Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on 15 June 2026.

MLA

Ms Sian Mulholland

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

15 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5614554

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I will continue on this point, and then I will come back to the Member. Taken together — the Minister has just spoken about a lot of this — the evidence tells us three things. First, prosecution is already not the dominant response, and the system already relies heavily on diversion. We need the law to catch up and give consistency and clarity. Secondly, truly serious cases involving this age cohort of young people are very rare, and, when they happen, serious harm is not being denied. Thirdly, intervention still comes too late. If the system frequently steps back from prosecution in favour of diversion and sometimes does so only after a child has entered a court setting, the logical question is whether we are intervening at the right point. If we are serious about preventing harm, reducing reoffending and protecting future victims, the focus must be on earlier and more effective intervention before a child is drawn into the formal justice system. I will move on to system readiness, some of which has been mentioned already today. I agree with many of the concerns that Members have raised previously. Raising the age cannot mean that there is a gap, and the Committee Chair spoke about that before. It cannot mean a vague promise that someone, somewhere will do something. It cannot mean pushing responsibility on to those who are already stretched — social workers, people in schools, youth workers and people in voluntary organisations — without giving them powers, resources and clarity. The Safeguarding Board put this challenge to me clearly in our meeting: where do those children go? When I met the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, it warned me that public attitudes are hardening, which is being driven by fear and misunderstanding. I have to highlight the narrative that has been pushed by certain individuals over the past few weeks. The PSNI warned that public confidence will be undermined if people do not understand what replaces criminalisation, so we have to be honest with the public and say that we are making criminal behaviour illegal. To say that there is no response, no consequence, no victim support and no accountability is dangerous and will impact on the public's view of their level of safety, even though we are showing them evidence to the contrary. The barrier to reform is not the principle but capacity right now, and I acknowledge that. The system already knows what works. It is early intervention, trusted relationships, therapeutic support and family work. The question is whether the Executive are in a position or prefer to fund reform and organise it properly. I believe that there is a will there on the basis of the conversations that I have been privy to between the Department of Justice, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health in particular. Yes, raising MACR is about legal reform, but it is not only about legal reform. It is credible only if it is accompanied by investment and a reconfiguration of youth work, family support, therapeutic support, education support, victim support and a multi-agency pathway. There are successful models from which we can learn, and I mentioned a number of such models in the Western Trust and the South Eastern Trust, through the work that the Youth Justice Agency is doing there. I will address some of the misconceptions about the view that nothing is being done. When there is a concern about a child's offending behaviour, a referral can still be made to the children's diversion forum, which is a multi-agency panel that is available region-wide in Northern Ireland. Those panels and the other partnership arrangements are exactly the kinds of structures that will be considered as potential models for working with children under any new age of criminal responsibility, but their purpose has to be clear. It has to include an end-to-end pathway for various types of behaviour, rapid safeguarding assessment, clear police referral routes, specific protocols for children in care and regional equality. There therefore has to be the kind of support that I mentioned that there is in the Western Trust and the South Eastern Trust so that it does not just depend on a postcode. It has to include data and monitoring, because one of the strongest messages from the CJI report was that we cannot approve what we do not see. If we raise MACR, the Assembly must be able to judge outcomes, reoffending, attendance and victim experience. That is why a five-year review is imperative. It is not a sign of uncertainty about the principle; it is a sign that we are really serious about implementation. We have looked really seriously and closely at what Scotland has done, because Scotland has already taken that step in part. Scotland is not a perfect comparator for Northern Ireland, with our proposal to move from the age of 10 to 14, but it is highly relevant to public confidence and the "What happens next?" arguments. The lesson from Scotland was not simply to raise the age; it was that reform needs those pathways. It needs a safeguarding system, victim support, public communication and clear data. Northern Ireland must build that pathway and not simply change the age. From answers given by the Minister of Justice, I believe that that is exactly what is intended.

891 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:55 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification