. Carers save our public services billions of pounds every single year, but their value cannot be measured in financial terms alone. They provide compassion, stability and support for those who need it the most; yet, too often, carers feel overlooked. Many carers face financial pressures, poor mental health and isolation. Many are trying to balance caring responsibilities with work, often with very little support and very few protections. Too many people are forced to reduce their hours, turn down opportunities or leave employment altogether because caring for a loved one becomes impossible to balance with work.

We know that that burden falls disproportionately on women. Around 60% of unpaid carers are women, and many find their careers and earning potential limited because they have stepped in to provide care where support has been lacking. That is why employment rights matter. For carers, access to leave and flexibility can mean the difference between staying in work and leaving it altogether. That is why the 'good jobs' Bill is so important. The Bill has the potential to deliver important new rights for working carers, including for carers' leave. It is an opportunity to build a labour market that recognises the realities of our modern life and supports those who care for others in their community.

Unfortunately, that legislation continues to be held up in the Executive. Every month of delay is another month in which carers are left waiting for protections that could make a real difference to their lives. For many carers, the debate is not about legislation but about whether they can accompany a loved one to a hospital appointment, respond to a crisis or continue caring without sacrificing their job.

The SDLP has consistently supported the introduction of paid carers' leave, because the right of people —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— who cannot afford to use it —.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mar a dúirt cúpla Comhalta, seo í Seachtain na gCúramóirí, seachtain a dtugtar deis dúinn lena linn ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar obair na gcúramóirí, bíodh sin mar ghairm bheatha nó mar dhualgas morálta do bhall teaghlaigh, do chara nó do chomharsa. De réir dhaonáireamh 2021, tugann níos mó ná 220,000 duine cúram neamhíoctha sa Tuaisceart. Tá sin thart ar dhuine as gach ochtar. Is daoine iad sin a thugann cúram cionn is go bhfuil feidhm leis, nó cionn is go bhfuil duine ag brath air. Ba chóir tacú lena bhfiúntas; ba chóir aitheantas agus urraim a thabhairt dó.

An té atá ag obair mar chúramóir neamhíoctha, féadann sin bheith ina bhac mór air fostaíocht a fháil. Más fíor do Carers NI, d’fhág duine as gach triúr a chuid oibre le cúram a thabhairt do dhuine eile. Ó tharla sin amhlaidh, tá súil agam go gcuirfear Bille na ‘bpost maith’ faoi bhráid an Tí le go rithfear agus go gcuirfear chun feidhme é, nó cuirfidh a chuid forálacha saoire neamhíoctha ar fáil do chúramóirí, déanfaidh siad an rochtain ar obair sholúbtha níos fusa ag cúramóirí, agus athróidh siad an chothromaíocht oibre agus saoil le cuidiú le teaghlaigh atá ag obair. Molaim Caoimhe Archibald, Aire Geilleagair, agus an Roinn Geilleagair as an Bhille sin a fhorbairt agus as éisteacht leis na cúramóirí agus a ngrúpaí abhcóideachta lena chinntiú go gcuirfear forálacha sa Bhille le tacú leo. Mar sin de, agus Seachtain seo na gCúramóirí ann, gabhaim buíochas leis na cúramóirí, agus deirim le Comhaltaí gur chóir dúinn a gceart a thabhairt do chúramóirí agus Bille na ‘bpost maith’ a rith.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I speak in advance of the continuation of the Justice Bill's Consideration Stage today, which, potentially, will deal with the important group of amendments associated with the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The debate will be important, and I urge Members —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member take his seat for a moment? If this is a matter that is to be debated later on, then that is for the debate later on. If the Member wishes to talk about it in a more generic way, he can, albeit we may not get to the minimum age of criminal responsibility today, given the speed at which the Justice Bill is moving.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, my statement relates to the petition of concern, which, if valid, will be debated along with the group 6 amendments but has to be signed before we get to that debate. That is the context in which I make this contribution. When we get to the debate, it will be past the post.

I appeal to Members not to consider the implications just from a justice point of view. Jim Gamble has spoken at length on this. He has intervened in a powerful way, particularly for those who are reluctant to sign a petition of concern, about the priority that should be afforded in considering those dilemmas that people feel.

He has stated:

"the overriding ethical obligation must be what is best for children and the society within which they live. When the welfare of children and the safety of communities are both on the line, procedural shortcuts are not a minor inconvenience. They are a failure of responsibility."

I say this to the Members who are still deliberating: set aside any other issues that may cloud the discussions and look at the changes that the amendment would make. There is a very limited opportunity to make an intervention.

If the Members who have brought forward the amendment decide to propose it — I appeal to them not to do so — there is only one way in which it can be prevented from becoming law. Why is that important? It is important not just from a justice point of view. The Youth Justice Agency engages with our schools. Where will the support be if the situation changes? I am deeply concerned that the withdrawal of that deterrent will undermine the practice of discipline in our schools. Such a proposal should be taken forward in a youth justice Bill, after proper consultation and consideration, with other Departments feeding into the process, rather than via an amendment tagged on to the Justice Bill that will have profound implications for many other aspects of our society.

I appeal to those who have it within their gift to ensure that proper scrutiny takes place to step up and support those who have already signed the petition of concern. If an issue were to materialise in the future, it will be too late for them to wish that they had done something to prevent it. I would rather be on the side of proper scrutiny and consideration than of rushed legislation. I appeal to those Members who can to join us.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will speak briefly about an issue that I have raised in the House on numerous occasions: domiciliary care provision and home care, specifically in my constituency of Mid Ulster. It is appropriate that I speak about it during Carers' Week, when we acknowledge the role of unpaid carers in our society and the struggle that they face.

I was recently contacted by a constituent who was forced to make what was almost a public appeal for support after spending the best part of six months trying to get the most basic of care provision for her elderly mother. The appeal that she made would bring tears to a stone. I am frequently contacted by daughters, daughters-in-law, nieces and neighbours, and, to a lesser extent, by sons and male members of the family, about the care that elderly parents, aunts, uncles and neighbours need. The level of desperation that those people have to go to in order to get the most basic care provision for elderly people who have worked all their lives, contributed to the system and are entitled to dignity at home in their last years on this earth is absolutely heartbreaking and ridiculous.

I have appealed to the Minister of Health on a number of occasions to properly provide for our elderly communities and properly resource our domiciliary carers. One of the biggest problems that we face in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust area is that we cannot facilitate packages of care because the carers who carry out that vocational and heartbreaking work are not paid sufficiently to do so. Therefore, it is left to unpaid carers — family members — to pick up the burden. It is emotionally and mentally draining, and it leads to unacceptable tension in families. The level of responsibility that is placed on families to carry out what should be provided for by the state is unacceptable.

In the particular case that I talked about, the lady made multiple phone calls to a social work team to deal with her mother's care and found that there was no social worker assigned to her mum; she was dealing with multiple duty social workers, none of whom was aware of her mother's complex needs. She had to re-brief each of them every time that she phoned. She felt as though she was begging for very basic provision for her mum, which still has not been delivered. I have made the case directly to the Minister on a number of occasions. We have also brought motions on the issue to the House, but, as we face into another summer where such care is not provided properly, we need to see urgent action from the Minister.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I congratulate Mr Michael Dunlop MBE on yet more incredible success. Last week, he won three races at the Isle of Man TT, bringing his record to an incredible 36 TT victories in a glittering career. The Isle of Man TT is revered as one of the toughest tests for competitor and machine in global motor sport, and it has been fantastic to see the Dunlop legacy continue to go from strength to strength over many years. His success, last week, with two super-sport class victories and a sport-bike victory brings him up to 10 more TT successes than his late great uncle Joey Dunlop, who is still revered across the world. Joey is truly iconic.

Michael Dunlop is one of Northern Ireland's greatest ever sports stars. We have a rich and proud history of road racing and motor sport in our country; it is something that we can be proud of. It was an excellent week for local competitors in the Isle of Man. I congratulate all competitors and those who took part in the event. Congratulations also to Paul Jordan, who secured a podium finish in one of the races.

Road racing is dangerous, and there are risks involved. Our thoughts are with the families of the two riders who were tragically killed — one at the Isle of Man TT and one at the North West 200. I offer my best wishes to local rider Gary McCoy and to Maria Costello MBE, who is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland as a competitor, who were both injured at the TT.

We look forward to the rest of the road racing season and to the 2027 Ulster Grand Prix — plans are afoot to restore that great event. I wish the organisers well. I know that a lot of work has been done so far and that there is much more to do, but people across the UK and beyond are looking forward to the Ulster Grand Prix, hopefully, getting under way once again.

Congratulations to Michael Dunlop and all the competitors at the Isle of Man TT.

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

I rise to raise an issue that is very important in South Belfast, particularly in the inner part of South Belfast. It relates to the residents' parking scheme, which is open to applications at the minute. It opened at the end of April and will run until the end of July.

A successful pilot scheme has been operating for a number of years at Rugby Road. That has been extended by the Minister. We welcomed the principle of extending it to other parts of Northern Ireland, when Minister Kimmins announced it, but, at that time, I made the point that the levels of response required — an overall majority of occupants in a street in support of an application for a residents' parking zone — would specifically discriminate against many of the parts of my constituency that are most in need of residents' parking schemes and which, frankly, are crying out for them. I am thinking in particular of areas such as Stranmillis, the Holylands and parts of the lower Lisburn Road where people want residents' parking schemes.

I say this for the benefit of the people who walk around them: those are the areas for which the schemes are most essential, because they experience high numbers of people who want to use the local amenities, but, because of their proximity to the city centre, people often park there for commuting purposes. The residents have to deal with that extra burden and challenge, because, in those places, off-street parking is rare — in fact, it is almost non-existent in some areas. The people who live in those areas really want a residents' parking scheme.

The Rugby Road scheme has happened in the same part of the inner south of the city, but the system is almost designed to discriminate against residents. A high number of people who live there have short-term lets, or they are students or people who are relatively transitory. That means that it is almost impossible, if not impossible, to get a majority of people in some of those streets in that part of Belfast to respond. That is creating a challenge. It would be a huge regret for the Executive and the Minister if the areas, streets and neighbourhoods in inner Belfast that are most crying out for residents' parking schemes were unable to benefit from the scheme, in part because of the way in which the scheme is set up. Surely, that is not a desirable situation. I ask the Minister to look at the issue again. The applications for the scheme run until the end of July.

There is active representation from groups such as the Stranmillis Neighbourhood Association. It works hard and is doing huge amounts of work to bring its community together through various community projects, including planting in alleyways.

They want the absolute best for their community, and a residents' parking scheme would be a huge bonus for them, albeit they want a scheme that works for them and for the inner south Belfast communities. I hope that the Minister will look again at the way in which the scheme operates.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I welcome the news that Goldsprings of Comber LOL 1037 has won its battle to get the BBC to apologise. I will remind the House of what happened. Last July, the BBC reported that the cancellation of a children's GAA summer camp in Comber happened after, or because of, a statement issued by the lodge. That was a lie that the BBC went on to broadcast repeatedly across television, online platforms and its radio stations for two full days. It is not a matter of opinion or interpretation, it is a straightforward question of fact. Last week, after almost 11 months, the BBC's executive complaints unit finally upheld the complaint.

The BBC now admits that its reporting was based on a "mistaken premise". The BBC now admits that the issue represented was not just a failure of clarity but of accuracy. A formal apology has been issued for its "lapse in editorial standards". Those are the BBC's words, yet what concerns me most today is not the original mistake but the fact that it took the BBC almost 11 months to reach a conclusion on a complaint that turned on a simple matter of the timeline.

For month after month, the complainants were effectively told that the matter had been dealt with. I raised that in the House in February. The BBC then claimed that the complaint had already been dealt with, yet its highest complaints body has now concluded that the clarification itself was inadequate because it failed properly to acknowledge that the original reporting was, indeed, wrong.

The BBC frequently lectures others about accountability, transparency and honesty, yet when it came to the Orange Order, all those principles went out the window. Why? Many, including me, believe that it was because the BBC in Belfast could not contain itself when it thought that it had a chance to kick an Orange lodge. Standards, checking and editorial guidelines all went out the window because it was the Orange Order. The truth has finally caught up with the BBC. I will continue to call out its double standards and hold it to account. What it reported was a lie, but, thankfully, we now have that acknowledgement.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now come to the fourth group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 68, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 69, 76, 77, 127 and 131. Any links between amendments in the group will be indicated at the appropriate point.

I call the Minister of Justice to move amendment No 68 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. With your indulgence, I will put on record my condemnation of the extraordinary incident in north Belfast last night. Most of us were shocked and horrified at the violence that we witnessed, which was recorded and broadcast online. I extend my best wishes to the victim and his family. I know that his injuries are serious, and I hope that he makes a full recovery. I also put on record the gratitude of all of us for the brave people who intervened to try to stop the attack, and to the first responders who rescued the individual and took him to the care of the hospital. I think that all of us will also wish to call for calm. We understand that people are frightened and angry, but, this morning, it is important to recognise that everyone in the community is reeling from what they have seen and to ensure that the police have the opportunity to investigate thoroughly.

I beg move amendment No 68:

After clause 23 insert—

"Police discipline

Disciplinary proceedings concerning former police officers

23A.—(1) The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 25 (regulations for Police Service of Northern Ireland)—

(a) after subsection (3) insert—

‘(3A) Regulations under this section may provide for the procedures that are established by or under regulations made by virtue of subsection (3) to apply (with or without modifications) in respect of the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of any person where—

(a) an allegation relating to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person comes to the attention of the Chief Constable, the Board or the Ombudsman,

(b) at the time of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness the person was a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and

(3B) Condition A is that the person ceases to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland after the allegation first comes to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a).

(3C) Condition B is that—

(a) the person had ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a), and

(b) the period between the person having ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) does not exceed the period specified in regulations under this section.

(3D) Condition C is that—

(a) the person had ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a),

(b) the period between the person having ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) exceeds the period specified for the purposes of condition B, and

(c) the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, the person could have been dealt with by dismissal if the person had still been a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

(3E) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3A) as they apply in a case where condition C is satisfied in relation to a person must provide that disciplinary proceedings may be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness only if the Ombudsman determines that taking such proceedings would be reasonable and proportionate having regard to—

(a) the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness,

(b) the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and

(3F) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3A) may make provision about matters to be taken into account by the Ombudsman for the purposes of subsection (3E)(a) to (c).

(3G) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3A) must provide that disciplinary proceedings which are not the first disciplinary proceedings to be taken against the person in respect of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness may be taken only if they result from a re-investigation of the allegation that begins within the period specified in the regulations.

(3H) The period referred to in subsection (3G) must begin with the date when the person ceased to be a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.’;

(b) in subsection (4)—

(i) after ‘reduced in rank’ insert ‘or former members where there is a finding that the person would have been dismissed, or required to resign, if the person had still been a member;’

(ii) in paragraph (a), after ‘(3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.

(3) In section 26 (regulations for Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve)—

(a) after subsection (3) insert—

(a) an allegation relating to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person comes to the attention of the Chief Constable, the Board or the Ombudsman,

(b) at the time of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness the person was a reserve constable, and

(3B) Condition A is that the person ceases to be a reserve constable after the allegation first comes to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a).

(3C) Condition B is that—

(a) the person had ceased to be a reserve constable before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a), and

(b) the period between the person having ceased to be a reserve constable and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) does not exceed the period specified in regulations under this section.

(3D) Condition C is that—

(a) the person had ceased to be a reserve constable before the allegation first came to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a),

(b) the period between the person having ceased to be a reserve constable and the allegation first coming to the attention of a person mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) exceeds the period specified for the purposes of condition B, and

(c) the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, the person could have been dealt with by dismissal if the person had still been a reserve constable.

(a) the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness,

(b) the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and

(3F) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (3A) may make provision about matters to be taken into account by the Ombudsman for the purposes of subsection (3E)(a) to (c).

(3H) The period referred to in subsection (3G) must begin with the date when the person ceased to be a reserve constable.’;

(b) in subsection (4)—

(i) after ‘reduced in rank’ insert ‘or former reserve constables where there is a finding that the person would have been dismissed, or required to resign, if the person had still been a reserve constable;’

(ii) in paragraph (a), after ‘(3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.

(4) In section 27 (members of Police Service of Northern Ireland engaged on other police service)—

(a) in subsection (5), after ‘section 25(3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’;

(b) in subsection (6A)—

(i) after ‘section 25(3)’ (in the first place) insert ‘, (3A)’;

(ii) after ‘section 25(3)’ (in the second place) insert ‘or (3A)’;

(i) after ‘section 25(3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’;

(ii) after ‘or 26(3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.

(5) In section 32 (Police Association for Northern Ireland), in subsection (2)—

(a) after ‘section 25(3)’ insert ‘or (3A),’;

(b) after ‘or 26(3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.

(6) In section 59 (steps to be taken after investigation – disciplinary proceedings), in subsection (8)—

(a) after ‘section 25(3)’ insert ‘or (3A),’;

(b) after ‘or 26(3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.

(7) In section 65 (guidance concerning discipline, complaints, etc), in subsection (3)—

(a) after ‘section 25(3)’ insert ‘or (3A),’;

(b) after ‘or 26(3)’ insert ‘or (3A)’.

(8) Regulations made in pursuance of section 25(3A) or 26(3A) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (as inserted by subsections (2) and (3))—

(a) may not make provision in relation to a person who ceases to be a police officer before the coming into operation of subsections (2) and (3);

(b) may make provision in relation to a person who ceases to be a police officer after the coming into operation of this section even though the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness occurred at a time before the coming into operation of subsections (2) and (3), but only if the condition in subsection (9) is satisfied.

(9) The condition referred to in subsection (8)(b) is that the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness is such that, if proved, there could be a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed, or required to resign, if the person had still been a police officer.

(10) In subsections (8) and (9), ‘police officer’ has the meaning given by section 77(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 69: After clause 23 insert—

"Police barred list and police advisory list

23B. Schedule 5 inserts new Part 7A into the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, relating to a police barred list and police advisory list." — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 76: After clause 23 insert—

"Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

Police Ombudsman: power to submit a report to appropriate authority during investigation

23A. In section 56 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (formal investigation by the Ombudsman) after subsection (5) insert—

'(5A) If, at any time during an investigation under this section the Ombudsman believes that the appropriate authority, on consideration of the matter, would be likely to determine that the special conditions in subsection (5B) are satisfied, the Ombudsman may, whether or not the investigation is complete, submit to the appropriate authority—

(a) a statement of the Ombudsman’s belief and the grounds for it; and (b) a written report on the investigation to that point.

(5B) The special conditions are—

(a) that misconduct proceedings would not prejudice any criminal proceedings,

(b) that there is sufficient evidence, in the form of written statements or other documents, without the need for further evidence, whether written or oral, to establish on the balance of probabilities that the conduct of the member of the police force concerned constitutes gross misconduct, and

(c) that it is in the public interest for the member of the police force concerned to cease to be a member without delay.'." — [Miss McAllister.]

No 77: After clause 23 insert—

"Police Ombudsman: power to submit a report to appropriate authority before criminal proceedings concluded

23B.—(1) Section 59 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—

'(c) criminal proceedings initiated by the Director in relation to the subject matter of such a report have not concluded but the Ombudsman believes that the appropriate authority, on consideration of the matter, would be likely to determine that the special conditions in subsection (1ZA) are satisfied.

(1ZA) The special conditions are—

(a) that misconduct proceedings would not prejudice any criminal proceedings.

(c) that it is in the public interest for the member of the police force concerned to cease to be a member without delay.'.

(3) In subsection (2) at end insert—

'(d) where subsection (1)(c) applies—

(i) a written statement of his belief that the appropriate authority, on consideration of the matter, would be likely to determine that the special conditions in subsection (1ZA) are satisfied; and

(ii) a written report of the investigation to date.'." — [Miss McAllister.]

No 127: After Schedule 4 insert—

"SCHEDULE 5

Section 23B.

PART TO BE INSERTED AS PART 7A OF THE POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1998

1. In the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, after Part 7 insert—

‘PART 7A

POLICE BARRED LIST AND POLICE ADVISORY LIST

Police barred list

65A Duty to maintain barred list

(1) The Chief Constable must maintain a list of persons to be known as the police barred list for Northern Ireland (‘the barred list’).

(2) The barred list must include such information in relation to a person included in the list as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.

(3) Regulations under this section may confer a discretion on the Chief Constable.

65B Inclusion of certain police officers and police support staff

(1) The Chief Constable must include a person in the barred list where—

(a) the person ceases to be a member of the police force by virtue of being dismissed, or required to resign, at proceedings conducted under regulations made pursuant to section 25(3) or 26(3);

(b) the person is a former member of the police force and there is a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed, or required to resign, if the person had still been a member of the police force;

(c) the person ceases to be a member of the police support staff by virtue of being dismissed and the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal relates to conduct, efficiency or effectiveness.

(2) But subsection (1) does not apply where the person ceases to be a senior officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, is a former senior officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or ceases to be a senior employee of the Board (as to which, see section 65C).

(3) In subsection (1)(b), ‘disciplinary proceedings’ means proceedings conducted under regulations made in pursuance of section 25(3A) or 26(3A).

(4) A person is dismissed for the purposes of subsection (1)(c) if the circumstances in which the person ceases to be a member of the police support staff amount to dismissal within the meaning of Part 10 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (see Article 127 of that Order).

65C Inclusion of senior officers and senior police support staff

(1) The Chief Constable must include a person in the barred list where the person is reported to the Chief Constable under subsection (2).

(2) The Board must report a person to the Chief Constable where—

(a) the person ceases to be a senior officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland by virtue of being dismissed, or required to resign, at proceedings conducted under regulations made in pursuance of section 25(3);

(b) the person is a former senior officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and there is a finding in relation to the person in disciplinary proceedings that the person would have been dismissed, or required to resign, if the person had still been a member of the police force;

(c) the person ceases to be a senior employee of the Board by virtue of being dismissed and the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal relates to conduct, efficiency or effectiveness. (3) A report under subsection (2) must—

(a) be made within such period as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice; (b) include such information as is so specified.

(4) In subsection (2)(b), ‘disciplinary proceedings’ means proceedings conducted under regulations made in pursuance of section 25(3A).

(5) A person is dismissed for the purposes of subsection (2)(c) if the circumstances in which the person ceases to be a member of the police support staff amount to dismissal within the meaning of Part 10 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (see Article 127 of that Order).

65D Inclusion of airport police, harbour police and support staff

(1) The Chief Constable must include a person in the barred list where the person is reported to the Chief Constable under subsection (2).

(2) The relevant transport authority must report a person to the Chief Constable where the person ceases to be a member of any of the following by virtue of being dismissed and the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal relates to conduct, efficiency or effectiveness—

(a) any airport police;

(b) any airport police support staff;

(d) any harbour police support staff.

(3) A report under subsection (2) must—

(a) be made within such period as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice; (b) include such information as is so specified.

(4) In subsection (2), ‘the relevant transport authority’ means—

(a) in relation to a person who was a member of any airport police, the airport operator with control over the airport police;

(b) in relation to a person who was a member of any airport police support staff, the airport operator who employed the person;

(c) in relation to a person who was a member of any harbour police, the harbour authority with responsibility for maintaining the harbour police;

(d) in relation to a person who was a member of any harbour police support staff, the harbour authority who employed the person.

(5) An airport operator or harbour authority may delegate the function of making a report under this section or any of sections 65G, 65L and 65P.

(6) A person is dismissed for the purposes of subsection (2) if the circumstances in which the person ceases to be a member of a body referred to in subsection (2) amount to dismissal within the meaning of Part 10 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (see Article 127 of that Order).

65E Inclusion of other employees, seconded staff and contracted staff

(1) The Chief Constable must include a person in the barred list where the person is reported to the Chief Constable under subsection (2).

(2) The relevant employer must report a person to the Chief Constable where—

(a) the person ceases to be a person designated under section 31 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 by virtue of being dismissed and the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal relates to conduct, efficiency or effectiveness.

(b) the person ceases to be a member of any of the following by virtue of being dismissed and the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal relates to conduct, efficiency or effectiveness—

(i) the staff of the Board;

(ii) the staff of the Ombudsman;

(c) the person ceases to be an employee of the civil service by virtue of being dismissed and the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal relates to conduct, efficiency or effectiveness during a period when the person was engaged under—

(i) paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 3 to provide administrative, secretarial or other assistance to the Ombudsman;

(ii) section 4(4) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to provide assistance to the police;

(iii) paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 1 to that Act to provide administrative, secretarial or other assistance to the Board.

(3) A report under subsection (2) must—

(a) be made within such period as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice; (b) include such information as is so specified.

(4) In subsection (2), ‘the relevant employer’ means—

(a) in relation to a person who was designated under section 31 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, the person by whom the designated person was employed;

(b) in relation to a person who was a member of staff of the Board, the Board;

(d) in relation to a person who was an employee of the civil service, the government department, officer or body under or for whose purpose the person was employed.

(5) A person is dismissed for the purposes of any of subsection (2)(a) to (c) if the circumstances in which the person ceases to hold a position referred to in the paragraph amount to dismissal within the meaning of—

(a) in the case of a person who ceases to be an employee of the civil service of the United Kingdom, Part 10 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (see section 95 of that Act), or

(b) in any other case, Part 10 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (see Article 127 of that Order).

65F Effect of inclusion in barred list

(1) Before employing or appointing any person, a law enforcement employer must check the barred list to ascertain whether the proposed employee or proposed appointee is a barred person.

(2) A law enforcement employer may not employ a barred person or otherwise appoint a barred person to any position.

(3) For the purposes of this section a person who is to be seconded to work for a law enforcement employer, and who will not be employed by that person, is to be regarded as being appointed by that person.

(4) Before designating a person under section 31 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, the Chief Constable must check the barred list to ascertain whether the person is a barred person.

(5) The Chief Constable may not designate a barred person under section 31 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003.

(6) The Chief Constable, the Board or the Ombudsman may not enter into a contract for the provision of services if the terms of the contract would permit a barred person to be involved in the exercise of relevant public functions.

(7) For the meaning of ‘law enforcement employer’ and ‘relevant public functions’ see section 65R.

65G Removal from barred list

(1) The Chief Constable must remove a person from the barred list where—

(a) the person is included in the barred list by virtue of section 65B(1) and subsection (2) applies in respect of the person, or

(b) the Chief Constable receives a further report in relation to the person under subsection (3), (4) or (5).

(2) This subsection applies in respect of a person where—

(a) in the case of a person falling within section 65B(1)(a), the decision to dismiss the person, or to require the person to resign, is set aside at proceedings conducted under regulations made pursuant to section 25 or 26;

(b) in the case of a person falling within section 65B(1)(b), the finding that the person would have been dismissed, or required to resign, is set aside at proceedings conducted under regulations made pursuant to section 25 or 26;

(i) following a complaint under Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, and

(ii) whether by an employment tribunal or on appeal.

(3) The Board must make a further report to the Chief Constable in relation to a person included in the barred list by virtue of section 65C(1) where—

(a) in the case of a person falling within section 65C(2)(a), the decision to dismiss the person, or to require the person to resign, is set aside at proceedings conducted under regulations made pursuant to section 25;

(b) in the case of a person falling within section 65C(2)(b), the finding that the person would have been dismissed, or required to resign, is set aside at proceedings conducted under regulations made pursuant to section 25;

(i) following a complaint under Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, and

(ii) whether by an employment tribunal or on appeal.

(4) The relevant transport authority must make a further report to the Chief Constable in relation to a person included in the barred list by virtue of section 65D(1) where the dismissal is found to have been an unfair dismissal—

(a) following a complaint under Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, and

(b) whether by an employment tribunal or on appeal.

(5) The relevant employer must make a further report to the Chief Constable in relation to a person included in the barred list by virtue of section 65E(1) where the dismissal is found to have been an unfair dismissal—

(a) following a complaint under Article 145 of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 or section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and

(b) whether by an employment tribunal or on appeal.

(6) A report under subsection (3), (4) or (5) must—

(a) be made within such period as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice; (b) include such information as is so specified.

(7) The Department of Justice may by regulations make provision in connection with the removal of a person from the barred list otherwise than under subsection (1).

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may confer functions on the Chief Constable including functions which involve the exercise of a discretion.

(9) In this section—

‘the relevant employer’ has the meaning given by section 65E(4).

‘the relevant transport authority’ has the meaning given by section 65D(4);

65H Power to disclose information in barred list

(1) The Chief Constable may, if the Chief Constable considers it to be in the public interest to do so, disclose to a person listed in subsection (2) information included in the barred list which relates to a particular person who is included in that list.

(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) the Board;

(b) the Ombudsman;

(d) an airport operator with control over airport police;

(e) a person of a description specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.

(3) A person may be specified in regulations under subsection (2)(e) only if the person has relevant public functions (as to which, see section 65R).

Police advisory list

65I Duty to maintain advisory list

(1) The Chief Constable must maintain a list of persons to be known as the police advisory list for Northern Ireland (‘the advisory list’).

(2) The advisory list must include such information in relation to a person included in the list as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.

(3) Regulations under this section may confer a discretion on the Chief Constable.

65J Inclusion of certain police officers and police support staff

(1) The Chief Constable must include a person in the advisory list if the person falls within subsection (2) or (4) (but this is subject to subsection (5)).

(2) A person falls within this subsection if the person ceases to be a member of the police force or the police support staff by resigning or retiring—

(a) after a relevant allegation about the person came to the attention of the Chief Constable, but

(b) before disciplinary proceedings in respect of the allegation are brought or, if brought, before they are concluded.

(3) But a person does not fall within subsection (2) if, before the person resigned or retired, it was determined that no disciplinary proceedings would be brought against the person in respect of the allegation.

(4) A person falls within this subsection if—

(a) the person ceases to be a member of the police force by resigning or retiring, and

(b) a relevant allegation about the person comes to the attention of the Chief Constable after the person resigned or retired.

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply where the person ceases to be a senior officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, or a senior employee of the Board (as to which, see section 65K).

(6) For the purposes of this section an allegation about a person is a relevant allegation if—

(a) it relates to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person, and

(b) it is of a type that, if proved and if the person had not resigned or retired, might have resulted in the person being dismissed, or required to resign, as described in section 65B(1)(a) or (c). (7) In this section, ‘disciplinary proceedings’ means—

(a) in relation to a person who has ceased to be a member of the police force by resigning or retiring, proceedings conducted under regulations made in pursuance of section 25 or 26;

(b) in relation to a person who has ceased to be a member of the police support staff by resigning or retiring, any proceedings that are identified as disciplinary proceedings in relation to such a person by regulations made by the Department of Justice.

65K Inclusion of senior officers and senior police support staff

(1) The Chief Constable must include a person in the advisory list if the person is reported to the Chief Constable under subsection (2) or (4).

(2) The Board must report a person to the Chief Constable if the person ceases to be a senior officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland or a senior employee of the Board by resigning or retiring—

(a) after a relevant allegation about the person came to the attention of the Board, but

(b) before disciplinary proceedings in respect of the allegation are brought or, if brought, before they are concluded.

(3) But the duty in subsection (2) does not apply if, before the person resigned or retired, it was determined that no disciplinary proceedings would be brought against the person in respect of the allegation.

(4) The Board must report a person to the Chief Constable if—

(a) the person ceases to be a senior officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland by resigning or retiring, and

(b) a relevant allegation about the person comes to the attention of the Board after the person resigned or retired.

(5) A report under subsection (2) or (4)—

(a) must be made within such period as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice;

(b) must include such information as is so specified.

(6) For the purposes of this section, an allegation about a person is a relevant allegation if—

(a) it relates to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person, and

(b) it is of a type that, if proved and if the person had not resigned or retired, might have resulted in the person being dismissed, or required to resign, as described in any of section 65C(2)(a), or (c).

(7) In this section, ‘disciplinary proceedings’ means—

(a) in relation to a person who has ceased to be a senior officer of the Police Service of Northern Ireland by resigning or retiring, proceedings conducted under regulations made in pursuance of section 25;

(b) in relation to a person who has ceased to be a senior employee of the Board by resigning or retiring, any proceedings that are identified as disciplinary proceedings in relation to such a person by regulations made by the Department of Justice.

65L Inclusion of airport police, harbour police and support staff

(1) The Chief Constable must include a person in the advisory list if the person is reported to the Chief Constable under subsection (2).

(2) The relevant transport authority must report a person to the Chief Constable if—

(a) the person, by resigning or retiring, ceases to be a member of—

(i) any airport police;

(ii) any airport police support staff;

(iii) any harbour police;

(iv) any harbour police support staff; and

(b) the condition in subsection (3) is met in relation to the person.

(3) The condition is that the resignation or retirement took place—

(a) after a relevant allegation about the person came to the attention of the relevant transport authority, but

(b) before disciplinary proceedings in respect of the allegation were brought or, if brought, before they concluded.

(4) But the condition in subsection (3) is not met if, before the person resigned or retired, it was determined that no disciplinary proceedings would be brought against the person in respect of the allegation.

(5) A report under subsection (2)—

(a) must be made within such period as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice;

(b) must include such information as is so specified.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), an allegation about a person is a relevant allegation if—

(a) it relates to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person, and

(b) it is of a type that, if proved and if the person had not resigned or retired, might have resulted in the person being dismissed as described in any of section 65D(2).

(7) In this section—

‘disciplinary proceedings’ means any proceedings that are identified as such by regulations made by the Department of Justice;

‘relevant transport authority’ has the meaning given by section 65D(4).

65M Inclusion of employees, seconded staff and contracted staff

(1) The Chief Constable must include a person in the advisory list if the person is reported to the Chief Constable under subsection (2).

(2) The relevant employer must report a person to the Chief Constable if—

(a) the person, by resigning or retiring, ceases to be—

(i) a person designated under section 31 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003;

(ii) a member of the staff of the Board;

(iii) a member of staff of the Ombudsman;

(iv)an employee of the civil service; and

(b) the condition in subsection (3) is met in relation to the person.

(3) The condition is that the resignation or retirement took place—

(a) after a relevant allegation about the person came to the attention of the relevant employer, but

(b) before disciplinary proceedings in respect of the allegation were brought or, if brought, before they concluded

(5) A report under subsection (2)—

(a) must be made within such period as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice;

(b) must include such information as is so specified.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), an allegation about a person is a relevant allegation if—

(a) it relates to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person, and

(b) it is of a type that, if proved and if the person had not resigned or retired, might have resulted in the person being dismissed as described in any of section 65E(2).

(7) Subsection (6) applies in respect of a person who ceases to be an employee of the civil service as if the reference to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person were a reference to the conduct, efficiency or effectiveness of the person during a period when the person was engaged under—

(a) paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 3 to provide administrative, secretarial or other assistance to the Ombudsman;

(b) section 4(4) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to provide assistance to the police;

(8) In this section—

‘disciplinary proceedings’ means any proceedings that are identified as such by regulations made by the Department of Justice; ‘relevant employer’ has the meaning given by section 65E(4).

65N Effect of inclusion in advisory list

(1) Before employing or appointing any person, a law enforcement employer must check the advisory list to ascertain whether the proposed employee or proposed appointee is included in the list.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person who is to be seconded to work for a law enforcement employer, and who will not be employed by that person, is to be regarded as being appointed by that person.

(3) Before designating a person under section 30, 30A or 31 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003, the Chief Constable must check the advisory list to ascertain whether the person is included in the list.

(4) For the meaning of ‘law enforcement employer’, see section 65R.

65P Removal from advisory list

(1) The Chief Constable must remove a person from the advisory list if—

(a) the person was included in the list by virtue of section 65J(1) and subsection (2) applies in respect of the person,

(b) the Chief Constable receives a further report in relation to the person under subsection (3), or

(2) This subsection applies in respect of a person if—

(a) it is determined that no disciplinary proceedings will be brought against the person,

(b) the disciplinary proceedings brought against the person are withdrawn, or

(c) the disciplinary proceedings brought against the person are concluded without there being a finding that the person would have been dismissed or required to resign.

(3) The relevant authority must make a further report to the Chief Constable in relation to a person where—

(a) the relevant authority has reported a person to the Chief Constable under section 65K(2) or (4), 65L(2), or 65M(2), and

(b) subsection (2) applies in respect of the person.

(4) A report under subsection (3) must—

(a) be made within such period as is specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice;

(b) include such information as is so specified.

(5) The Department of Justice may by regulations make provision in connection with the removal of a person from the advisory list otherwise than under subsection (1).

(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may confer functions on the Chief Constable including functions which involve the exercise of a discretion.

(7) In this section—

‘disciplinary proceedings’ means—

(a) in relation to a person who has ceased to be a member of the police force by resigning or retiring, proceedings conducted under regulations made in pursuance of section 25 or 26;

(b) in any other case, any proceedings that are identified as such by regulations made by the Department of Justice; ‘the relevant authority’ means the Board, the relevant transport authority or the relevant employer; ‘the relevant employer’ has the same meaning as in section 65E(4); ‘the relevant transport authority’ has the meaning given by section 65D(4).

65Q Power to disclose information in advisory list

(1) The Chief Constable may, if the Chief Constable considers it to be in the public interest to do so, disclose to a person listed in subsection (2) information included in the advisory list which relates to a particular person who is included in that list. (2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) the Board;

(b) the Ombudsman;

(d) an airport operator with control over airport police;

(e) a person of a description specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.

(3) A person may be specified in regulations under subsection (2)(e) only if the person has relevant public functions (as to which, see section 65R).

Supplementary

65R Meaning of ‘law enforcement employer’ and ‘relevant public functions’

(1) In this Part, ‘law enforcement employer’ means—

(a) the Chief Constable;

(b) the Board;

(d) a harbour authority with responsibility for maintaining harbour police, when exercising functions relating to the harbour police;

(e) an airport operator with control over airport police, when exercising functions relating to the airport police;

(f) a person of a description specified in regulations made by the Department of Justice.

(2) A person may be specified in regulations under subsection (1)(f) only if the person has relevant public functions exercisable in, or in relation to, Northern Ireland.

(3) If a person has both relevant public functions and other functions, the person may be specified

only—

(a) in relation to the exercise of the person's relevant public functions, or

(b) in relation to the exercise of such of those relevant public functions as are of a description specified in the regulations.

(4) In this Part, ‘relevant public functions’ means functions of a public nature that relate to policing or law enforcement.

65S Interpretation

In this Part—

‘advisory list’ has the meaning given by section 65I(1);

‘airport operator’ has the meaning given by Article 2(2) of the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994;

‘airport police’ means any body of constables appointed under Article 19 of the Airports (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, and a reference to a member of any airport police is to a constable so appointed;

‘barred list’ has the meaning given by section 65A(1);

‘barred person’ means a person who is included in the barred list by virtue of section 65B(1), 65C(1), 65D(1) or 65E(1);

‘harbour authority’ has the meaning given by section 38(2) of the Harbours Act

(Northern Ireland) 1970;

‘harbour police’ means—

(a) any body of special constables appointed in Northern Ireland under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) any body of constables appointed under an order made under section 1 of the Harbours Act (Northern Ireland) 1970; and a reference to a member of any harbour police is to a constable so appointed; ‘law enforcement employer’ has the meaning given by section 65R(1);

‘member of a harbour police support staff’ means a person employed by a harbour authority, and under the direction and control of a chief of harbour police who is not a member of the harbour police;

‘member of an airport police support staff’ means a person employed by an airport operator, and under the direction and control of a chief of airport police who is not a member of the airport police;

‘member of the staff of the Board’ means a person employed under paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 1 to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000;

‘member of the staff of the Ombudsman’ means a person employed under paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3;

‘relevant public functions’ has the meaning given by section 65R(4);

‘senior employee of the Board’ means an employee of such class or description as may be specified in regulations made under section 4(7) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.’." — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

No 131: After "functions;" insert "to amend the law to make provision about collaboration between bodies with functions relating to policing and law enforcement;" — [Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice).]

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Amendment No 68, together with amendment Nos 69 and 127, will create police barred and advisory lists for Northern Ireland. The creation of such lists will align Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom to create a cohesive and effective safeguard against those who have proven themselves to be unsuitable for a career in policing from gaining further employment in a policing profession.

Barred and advisory lists for policing in England and Wales have been in operation since 2017, and Scotland is setting up similar lists. The barred list will hold details of all officers and staff members who have been dismissed from policing after investigations under the relevant disciplinary regulations or process. Individuals will remain on the list indefinitely unless they win an appeal against their dismissal or make a successful review application, whereby they will have to provide clear evidence as to why they are suitable to rejoin policing.

Similarly, the advisory list will hold the details of individuals who retire or resign while they are the subject of a disciplinary investigation or who leave before an allegation comes to light. We are all aware of the concerns that have been raised in that regard in recent months. A key factor in the amendments is the inclusion of provision to enable police officers who retire or resign while they are the subject of an allegation and who have been added to the advisory list in the interim period to be brought back for misconduct proceedings. The secondary legislation — regulations — to be enacted once the primary power is in place will make provision for proceedings to be concluded in the former officer's absence. If it is found that a former officer would have been dismissed had they still been serving, they will be removed from the advisory list and added to the barred list.

The provisions will extend to law enforcement bodies in Northern Ireland, including the PSNI, the Belfast Harbour Police, the Belfast International Airport Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Those bodies will be unable to appoint any individual whose details are held on the barred list, and they must give careful consideration before appointing an individual whose details are held on the advisory list. Presently, Northern Ireland legislation does not support the introduction of that practice. The provisions will therefore guard against an individual who has demonstrated behaviours that make them unsuitable for a law enforcement role from gaining employment with another Northern Ireland law enforcement employer or another United Kingdom police force.

While there may not be the same statutory bar on employing individuals whose details are held on the barred and advisory lists for UK law enforcement bodies, they will be able to search and view the Northern Ireland lists and will therefore need to give due consideration before employing anyone who is on them. It is an ambition to put in place a reciprocal arrangement that will prevent any UK law enforcement body from employing an individual who is on any of the UK lists. I will seek to explore that further once all the UK lists are in place.

The amendments, which were developed for inclusion in the Bill at the request of the Committee for Justice, will close a legislative gap and further protect the public from the actions of individuals who are unsuitable to hold a law enforcement position and who might seek to abuse the power that would be entrusted to them in such a role.

I have also considered amendment Nos 76 and 77, tabled by Miss Nuala McAllister, which relate to new proposals to give the Police Ombudsman power to submit a report to the appropriate authority at any point during their investigation or before criminal proceedings have concluded. The amendments will allow PSNI special case hearings, also known as fast-track hearings, to proceed prior to the conclusion of a criminal case. They will amend section 56 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to give the ombudsman powers to submit a written report before an investigation is complete. In cases in which an investigator believes that the appropriate authority would be likely to determine that the "special conditions" are met, they will be able to submit a written report on their investigation to date. That, in turn, can facilitate a fast-track hearing. The special conditions are that there is sufficient evidence that the officer's conduct constitutes gross misconduct and that it is in the public interest for an officer to cease to serve without delay.

It is important to note that, on receipt of a referral to a fast-track hearing, the appropriate authority will still be required to consider whether disciplinary proceedings could prejudice any future criminal case and that, depending on that assessment, such proceedings may therefore not go ahead in some cases.

The proposals will also amend section 59 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 by seeking to remove the requirement for the ombudsman to await Public Prosecution Service (PPS) decisions to initiate criminal proceedings and, if initiated, the conclusion of those criminal proceedings before it may make a recommendation to the appropriate authority with regard to the discipline of a police officer.

Presently, in Northern Ireland, provisions in section 59 prevent disciplinary proceedings from being brought by the appropriate authority before it receives the ombudsman's memorandum. That can result in a lengthy period before disciplinary proceedings can be taken forward. As we know, there has been much public criticism about officers being suspended on full pay, often for many years, while they await the outcome of an ombudsman's investigation. I am very supportive of the amendment that will allow the ombudsman to submit an early report where it is clear that the officer concerned has committed gross misconduct. The amendment will provide the PSNI with access to the information needed to commence and conclude disciplinary proceedings without undue delay, subject to the appropriate authority's assessment of any prejudice to criminal cases. Where gross misconduct has been found, there is a clear public interest to expedite disciplinary proceedings for officers.

I believe that the package of measures provides us with an opportunity to ensure that the PSNI and other investigatory bodies with police powers are held to the highest standards and to ensure that we protect the public from any rogue officers who conduct themselves in a way that is incompatible with the responsibilities and the duties that they hold. It is important for public confidence that that can be done in a timely fashion. The combination of having barred and advisory lists, which will help with public protection, and having the ability to expedite gross misconduct proceedings will help to build confidence and trust, both of which are essential for people in our community. I commend the amendments to the House.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

As part of the evidence on the Bill, the Committee received a submission from the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB). In the submission, the board advised that, while it is not part of the Bill, it would welcome a review of current police misconduct regulations. The board said that a review could identify improvements in the use of existing legislative provision that would enable police misconduct cases to be progressed expeditiously. A review could look at issues such as vetting procedures, how misconduct hearings are conducted, criminal proceedings against police officers and the use of regulation 13, which deals with the dismissal of officers during probation. The Committee welcomed that submission from the board and followed it up by writing to the Department to seek information on any work to review the misconduct regulations.

The Department confirmed that the regulatory framework within which the misconduct process operates was being considered. The Department said that it was engaging with key stakeholders, and it was expected that any changes on those matters would require primary or secondary legislation. The Department also later confirmed that the Minister had taken on board the results of a targeted consultation on police misconduct that had closed in October 2025 and would progress the issue of former officer misconduct via amendments to the Justice Bill. It also advised that other legislative changes to the framework would be made via secondary legislation by way of amendment to the Police (Conduct) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016. While the Committee had asked for police misconduct regulations to be explored, we did not have sight of the amendment during Committee Stage and, therefore, do not have an agreed position on it.

Amendment No 69, together with the new schedule at amendment No 127, deals with the establishment of barred and advisory lists for Northern Ireland. Amendment No 131 is a consequential amendment to update the long title.

The Minister has set out the purpose of the barred and advisory lists, so I will not repeat that. The Committee had asked the Minister to consider bringing forward the creation of barred and advisory lists by way of an amendment to the Bill. In June 2025, the Committee was advised that provision to create barred and advisory lists may be included in a second legislative consent motion on the Crime and Policing Bill at Westminster.

Capacity constraints in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel meant that the lists would apply only to the PSNI and not to other relevant bodies in Northern Ireland such as the Policing Board, the Police Ombudsman, the harbour police and the international airport constabulary.

A subsequent update from the Department in October 2025 informed the Committee that provision for the barred and advisory lists for the PSNI would no longer be included in the Bill by way of an amendment. That was hugely concerning, as the use of those lists would be important to improve confidence in policing and could assist with safeguarding issues. The Committee therefore agreed to ask the Minister whether there would be scope to bring the provisions forward via an amendment to the Justice Bill or as part of either of the two other pieces of primary legislation that were planned for the mandate. In late October, the Minister advised that it was her intention to bring forward an amendment to the Justice Bill to make provision for barred and advisory lists for all law enforcement bodies in Northern Ireland. That was welcomed by Committee members. We appreciate the Minister's commitment to closing that gap. It was also welcomed that the provisions are not limited to the PSNI but extend to the other relevant bodies here. The Committee did not have sight of the text of the amendments during its consideration of the Bill, however, so, although the Committee sought the provision, we were not able to take a formal position on amendment Nos 69, 127 and 131.

I will now speak on these matters as an individual MLA and DUP spokesperson on justice. Police misconduct and discipline are vital for a number of reasons: to keep people safe, but also to ensure that confidence in policing is increased, or that what confidence there is can be maintained. The subject matter that we are debating today is critical. The police force in Northern Ireland — the PSNI — is heavily scrutinised and regulated, not least in this place and through legislation, but by the Policing Board. That makes Northern Ireland and the PSNI unique. I will not address all the historical caveats and the journeys that we have been on with regard to the PSNI and the Royal Ulster Constabulary before it. The bravery of our Police Service must, however, be put on record: the bravery of police officers and their families, of people who serve in what is now the PSNI, but also of the people who served in the Royal Ulster Constabulary at a time when they were under threat not only in their place of work and in the course of the service that they provided but at home, when they were off duty.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that we all echo his sentiments. As we see, young officers who have joined the PSNI today find themselves in the same situation whereby they and their families are threatened by those who wish to cause them harm and disrupt our community. It is important that they know that they have our full support. It is also important that they have our full trust and respect. That is why these regulations are so important, so that, where there are individuals who are engaged in misconduct that would bring shame on the Police Service, we are able to swiftly remove those individuals from their posts to protect the public and the reputation of the Police Service.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that intervention and for her words. I echo the point about ensuring that we retain and maintain that professionalism as the Police Service serves all the people of Northern Ireland, keeping them safe, investigating crime and bringing people to justice. We are debating really important stuff here today.

I commend the Minister — I am making a habit of that — with regard to the barred and advisory lists. The Committee asked that of her, and she has tabled the amendments that will bring in those lists.

While the Committee cannot have a position on the amendments because of the time frame, we are more than comfortable with that arrangement and with the amendments and the bringing in of the police barred list and police advisory list. Those are critical, because we live in a place where people move about. Therefore, there are issues whereby, for whatever reason, people leave constabularies in England and Wales and come over here and vice versa. People in that line of work who have that trade might well travel elsewhere. It is about making sure that the constabularies throughout the United Kingdom are aligned and have parallel information that they can share to ensure that someone who applies for a transfer or to be recruited to the Police Service is properly vetted and attested and that everyone has confidence, even the management in the police, that those people are appropriate and are worthy of serving the people of Northern Ireland in that way.

It is important that it applies not just to the PSNI. Most people will not realise that we have other law enforcement agencies that cover different things, such as airports and ports, and we have the Policing Board. It is important that there is a holistic approach to dealing with barred lists and advisory lists. Therefore, I commend the Minister for her work with the Committee in ensuring that the amendments made it to the Consideration Stage of the Bill and that we can all debate their content.

That brings me to amendment No 68, which is a substantial amendment and covers three full pages of vast, dense text and detail, and it is really hard to get our heads around it. I understand the detail. I understand where the Minister is coming from and why she has moved in that way. I also believe that we need some way to ensure that disciplinary matters can be investigated and brought to light, even in circumstances where officers have retired.

The DUP understands that, for some officers whose professionalism and conduct have been called into question after they have retired, it may be beneficial to have misconduct proceedings concluded in order for them to clear their name. However, it must also be weighed up against the implications that making provision for disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against those no longer in service and employment would have for the rights of those individuals, not least in respect of federation and legal support. Additionally, this question must be asked: where else in the public sector is that legislated for? Someone who is retired from the police force loses the services, rights and privileges in being defended but then faces disciplinary action for something that could have happened years before.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Can the Member outline in what other sphere anybody in the public sector has the privileges and rights that he talks about? I see those only in the PSNI. That is not to say that they need to be removed, but I do not think that anybody else in the public sector has the rights and privileges that PSNI officers have.

I thank the Member for her comments. I commend her for the work that she does on the Policing Board and in other areas and for the work that she has done of late to expose some of the issues that we are debating. She will, no doubt, include a lot of that in her contribution today, and I look forward to hearing it. I commend MLAs who work diligently, work on the detail and scrutinise properly, so I commend the Member for her work in that regard.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

I also commend the Members from my party who sit on the Policing Board for the sterling work that they do in really difficult situations to support the police while being a critical friend. They do that to ensure that the police force is the best that it can be. There will be issues that we need to iron out. This is about discipline and making sure that our Police Service is professional. It is about keeping people safe while making sure that people have confidence in the police. As MLAs, we need to make sure that we have confidence in the processes that we put in place.

The Minister stated her belief that amendment No 68, which is the new clause on police discipline, will not be retrospective in its application and will affect only those retiring after the provision has been commenced. The Minister will know that we had an issue about the retrospectivity of any amendment. I thank the Minister for the clarification. On the face of it, however, the amendment does not deal with the fact that there is no statute of limitations for the types of allegations that can trigger proceedings of that nature. In theory, that could mean that, where a PSNI officer has 25 or 30 years' experience and is still employed at the time that the new clause takes effect, they could retire yet still face the threat of being investigated for allegations relevant to Troubles-related investigations from the 1990s, for example, or other allegations of misconduct.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will give way, yes.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will clarify the point about retrospectivity. The issue is that, first, it would give the Chief Constable or the employing authority the same power as there is in England to recall somebody up to year after they leave service, where an allegation of misconduct is serious. It would need to be a serious allegation to meet that threshold. To recall someone beyond a year, the allegation would have to go to the ombudsman for sign-off, and, because of the laws around retrospectivity, the failing would have to have been pertinent at the time that it occurred. For example, changes to the law in the interim would not be allowed to be applied retrospectively as the standards to which the officer would have been held at that time.

I appreciate the time that the Member has given to interventions on the matter, but it is important, particularly given that Nuala and I are on the Policing Board and we deal with it daily. Cheryl and Keith are in the same position.

It is important to understand that the PSNI wants it. In fairness to the Chief Constable, he has used the special case review much more than it was used previously, and it is to his credit that he has done that. It is important because there are two issues in it. You either have officers who have been sitting at home for many years on full pay, doing no job, or you have officers with really serious allegations against them who are moved into other positions of power in the PSNI. That is a problem. It is really difficult to say which of those is the good option. Neither is a good option. The only good option is to get it dealt with, for the officers' sake as well, because, at the end of the day, if there are officers sitting and waiting for an outcome, they need it too. They need to be able to move on. Their families need to be able to move on. They need to know what the rest of their life looks like. That is important. It is important to PSNI as well, and it is important to all.

Mr Martin mentioned the things that officers have to face and deal with. We know better than anybody else. We sit on the Policing Board. We hear it. We work with police in our communities. We understand better than anybody else what police have to face daily. I do not remove anything from that.

For all those good officers, however, who do really good work every day on the things that they have to face, the officers who are not doing the right thing need to be dealt with quickly and removed, because they remove confidence from the police and the ability of good police officers to do their job effectively. They waste money and resources every day.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member makes a really valid point. She comes from a very learned position, because she is on the Policing Board and spent time before that dealing with similar issues on the Justice Committee. I get that position, and I hear the Member loud and clear about how moving those things on is as much for the police officers involved and their colleagues as anything else. I hear the points about the significance and importance of the measures, and I thank the Member who tabled the amendments. She knows that I have great sympathy for all Members who table amendments and try to change the law, so I commend her on that.

I also commend the fact that Nuala put special conditions in her amendments, which are:

"(a) that misconduct proceedings would not prejudice any criminal proceedings, (b) that there is sufficient evidence, in the form of written statements or other documents, without the need for further evidence, whether written or oral, to establish on the balance of probabilities that the conduct of the member of the police force concerned constitutes gross misconduct, and (c) that it is in the public interest for the member of the police force concerned to cease to be a member without delay."

Those are very special conditions that help to inform the amendments and add reassurance.

In conclusion, I ask whether the Member, the Minister and their party will commit to examining whether the amendments could be strengthened and another layer of safeguards added to protect against those powers being used in a way that brings the ombudsman and the PSNI into conflict or potentially forces the hand of the PSNI to determine proceedings in a certain way. We wonder whether it might be appropriate to have not only PSNI agreement to fast-track those cases but a requirement for the PPS to attest that the exercise of the powers in amendment Nos 76 and 77 in any individual case would not prejudice ongoing criminal proceedings.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. In my speech, I was going to say that I am willing to work with the Minister and the Department to see whether the amendments need to be strengthened in any way, because I am conscious that they are amendments to primary legislation, not a Bill in its entirety. I am content with that, and, if the Minister is content, I will work with her and the Committee.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member who proposed the amendments for her intervention. The DUP offers these comments in a constructive spirit, realising what we are trying to achieve. I look forward to listening to Members' contributions and to the Minister's winding-up speech on the group 4 amendments.

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

This group of amendments is about ensuring that policing and police oversight arrangements here remain effective, accountable and fit for purpose. That is important, because public confidence in policing is one of the foundations on which our justice system must rest. That confidence is built not only on the ability of the Police Service to prevent and detect crime but on the existence of the robust systems of accountability, transparency and professional standards that there must be. Therefore, it is right that the Assembly periodically reviews the legislative framework within which policing exists to ensure that it remains capable of meeting modern expectations.

I will first look at the amendments relating to police discipline and standards. The overwhelming majority of police officers serve with professionalism, integrity and dedication. It is important that we recognise that at the outset. They undertake difficult and often dangerous work on behalf of the public, and they deserve our support. Like other Members, I recognise that that is one of the most important lines that we can suggest from this place today. However, public confidence depends on the knowledge that, where serious misconduct occurs, we have the appropriate mechanisms in place to investigate it, to address it and to prevent those who are responsible from simply moving to other parts of the policing system. The amendments relate to police discipline together with the establishment of barred and advisory lists, and they seek to address precisely that issue.

In many respects, the provisions bring us into line with arrangements that already operate elsewhere across these islands. They help to ensure that officers who are dismissed for serious misconduct cannot simply re-enter policing or related roles without appropriate scrutiny. With my background in youth work, I can see the connection to child protection guidelines from 25 or 30 years ago, when we had to have the appropriate lists and checks put in place in order to stop people moving from one organisation to another and continuing with behaviours that were not appropriate. The public are entitled to know that high standards are expected, maintained and enforced. That helps to drive confidence in policing.

The same principle applies to the amendments that relate to information sharing and professional standards. Modern policing increasingly operates across organisational and jurisdictional boundaries, and effective cooperation requires confidence that the relevant information can be shared appropriately and that safeguards exist to protect the public and the integrity of the profession. It is about having the confidence that behind the scenes or "under the hood" in human resources departments there exists the ability to share all that information and ensure that people are not able to move around.

The second significant theme in the group 4 amendments relates to the role of the Police Ombudsman. The Office of the Police Ombudsman occupies a unique position in our policing architecture. Independent oversight is a fundamental component of maintaining public confidence in policing and ensuring that complaints and allegations are investigated thoroughly, fairly and transparently. The relevant amendments seek to clarify the circumstances in which the Police Ombudsman may provide reports to the appropriate authority while investigations or related proceedings remain ongoing.

As Members will appreciate, those issues require a careful balance to be struck. On the one hand, there is legitimate public interest in transparency, accountability and the timely reporting of issues that may require attention. On the other hand, there is a need to protect the integrity of investigations and any associated criminal proceedings. It is crucial that we get that balance right, so that we can ensure that there is confidence but also to make sure that we do not get any of the investigations wrong by jumping too soon.

It is our understanding that the amendments have been developed following engagement between the Department of Justice, the Office of the Police Ombudsman and the PSNI, and that the Police Service and the ombudsman are supportive of the proposed changes. That is an important point. Too often, discussions about police accountability can be framed as a choice between supporting policing or supporting police oversight. In reality, both effective policing and effective oversight are essential components of confidence in policing.

Where amendments are capable of strengthening the operation of the accountability framework and command support from the Police Service and the ombudsman, it should give Members confidence that they represent a practical attempt to improve how the system operates rather than a departure from its core principles. Ultimately, accountability mechanisms must be capable of carrying out their functions effectively. The relevant amendments seek to assist in achieving that objective, while maintaining appropriate safeguards and protections.

More broadly, the amendments in this group reflect a recognition that our institutions must evolve. The structures that govern policing and policing accountability today cannot simply be the structures that existed 20 or 30 years ago. We all know that new challenges emerge, public expectation changes and lessons have to be learned from experience. Our responsibility as legislators is to ensure that the framework that supports policing evolves accordingly, alongside our experiences and with time. Taken together, these amendments strengthen professional standards, improve accountability in policing structures, enhance public confidence and ensure that our policing framework remains consistent with best practice elsewhere. For the SDLP, those are important objectives. We support a Police Service that is effective in keeping our communities safe. We support police officers who carry out their duties correctly. We also support independent oversight to ensure that there is robust accountability and the highest professional standards. Those principles are not in conflict with one another; they are mutually reinforcing. Group 4, at its core, is about maintaining public confidence and ensuring that the systems that underpin policing remain modern, effective and credible, so the SDLP will support the broad thrust of the amendments in the group.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I will speak on the group 4 amendments that Sinn Féin will support, and I thank the Minister and her party colleagues for the work on them.

We all acknowledge that there are massive problems with the structure and accountability of existing PSNI disciplinary procedures. The problems are not just historical but are reflected in recent media coverage and reports that have had negative implications for public confidence in policing. My colleague Linda Dillon, who represents our party on the Policing Board and has spoken about the issues for a number of years, will talk about that in more detail.

The recent Langdale review found that there was:

"clear evidence of sexism and misogyny within the PSNI".

The review into the murder of Katie Simpson found institutional misogyny in the PSNI. We have seen a case in which the lies and testimony of a known abuser, who had previously been convicted, were believed, and we know the ramifications of that across society for confidence in policing. We have also had a report by the Police Ombudsman's chief executive that found that PSNI officers had abused their position to gain sexual favours. None of those things is acceptable in a modern society, and they have to be addressed.

The Police Ombudsman has called for new, fast-tracking disciplinary powers that can be used when it is obvious that there has been misconduct. We cannot have the current situation whereby police officers can be suspended indefinitely, remain on full pay for years at a time and then retire or resign before allegations are brought to light. That gives them a protection that is not deserved. In exchanges with DUP representatives on the Justice Committee, we have had a conversation about the fact that police officers are charged with a heavy responsibility and duty in society, which means that they should be held to a standard and do not have the right to implement the law when they break the law. That is important, and we have to bear it in mind.

Our justice system is underfunded and is slow because of that. That means that criminal investigations are often held up longer than they should be. It is not acceptable that police disciplinary processes cannot begin until criminal proceedings have concluded. We therefore welcome the amendments that allow the Police Ombudsman to submit a report for disciplinary procedures during an investigation when the evidence suggests that there has been wrongdoing, as well as the amendment that will allow police officers to be investigated during a criminal investigation where it looks as if there has been wrongdoing. We also welcome the creation of police barred and advisory lists, because somebody who is found to have broken the law cannot be responsible for implementing the law.

I welcome all the amendments.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I do not think that I have to, but, just in case, I declare that I am a member of the Policing Board.

I will speak to all the amendments in group 4, which, from my perspective, close a single gap from opposite ends when it comes to police accountability, whether that is through the PSD or the Police Ombudsman.

Amendment Nos 68 and 69 will stop officers evading accountability by resigning or retiring. Amendment No 127 will create a new schedule containing a barred list, to which any officers who have been dismissed can be added. They can also be added to the advisory list while under investigation. Amendment Nos 76 and 77 would give the Police Ombudsman a fast-track power to act on clear, incontrovertible evidence of gross misconduct rather than have to wait years for an investigation or a criminal trial to conclude.

Before I go into any more detail, and before any comments are made about the intent behind those amendments, it is really important that I acknowledge, as many Members do, that the PSNI is well respected and carries out an extraordinary public safety role. Its officers keep our communities safe while acting within the rule of law and adhering to its code of ethics. Public confidence is therefore needed.

I became a member of the Policing Board in 2022. There were many occasions before then on which issues to do with professional misconduct had come to my attention, but being a member of the Policing Board has given me a greater insight into police dealings when it comes to such things. There are gaps in processes, and those gaps must be closed. For anyone who is not aware, the anti-corruption unit in the professional standards department can initiate investigations of current serving officers. When those investigations conclude, the ACU has many tools at its disposal, including considering repositioning, line management issues, suspension and, following special case hearings, even dismissal.

As we all know, however, the police have found themselves in circumstances in the past — this is also the case for the entirety of the criminal justice system — in which they have not been resourced enough. The professional standards department, which is the appropriate authority, has stated many times to the Policing Board's performance committee that it is not resourced enough to carry out investigations as quickly as it would like to. My understanding from information that we have received at the board is that the PSD has put further resource and manpower into being able to carry out investigations more quickly. Currently, however, any officer under investigation can resign or retire, which takes the matter of misconduct proceedings completely off the table. Misconduct proceedings cannot be taken against anyone who has left the police. Nothing then prevents them from being employed by the other police force on this island, by a police force in another jurisdiction or, indeed, by a public service. It must also be said that, even where misconduct proceedings are finalised and a person still employed by the PSNI is found guilty of misconduct, we do not have a barred list or an advisory list. The amendments from the Minister are therefore welcome.

Although the majority of the comments that I make today will be about the most serious misconduct issues, it is important to highlight the fact that the Police Ombudsman and the police already have many powers. For officers under investigation, there are two possible duty adjustments, which are that they can be suspended or repositioned. There are also the options of a final written warning, a written warning, management advice and no further action, as well as the more serious options of dismissal without notice, reduction in rank and dismissal with notice. It is important to state that those options are used. Within the past few months, the Chief Constable has acknowledged at the Policing Board that he has taken on more special case hearings than previous Chief Constables did. He has the will to expedite such hearings to ensure that the process does not drag on.

A number of years ago, a rather serious internal issue for the PSNI came to the public's attention. Officers had been suspended for some time for sharing obscene images from scenes of sudden deaths. That reignited the debate around misconduct proceedings, because those officers were suspended for some time. I know that they have been dealt with and that was not a new issue at the time. I respect the fact that there were people on the Policing Board from before my time who had been working on those issues, but there was then an opportunity to highlight the issue again. In 2021 and 2022, 10 officers resigned or retired whilst under investigation for misconduct, but, by 2026, 66 officers had resigned or retired whilst under investigation. Some might see that as an insignificant number because the PSNI is a large police force. It may be a very small number, but the police are there to protect the public. They are the first responders to the scene of a crime, scenes of serious incidents and, along with other first responders, natural disasters, and it is important that the public have confidence in them to carry out their role. It is also important that they are held to the standard that is expected of a public servant in a position of responsibility and power, especially considering the use-of-force powers that they have. Therefore, I do not make any apology for ensuring that my voice and other voices are heard when it comes to the accountability and scrutiny of the PSNI on that aspect.

I have long campaigned for the issue to be fixed. When I wrote to the Justice Minister, I was delighted with the positive response that the Department was going to table an amendment. It is better that it comes from the Department of Justice so that it can be strengthened and made as strong as it possibly can be. I also recognise that, in her speech, the Minister outlined that there would be further regulations on the issue, reflective of those in England and Wales.

I cannot begin to discuss the detail of all the amendments without touching on the case that reignited public outrage at the current ability of PSNI officers to resign or retire whilst under a misconduct investigation: the case of Katie Simpson. That is important and relevant to the amendments that are before us. First, it is about time — time enabling evasion of misconduct proceedings. Back in January 2023, I first brought to the attention of the then Chief Constable the people who had come to me, internally and externally, about the case and the handling of the murder of Katie Simpson. In January 2023 — the date is very important — I went back to the Chief Constable, who, rightly, referred me to the Police Ombudsman. I went to the Police Ombudsman, and I asked every other person who had been in contact with me to do the same. The Police Ombudsman had already opened a case back in 2020; the case had been opened almost three years to the day before I returned to the Chief Constable. However, a year later, the Creswell case had gone to trial, and it was clear that, by that stage, the PSNI's professional standards department and the Deputy Chief Constable had in their hands the PONI report into the investigation. I do not know why it was not acted on at that time, but most of the officers who were involved were still employed by the PSNI. Then Jonathan Creswell took his own life and evaded justice. I could then speak out publicly about the case. I could not do so previously because I did not want to jeopardise the case.

Despite numerous — I mean numerous — attempts in private meetings at the Northern Ireland Policing Board, at committees and in meetings with the then Deputy Chief Constable, the new Chief Constable, the former Chief Constable and representatives from the professional standards department, there was an unwillingness to deal with the issue. I say that as someone who stood this morning in defence of the PSNI, in recognition that it does a brave job. However, it must be highlighted that, when the PSNI needs to be held to account, it should be. In this instance, when it came to public representatives, along with many members of the public, bringing forward issues, there was an unwillingness to deal with the issues arising from Katie Simpson's murder.

That was back in June 2024. How many of the officers who were under investigation have resigned or retired? The answer is five; two of whom were of a senior rank. Of all the officers who were involved in the case, not many more were being investigated. In the three years from PONI first opened the case — it took a long time to complete it and bring forward misconduct proceedings — five had resigned or retired. In the end, it did not matter. They were no longer needed. However, flash forward to today, and you see that the PSNI has moved on.

The Melia review acknowledged and set out in black and white many of the things that I have been saying for years, and for which I was condemned by Members and members of the public: the PSNI needed to wake up. No matter who you are or what rank you hold, you ought to be held accountable. The PSNI has finally realised that it needs to change and move on. I welcome the comments by the Deputy Chief Constable and the Chief Constable that they agree that misconduct proceedings need to change. They need to speed up and ensure that people cannot evade disciplinary proceedings by retiring or resigning. We cannot stop them from doing so — that is a discussion for another day — but we must allow the professional standards department and PONI to continue those proceedings.

I want to address the detail of the individual amendments. I said that I welcome the amendments from the Minister on the barred list and advisory list. Why should an officer, who is subject to a case of serious misconduct, be able to retire or resign and then go elsewhere to be employed within the UK or the Republic of Ireland? That should not happen, especially if that officer more than likely was going to be dismissed from the PSNI here. Currently, the police can file an intelligence report for future vetting when an officer leaves under a cloud. There is no barred list, so nothing prevents re-employment. The Minister said that individuals would remain on the list indefinitely unless they won an appeal against their dismissal or made a successful review application, when they would have to provide clear evidence of why they were now suitable to rejoin the police. It is important to have that option for people but also to emphasise that the system needs to be appropriate. It needs to be accepted that if a person is going to be a serving police officer, not only in this force, there should be a reflection on past proceedings.

I welcome the Minister's comments about the policy intent of the amendments, including that the advisory list will hold details of individuals who retire or resign while they are the subject of a disciplinary investigation. As I said, why should someone who resigns or retires, intentionally or unintentionally, while under investigation go on to be an officer in any other police force or work in law enforcement in Northern Ireland? When I brought the case of Katie Simpson into the public domain and to the Policing Board, along with other issues that concern cases that cannot be mentioned publicly, officers resigned or retired, some within a matter of months, and sometimes within weeks. I am not saying that there was intention behind that, but it should not be acceptable. There need to be repercussions for everyone, no matter their role.

I welcome the Minister saying that there will be further work on the reciprocal arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland on sharing the barred list to prevent re-employment. That is important, and I am more than happy to work with the Minister at the Policing Board and do what I can to ensure that all the mechanisms are in place to enable that. It is important to highlight that officers in Northern Ireland carry out their duties under different circumstances to officers elsewhere, not only across the UK and Ireland but anywhere in the world. It is important to highlight that the list is not going to be publicly available. Someone cannot just google it and find out who is on it, especially when someone is under investigation.

I want to follow up on comments made by the Chair of the Committee regarding the severity of the misconduct that we are talking about, particularly in amendment Nos 68 and 69. Amendment No 68 is lengthy, and sets out conditions at (3A), (3B) and (3C). I raise that because it is important. I would like to see the DUP support those amendments. I understand that it has concerns that they might include legacy cases and cases that go really far back. What is laid down there will come in regulations.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Yes.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I tried to assuage those concerns. It is worth noting, however, that the regulation will apply only to someone who retires after the legislation becomes operational.

Officers who have already retired or who retire while we await Royal Assent will not be covered, so the provision is retrospective only in the sense that, as, for example, in the regulations for England and Wales, the period by which the Chief Constable can go back is a year. It does not open a can of worms by going back a lot further, because, for the provision to apply to someone, they would have had to retire after the legislation was introduced.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister. I was not coming to that point, so it is helpful that she intervened to highlight it.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Yes.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Given what the Justice Minister has just said, does the Member agree that not many officers remain in PSNI who were in the RUC at the time that has been referred to? If there are any, we are talking about a very small number.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Absolutely. It needs to be said that, from my perspective, the intent of the amendments was never to include such legacy cases. We know that the PSNI is under overwhelming stress in dealing with legacy cases and having to take resources from current cases in order to do so.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Yes.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

The Member used the word "intent". Just to be absolutely clear, there are officers still in service who served during the Troubles. I could name 10 — obviously, I will not — off the top of my head. I appreciate that it is not retrospective, but, if Officer A retires or resigns after the legislation passes and is given Royal Assent, is it possible that that officer could have a case taken that relates to the Troubles? Legally possible or not? Clarify that for me, please.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Not under these amendments; that is what I was coming to.

There are three conditions: A, B and C. If a case is made under condition C, in that the allegation comes to light after the person retires, once the Act is commenced, the Police Ombudsman must, in serious cases, take into consideration:

"(a) the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness, (b) the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police, and (c) the public interest."

Also to be taken into account is the fact that the regulations further up in the conditions that are set out will have a time limit. I appreciate that that is not in the Bill, but it will be set out in regulations that will mirror those in England and Wales. The Justice Minister has committed to that today.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Yes.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There will be two restrictions on what can happen. The first is that, in the case of anyone who has retired in the previous year, it will be for the Chief Constable to decide whether the threshold has been met; that mirrors the regulations in England and Wales. The second condition in England and Wales is that someone can be recalled only where the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) agrees that that is appropriate. We do not have that facility, which is why the ombudsman would have to agree that. A series of conditions and tests would need to be met in the ombudsman's consideration of whether anything beyond a year may be considered. That would require the ombudsman to prove, first, that it would be proportionate, fair and reasonable to reopen the issue. The second test is about whether there would be an impact on public confidence, and the third is about the seriousness of the allegation in question. The allegation would have to be of sufficient seriousness that, had it been brought up when the person was in service, they would have faced dismissal.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Yes.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I am still not getting the clarity that this requires. I need to make this 100% clear. You have laid down criteria for the ombudsman. My view is that the ombudsman has been institutionally biased against the Royal Ulster Constabulary; in fact, her most recent statements have had to be set aside. If the case was an old one that related to the Troubles in which the allegation was something akin to collusive behaviour, you could, if you wanted to, almost certainly tick off those criteria and meet them. You would say that it was the most serious breach of confidence in a public officeholder; that is number 1. Number 2, would it affect public confidence? There would be those in one community who would say that it would not. Number 3, would it be sufficiently serious? Well, it potentially relates to the covering up of evidence. Is it or is it not legally possible that a police officer could retire after 40 years' service and be brought back at the request of the ombudsman to face a case of misconduct for something that allegedly happened in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s? Is that legally possible: yes or no?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I am happy to give way to the Minister if she wants to come in.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am more than happy to answer that. First, I draw the Member's attention to the fact that we do not currently have an ombudsman. It is therefore unfair to discuss a private individual and make allegations about how they conducted themselves in their role or how their office conducted itself. It is unhelpful for somebody who was formerly in the PSNI to make disparaging comments of that nature about the ombudsman's role and office.

Secondly, there is a theoretical possibility that, if the ombudsman believed that there was a serious breach that would have led to dismissal at the time, someone could be recalled. I hope that the Member is not suggesting that we should simply turn a blind eye to such a serious breach, given his previous role in PSD.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her intervention.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way? It will be the last time.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

In a wee second, because I want to go on.

One of the issues that I am raising here is the seriousness of the alleged misconduct and the public interest. We should not use anything to undermine public interest and serious misconduct. Any officer who would have been dismissed for serious misconduct had they been a serving officer should be dealt with.

When it comes to legacy, we already have institutions and the PSNI, which is under overwhelming stress and has a heavy workload, dealing with those cases. Of course, we already have PONI cases on legacy. However, the amendment arose from what the Policing Board and the police themselves recommended to close the gap on current accountability.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.55 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

2. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Justice to outline any consideration given to the reintroduction of doli incapax when reviewing the age of criminal responsibility for children and young people. (AQO 3688/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was abolished in 1998 as part of an overhaul of wider youth justice legislation. No consideration has been given to its reintroduction as part of my Department’s work to review and increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR).

Doli incapax enabled the prosecution of some younger children, if it could be proven that they had the cognitive maturity to understand that their actions represented serious wrongdoing. In the years since its abolition, advances in neuroscience have shown that children’s brains are still maturing well into adolescence and that they lack the cognitive, emotional and moral capacity to be held criminally responsible in the same way as adults. That is a scientific fact, and we should not force children to prove it to the courts.

Our understanding of the impact of trauma, adverse childhood incidents and societal factors on children has also increased in recent years, and we know that many of those factors can lead children into offending behaviour. That has resulted in the adoption of a child-first approach to youth offending. Consequently, the number of children facing prosecution has greatly reduced. Indeed, it is extremely rare for a child under the age of 14 to be sentenced to custody in Northern Ireland.

Reintroducing doli incapax would have a significant operational impact on justice partners, particularly the police and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), who would be faced with having to process every child who is accused and arrested up to the point of an assessment and a decision being made. In many cases, that could be nugatory work at a time when resources are stretched. I therefore do not believe that returning to doli incapax is in the best interests of children, victims or communities. Instead, we should focus on working with children to help them to understand the impact and consequences of their behaviour, encourage them to take responsibility for their actions and support them to make changes and avoid future offending. That is the most effective way to ensure that our communities are safer and that the number of victims is reduced.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

That is disappointing to hear. How does the Minister intend to address the concerns of professionals over the heightened risk of exploitation of children by criminals should her party colleague's amendment on raising the age of criminal responsibility be passed?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The rules are already in place in the defence of coercion. They would apply in situations in which younger children are coerced into criminal activity and be dealt with under child criminal exploitation measures, in which case the offence is committed by the older person rather than the child.

If you do not raise the age of criminal responsibility, the danger is that young children will still be groomed into criminal gangs but, instead of being able to treat them as victims, the police will first have to process them as potential criminals. That has led to the criticism that too few children are being referred to the national referral mechanism (NRM) as a result of the coercive activity that led them to offend in the first place.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her pronunciation of "doli incapax" given how I was going to say it. I appreciate your clarifying that, Minister.

Does the Minister agree that we have seen, across the world, that that model is costly and inefficient and that best practice across the world tells us that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility leads to better outcomes for young people across our society?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member. It is a long time since I studied Latin at school, and I doubt that my pronunciation is perfect, so either of us could be right on that.

Our understanding of how children's brains develop and the influences that can be brought to bear on them has moved on. We have a successful youth justice system that aims to deflect young children away from the criminal justice system at every stage and to support them and their families to tackle offending and dangerous behaviours.

It is important to look at what other jurisdictions do in that space. Those that tend to have better outcomes for their young people and safer communities are those that tend not to criminalise people at a young age but instead put in place the supports to protect them from potential criminal exploitation and to deal with potential offending behaviours at the earliest point so that young people do not go on to commit more serious offences.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I will not try to pronounce the phrase, because Emma has confused me about how I was going to pronounce it. Does the Minister agree that reintroducing that framework would be a backward step, because we would end up with 10-to-13-year-olds still being open to arrest and prosecution rather than being diverted away from the justice system altogether?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Were it to be reintroduced, we could end up running the risk of children of any age being referred into the formal justice system and considered potentially capable of understanding the crime that they had committed. We either accept that there is a minimum age of criminal responsibility or apply it differently.

The further concern that I have is that we would end up expending significant resources on determining whether a child has the understanding and capability to be held criminally accountable, when we already know from all the studies that have been done on children's development that, even where a child knows that they have done wrong, their ability to conceive of permanence, for example, can be challenging, even into their teens.

We also know that we have restricted resources, so to spend huge amounts of time looking at every child who is referred into the system in order to make that decision is to spend money that would be better spent on supporting those young people, diverting them from criminal activity, supporting their families and peers so that they are no longer as vulnerable to criminal activity and, hopefully, investing in support for victims. Our main concern is that we do right by society as a whole. By removing young people from the justice system, we have been able to demonstrate significant improvements in people's outcomes.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

The Minister of Justice mentioned victims. Can she confirm — I would appreciate a yes or no answer — whether a 13-and-a-half-year-old boy who upskirted, downbloused or inflicted grievous bodily harm on a female teacher would, should Ms Mulholland's amendment go through, be subject to criminal prosecution if the victim wishes it? Yes or no?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With respect, the Member has a right to put his question, but I have the right to answer in whatever form I choose, and I will choose to answer in my own words and not those provided to me.

As I stand here now, if someone under the minimum age of criminal responsibility commits a serious offence, we do not simply allow that person to go free. There are issues of public protection that have to be considered. Issues concerning that child and the risk at which they have placed themselves have to be considered, as do risks to other potential victims. It is not about creating a structure that would allow those who commit serious offences to get off scot-free and not be held accountable; it is about creating an accountability framework that is not part of the formal criminal justice system but allows young people to be confronted with the seriousness of their actions and for the necessary support and education to be provided to them so that they can desist from their offending behaviours. I therefore believe that, in such cases, appropriate measures would be taken.

It is often said that hard cases make bad law, so, in debating what the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be, our focus should not be on seeking out hypothetical hard cases. It should be on looking at the evidence base that we have on child development and brain development and how we can support our young people better so that they do not offend but instead become well-adjusted, positive and constructive citizens in our community, which is what we would all like to see.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

How long would it take the PPS, the PSNI and the Youth Justice Agency to be ready or what could be a significant rise in the minimum age of criminal responsibility?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

We have already been clear that we will have to introduce the right structures, and those will have to be scrutinised and stress-tested. That will be the start of a journey, not the end point. We would not enable the legislation immediately, because we will want to spend time with our justice partners looking at the mechanisms that need to be in place.

To be clear, the Youth Justice Agency already deals with many young people who fall into that category or exhibit behaviour that falls short of a criminal offence in order to deflect them from criminal settings and deal with their behaviour. It is not an unknown thing that the Youth Justice Agency has no experience of, but I reassure the Member for Upper Bann that we would not want to make rapid changes in a space where we do not have the proper belt-and-braces response in place. We want to be sure that young people are protected. Often, their behaviour is not just a safeguarding issue for them but a danger to others, and we need to make sure that there are proper checks and balances in place to hold young people to account for their conduct but in an age-appropriate manner.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

3. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the prison population. (AQO 3689/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On 1 June 2023, the total prison population in Northern Ireland was 1,858. By June of this year, the population had increased by over 12% to 2,086. It is to the credit of the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) and its staff that prison establishments have maintained stability and continue to perform effectively despite that pressure.

In many cases, justice responses to individual needs and risks may offer the right answers but at the wrong time. Much more could be achieved if there were a collective focus on prevention in the community, rather than the justice system stepping in when earlier opportunities have been missed or when provision was inadequate. That would also mean fewer people in prison, and it would allow the Prison Service to use its resources effectively. I will continue my work to secure a fair budget settlement for Justice, including the funding required to deliver a safe, effective and efficient Prison Service with rehabilitation at its core. I will also continue to be clear about the consequences if that cannot be achieved.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the answer. What is the impact of the ongoing budget uncertainty on our prisons?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The budgetary pressure on the Prison Service, as with other parts of the justice system, can mean difficult choices and poorer outcomes for those in the prison system. If we are to safely manage significant and sustained population increases, the Prison Service must have enough officers with the right training and support to do their jobs. It also needs a modern fit-for-purpose estate that can accommodate the population safely and reduce crowding. Prisoners need to be able to access the services and support delivered by a range of partners that can address their needs and risks.

Prison Service needs the funding to commission the services required to match the level of need. Many of those services are provided by third-sector partners in the community and voluntary sector, and the uncertainty that faces their budgets is also a challenge for Justice. Ultimately, poorer experiences in custody will lead to poorer outcomes on release and a greater likelihood of reoffending, which perpetuates the damaging cycle that we have and results in more victims of crime. Without proper funding, Prison Service cannot fulfil its core purpose of making the community safer by supporting and challenging people to change.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We know that our prison population has increased by 50% over the last five years. I welcome your statement that prevention in the community and rehabilitation should be at the core of the justice system. Can you update us on any discussions you may have had with the Communities Minister and the Health Minister about the impact of community health and housing insecurity on both the reliance on short-term custody and recidivism rates?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

We have had a number of conversations over many years, and, through the Executive, the Ministers are part of the wider programme to reduce offending and reoffending and sit on the programme board to drive that initiative forward. We recognise that stable accommodation, legitimate employment and the availability of mental health and addiction services are three key things that will help people to reintegrate into the community and build a successful and positive life. Family support is another pillar that can make a huge difference, and we do all we can to allow people to maintain it.

There is a role for all the Departments. We need to find better jobs for people, and the Department has recently launched an organisation called The Bridge, which is business-led. It will support employers who want to employ people with a criminal record and help them feel confident about taking forward those employment opportunities.

If we are to see prisoners come out of prison and not reoffend, it is important that they have the opportunity for productive activity during the day and have access to mental health and addiction services, because many of them will trace their offending back to addiction. It is also important that they have stable accommodation. We are doing some bail support pilot work for people who are currently on remand. We will pilot that first with women in the prison system, and that will require cooperation between all those Departments.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

Minister, time and time again, you say that our prisons do not have a culture problem, but, time and time again, ordinary hard-working prison officers tell me that there is a fundamental problem in our prisons, with some prison wings out of control. Minister, have you lost control of Northern Ireland's prisons, and what will you do to address the fundamental issue around confidence in our Prison Service, both for the general public and, importantly, for our prison officers, who often put their own welfare on the line?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First of all, I recognise the incredibly difficult job that prison officers do, and I am never shy about saying that I think that they place themselves in a very difficult role. It is a very challenging role in which they deal with people who are vulnerable and volatile, often in equal measure. It is undoubtedly the case that the more people who are in a prison and the more crowding that there is, the more likely it is that people will behave in a way that is disruptive or even dangerous to themselves and others. However, for the Member to suggest that prisons or wings are out of control is simply not the case. I ask him to read the recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland reports on Hydebank Wood women's prison, Hydebank Wood Young Offenders Centre, Hydebank Wood Secure College and Magilligan prison. Whilst there were recommendations that suggested where improvements can be made — we take those seriously and will implement them — suggesting that those prisons are out of control is fundamentally to deny the reality that we have two of the best prisons in the UK here in Northern Ireland.

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

Given the recent rapid and unprecedented growth in the prison population and the likelihood of further increases, what plans does the Minister have in place to address that additional pressure on the Prison Service, either by reducing the prison population or by securing additional resources?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a number of things that we are looking to do. I already mentioned the bail support pilot that we hope to roll out, which will allow us to trial alternative methods of supporting people while on bail — so, outside the prison system. We are starting that with women in the first instance, but, if successful, we will try to roll it out across the male estate. That is important in giving judges, the PSNI and prosecutors the confidence that bail is a legitimate alternative to remand. Too often, people are placed on remand as a way of managing risk, but that risk is being managed in a way that could be managed in the community just as effectively. We want to create that confidence. More people are on remand at this point in time in Northern Ireland than in any other jurisdiction on these islands. We have a continuously high remand population.

The other thing that we have done is ask for additional resources so that we can provide modular accommodation, which would allow us to upscale the number of beds that we have available in the prison system, not on a temporary basis but permanently, so that we are able to accommodate increasing numbers in an appropriate manner that does not cause the crowding that can lead to a more volatile environment for prison officers to work in. I have also given the Prison Service the authority to recruit new prison officers, and that is happening as we speak. There are a lot of things that we can do.

When it comes to early release, I am very reluctant to interfere, other than in exceptional circumstances, with the length of sentence that has been given by a judge. If this is a growing problem with which we will have to wrestle, as other places have, I do not see it as exceptional any longer but, rather, as a matter of routine that we need to manage within our estate.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

4. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill. (AQO 3690/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill was introduced to the Assembly on Tuesday 3 March. Second Stage took place on Monday 16 March. Committee Stage began on 18 March, with the Bill being referred to the Committee for Justice for scrutiny. The Committee launched a call for evidence on 31 March, which concluded on 22 May.

The key purpose of the Bill is to improve the effectiveness and transparency of sentencing, and, in so doing, enhance confidence in sentencing decisions and the criminal justice system more widely. The Bill includes clauses to implement many of the recommendations arising from the last sentencing policy review, as well as the introduction of Charlotte's law and a statutory aggravator model for hate crime. Sentencing is one area of public policy that is constantly evolving. Therefore, on 14 January 2026, I launched a review of further sentencing policy issues to identify any legislative proposals that may be taken forward in the next mandate.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. You mentioned that this is an area of work that is constantly evolving. Can you provide an update on criminalising the creation or sharing of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As Members will be aware, I had hoped to be able to do that at Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill for new offences to criminalise the creation or sharing of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images. Unfortunately, we were unable to do it via an LCM, which would have brought us into line with England and Wales. It would also have left us with a gap, given the structure of our own laws. Therefore, it is better that we do it locally and have the opportunity to scrutinise it here in the Assembly.

As we have moved on into the drafting phase, however, it has become apparent that this is an exceptionally complex issue and that more time is needed to ensure a proportionate, robust and comprehensive response to addressing all aspects of that behaviour. Therefore, in the interests of ensuring the effective progression of the Justice Bill, I have decided to look at alternative options in the form of other legislative vehicles that will be available to me in bringing forward those proposals within the current mandate. That includes the potential to use the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill or, indeed, the victims and witnesses Bill.

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

5. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the speeding up justice programme. (AQO 3691/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There is a clear need to reform and modernise the justice system. Along with justice partners, I have prioritised the speeding up justice programme of work, which is delivered across five key projects.

The first project is on out-of-court disposals, where plans are in place to bring forward secondary legislation to let police deal with more low-level offences using penalty notices. That will divert suitable cases from the courts and free up resources for more serious crime. The second project is on committal reform. Work is progressing on direct committal, which I intend to implement later this year. That will help the most serious cases reach the Crown Court more quickly. The third project, on early engagement, is exploring earlier engagement between police, prosecution and defence to move cases through the system more quickly. The focus is on better file quality, timeliness and reviewing?'Better Case Management'?procedures. Those projects are still in pilot phase but are showing early signs of improvement. The fourth project, on the remit of the Magistrates' Court, is considering options to expand Magistrates' Court jurisdiction. Finally, the project on digital, which supports all the speeding up justice projects, is implementing digital initiatives to help to embed reform and support long-term sustainability. Taken together, these reforms are intended to reduce avoidable delay, improve the use of criminal justice resources and ensure that court capacity is focused on the most serious cases. The pace of delivery will, however, remain closely linked to the resources that are available to support implementation.

Published Northern Ireland case processing statistics show a slight improvement between 2023-24 and 2024-25, with the median time for criminal cases across all courts falling from 190 to 189 days.?That is also down considerably from the height of 226 days in 2021-22.?That has been driven mainly by quicker processing times in the Magistrates' Court. In the Crown Court, charged cases have improved slightly, but case processing times for cases proceeding by way of summons remain long. The Criminal Bar Association action has had a significant impact on the Crown Court and may impact on the pace at which those reform initiatives can be implemented fully.

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

I welcome the updates and improvements that the Minister has set out in her response. She mentioned the issues with the Criminal Bar Association. Can she give us an update on how negotiations are going in that process? A swift conclusion to that issue would unlock much of the delay that we are currently experiencing.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, not all the delays that we experience in the justice system are down to the current action by the criminal Bar, although it has contributed significantly to them. As you know, the accelerated review concluded, as planned, on 27 April. I made decisions and met the criminal Bar and the solicitors' criminal Bar last week, and I put those decisions to them. They have been welcomed by the Law Society and the solicitors' criminal Bar, and I await the outcome of meetings that are going on in the criminal Bar and the Bar Council itself for any response that they may have to the proposals.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Last week, the Policing Board met the public protection branch. It raised some really significant challenges that it faces. We know the attrition rates in some of the cases of violence against women and girls and children. That needs to be seriously addressed. Minister, will you agree to meet some members of the public protection branch? I think that some of the issues that they face in the branch could be addressed through very minor adjustments. Will you engage directly with the people who are working on the ground, rather than their senior officers, to find out what can be done to help them to do their job of protecting women and girls and children?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

To reassure the Member, I say that I have met representatives of the public protection branch — senior officers and others who work at the coalface in that work — and I am conscious of the difficult and challenging work that they do. Obviously, we want to be able to get them more resources to do that job better. If changes can be implemented as part of the work that we are doing to speed up justice, we would, of course, be open to that and regularly meet to discuss that. It is not just a Department of Justice project: the project has been endorsed by the criminal justice board, which includes the PSNI, the PPS, the Lady Chief Justice and, crucially, the Victims' Commissioner. It is important that all those different aspects can be discussed. If the Member wishes to engage with me further on the particulars of the areas of concern that she is raising, I am more than happy to meet her to discuss it.

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

6. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice to outline any assessment she has made of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report ‘Policing and security in Northern Ireland’, published on 27 May 2026. (AQO 3692/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Patten envisaged a new beginning for policing in Northern Ireland that is grounded in accountability, community partnership and policing with the consent of all. Twenty-five years on, while it is right to reflect on progress, it is wrong to suggest that the vision of Patten has not been realised.

The transformation of policing in Northern Ireland has been profound. Today, the Police Service of Northern Ireland operates within a human rights-based framework, subject to rigorous and independent oversight and anchored in community-focused policing. Public confidence in policing and the wider justice system is strong. Significant progress has been made over that time to ensure that the service is accountable, community-based and accepted by all parts of society. That progress is all the more notable given the very real pressures that policing continues to navigate, particularly around constrained resources and legacy issues. Despite that, Northern Ireland remains one of the safest places to live, work and raise a family in these islands, reflecting both effective policing and safer communities.

I note the assessment of the current security threat and, in particular, the positive direction in which Northern Ireland has moved over the past 25 years. Whilst we must never be complacent, particularly given recent events in Lurgan and Dunmurry police stations, it is gratifying to note the sustained decline in the number of security incidents over the past decade. I will continue to work with partners within the remit of my role to enable further movement towards a safer society in Northern Ireland.

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

Thanks very much, Minister. Will you confirm how the report's recommendations will, in fact, shape departmental priorities; whether any of those recommendations will require legislative change; and, if so, when such proposals might be brought before the Assembly?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As the Member will be aware, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee reports are not binding on the Assembly and are a matter for Westminster. However, we will, of course, and always do reflect on any important report that deals with the issue of policing.

One of the report's key findings was the Chief Constable and my clear agreement that the continued burden of legacy on the justice system, particularly on policing, is not a sustainable one. I have already been engaging with the Chief Constable, the Secretary of State and, more widely, with the Government on that issue. It is incredibly important that we make the case that, with any new legacy arrangements, the cost of servicing those legacy arrangements and the residual cost of dealing with legacy needs now to be met by the UK Government. It is not a Northern Ireland-specific issue: it is a UK Government issue and should be dealt with as such.

It is also a burden on our policing and justice system that exists nowhere else in the United Kingdom. I very much welcome the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's narrative on that matter.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move on to topicals.

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

T1. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice, after noting last night's horrific knife attack on Kinnaird Avenue in north Belfast and stating that his thoughts were, first and foremost, with the victim, to join him, his party and other Members in thanking the emergency services, including the police and ambulance crews, for their prompt response and the members of the public who bravely intervened to save the victim from further injury. (AQT 2431/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am more than happy to do that. I reiterate the comments that I made in that regard this morning when we were debating legislation. The Speaker was generous enough to give me the latitude to do so. It is incredibly important to recognise what a horrific scene unfolded last night and how challenging and frightening that it must have been, not only for the residents who initially intervened courageously to try to save a man's life but for those from the PSNI, the Ambulance Service and other services who responded to and were confronted by such horror and who tried to save someone's life. At times, many of us forget just how challenging such situations can be and the trauma that can be felt by the people who experience them. That is one of the reasons why I appealed for people not to share the video. We talked before about the trauma that is inflicted on victims when there are videos of car accidents and other violence that is seen on our streets. I appeal for people not to share those images, because the family and, especially, the victim deserve privacy and dignity and because the trauma that they will inflict on people who were at the scene is immeasurable.

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

I could not agree more, Minister. However, such horrific incidents can heighten fear and undermine community cohesion. We have already seen efforts to capitalise on that fear from some who are not even indigenous to this country. What measures and engagement have you had with the Chief Constable and your Department to support community safety, assist the ongoing investigation and reassure residents, including many people who have come here to work and contribute positively to this society, who are all deeply shaken by that event? I am sure that you, Minister, share in the uppermost thing that many of us want to see here, which is calm in light of that awful and distressing situation.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is vital that people remain calm. What happened last night was obscene. It would be just as obscene for us to inflict more pain and hurt on either that community or other communities that are completely unrelated to the incident that happened last night. It is important that we do not head into that kind of destructive cycle. Of course, bad faith actors will try to weaponise every pain and fear that communities have.

I understand entirely why people are frightened by what they saw last night. I found it disturbing and frightening, and I cannot say enough that I am not dismissive of the fear that they feel, but we have to draw a line between feeling fearful or wanting reassurance that you will be safe and seeking to inflame tension, weaponise that fear, bring more harm to communities and create more victims.

An investigation is ongoing. It is important that anyone with information contacts the PSNI. I spoke with the Chief Constable this morning, and, all being well, I will be at a press conference with the Chief Constable, the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and others as the afternoon progresses to reinforce the need for us to ensure that every person in our community, irrespective of the colour of their skin, their language, their religion or all those issues, is safe. That was brought home to me this afternoon when I left the Chamber and spoke to a young woman who is doing work experience here. She was shaking and sobbing in fear that she would be associated with what she had seen last night and in shame that it had happened. Let us not forget that, when somebody does something wrong, they are accountable for it. Let us therefore work with the police and hold the individual who is responsible to account and not weaponise the incident against a whole community. That would be a travesty of justice.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

T2. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Justice whether she shares his concern that, if passed, some amendments to the Justice Bill could embolden pupils under the age of 14 to exercise aggressive or threatening behaviour in the classroom, safe in the knowledge that they will not be criminally investigated. (AQT 2432/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Schools already have disciplinary policies in place, not all of which, as things stand, require every incident to be referred to the PSNI. As I made clear in the Chamber earlier and will no doubt make clear again in the days to come, this is not about allowing people under the age of 14 not to be held accountable for their actions. It is important that young people be held accountable for them, particularly if those actions involve intimidation or sexual intent. There are public protection and public safety elements that need to be dealt with. I do not believe, however, that a criminal response is always the right one, particularly in the case of younger children. It is therefore important that we hold children to account in an age-appropriate way, with the right support, so that they can desist from their offending, understand the seriousness of their actions and, hopefully, put them behind them and move on to live productive and constructive lives, which is what we all want for our young people.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Does the Minister agree that her response may do little for teachers' sense of safety or their general morale?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Many teachers have given their support to the measures, so it is not the case that this is about the Department of Justice versus teachers, as the Member suggests. Many of those who are highly specialised in dealing with young people recognise that confronting a young person with their actions and the consequences of those actions is often much more effective than imposing penalties. It is important that we listen carefully to what those who work with young people and have experience of achieving desistance have to say on the matter. They have, for example, spent years working in the youth justice system to ensure that young people are safe and that they do not go on to create more victims.

As I said, there will still be accountability. I believe that that accountability will be proportionate and appropriate. As I said before lunchtime to your now former colleague the Member for Upper Bann, we will not implement the provisions in the legislation until such times as we have in place a robust mechanism for accountability.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

T3. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Justice, following on from Mr McGlone's question about the north Belfast incident, having seen the barbaric images last night and this morning, which, no doubt, a lot of people did, and having worked in a slaughter hall for years and never having seen anything like it, whether we have a problem. (AQT 2433/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, we clearly have an issue in that particular circumstance, in that a violent individual committed a very violent crime against another person. Far be it from me to diminish the seriousness of that incident, but do we have a problem with violence in this society? I think that the Member knows the answer to that as well as I do. We do have a problem with violence in this society. We have a problem with violence against women and girls. We have high levels of violence against the person. That is why the Department of Justice introduces measures and makes interventions to deal with such matters. Yes, I do think that we have a problem. We have a problem with violence, and we will have to address that across the board, irrespective of the perpetrator or the victim.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Minister, what would you say to genuine people — most people are genuine — who have serious concerns that are sometimes not taken on board? We can see from social media that people are organising rallies, although some of that information may not be true. What do you say to genuine people who are fearful? There are towns in Northern Ireland that one cannot walk through at night. I am a man, and I would not do it, so a woman is not going to. What do you say to people who have concerns?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a couple of things that I will say. First, when it comes to rallies, as Members will know, I am not a great believer in bringing large groups of people on to the streets when temperatures are inflamed and emotions are running high. I do not think that that has ever in Northern Ireland's history led to productive outcomes, either for the communities involved or for others. I said earlier that I found the images terrifying and horrific to watch, so I understand why the people whom you talk about who have genuine concerns would be fearful. I ask them to cooperate with the police investigation. Do not distract the police from their investigation by going on to the streets and drawing out police resources. Let the police focus their resources on investigating and prosecuting that crime. Let us see the person responsible for it being held accountable before the law and given a sentence that is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. The best reassurance that we can give every community is that, if someone is attacked, irrespective of who they are or what they stand for, the perpetrator will be held accountable. That is the best assurance that we can give to anyone in our community today. I hope that the Member will join me in appealing for calm so that the police can do their job without distractions or interference.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T4. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the victims and witnesses Bill. (AQT 2434/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am pleased to announce that the victims and witnesses Bill was given authority to move forward by the Executive last week and is now with the Speaker's Office, which will do the normal due diligence on it in the hope that it can be introduced in time for the Committee to publish a call for evidence ahead of the summer.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for the response. What will happen to the establishment of a commissioner for victims and witnesses of crime if the Bill is not passed in the mandate?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It will create something of an anomaly if we do not get the Bill through in the mandate, given that the current commissioner's term is due to end at the point at which a new statutory commissioner would come into being. That will create a challenge for the Department to manage. However, I am confident that, with goodwill and concerted effort, which I have had so far from the Justice Committee on the other Bills that have been brought to it, we can get it through by the end of the mandate. It is a relatively small Bill. I say that, recognising that Members are aware of my proclivities and those of the Chair of the Justice Committee when it comes to amendments. The victims and witnesses Bill is fairly tightly circumscribed and, hopefully, reasonably focused. It should be able to pass without overly long scrutiny.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

T5. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Justice, in light of the horrific and horrendous stabbing incident in north Belfast that has rightly been condemned across the board, whether she shares his deep concerns about Nigel Farage, Rupert Lowe, Elon Musk and other people who would not be able to point out Belfast on a map but are doing their best to stoke division around that tragic incident. (AQT 2435/22-27)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I very much do. I am not sure when I last heard any of the individuals whom the Member mentioned say anything about Northern Ireland. Anything that they have had to say about the UK of late has not been particularly good either. It is the people in north Belfast, and in Northern Ireland more generally, whom I care about. We live in this society, and we recognise how much we have had to overcome in the past to end routine violence and abuse, some of which was also horrific and blood-curdling but perhaps not captured on video. I appeal to people in Northern Ireland to listen to people here who have their interests at heart. Be calm; continue to work with the police and support them in pursuing their investigation; and do not be drawn in by bad faith actors who simply want to weaponise this situation to drive forward an agenda that is in no one's interest in Northern Ireland.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thanks for that answer, Minister. As you said earlier, it is understandable that people in north Belfast are fearful, given the horrific events. You will be aware that protests are planned across Belfast, if not across the North, this evening. We do not know how they will develop, if at all, but you mentioned fears in our migrant community and among people of colour that the protests may turn nasty and violent. What is your message to people who are fearful of how the protests may turn out?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I encourage anyone who is fearful for their safety to contact the police immediately. The police will do all in their power to respond.

I appeal to people who are upset, angry and fearful about what happened last night to bear in mind that, if the police are distracted from the work that they need to do to investigate that incident by unrest on the streets or other crimes being committed, they will have less resource to put to that investigation.

I appeal to people of good intent not to stretch the police resource, not to force themselves into conflict with the police, and not to do harm to their neighbourhood or their neighbours. Ultimately, there is nothing to be gained from terrorising people who had nothing to do with the incident last night. I have heard already today from numerous people who are concerned about their family, their friends or their work colleagues, and from people who are fearful that, because of the colour of their skin, they will not be safe on public transport or while going about their ordinary daily lives. That is not acceptable. I remember the days when somebody with an accent such as mine drew strange looks in airports. It was not a pleasant experience to be held accountable simply because you shared an accent with somebody who would do harm. We do not want to inflict that kind of misery on any other group of people.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes questions to the Minister of Justice.

Assembly Business

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to last night's horrific incident in north Belfast, I have sought your permission to step out of the ongoing Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill to participate in a media briefing at 4.00 pm. I do not intend any discourtesy to the House or to Members, but these are very particular circumstances, and it is important that I attend.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you for that, Minister. We fully understand the circumstances that you are in. It is the right thing to do, so we support you. No doubt your officials will take notes and keep you informed in any event, so it is not a discourtesy.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before I call Nuala McAllister to finish her contribution, the Business Committee reminds all Members to be as succinct as possible as we wade through all the amendments. I commend the House: Members are doing an excellent piece of work in scrutinising the Bill. However, we should be as succinct as possible. That is not aimed solely at you, Miss McAllister.