Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Sian Mulholland on 16 June 2026.

MLA

Ms Sian Mulholland

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

16 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5625105

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Holy moly, it feels like a lifetime ago since I stood here to open debate on this group of amendments. First, I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. I will make comments about the nature of the debate at a later point. Today has been what it was supposed to be. You will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to use my winding-up speech to repeat every argument that I and others have made. I will say, however, that the debate was meant to be about evidence, children and victims, and how we prevent harm; instead, we heard an awful lot about fear, distortion and political tactics. First, to those who want a stand-alone Bill, let us be clear that it ain't coming from the Minister and it ain't coming from the Department via the Executive. I will, however, right here, right now, on record, commit that, if I am standing in the Chamber on this day next year, there will be a private Member's Bill that I will be proud to introduce. I expect the Members across the Chamber who have muzzled my vote on the amendments — I am not looking at you, Mr Deputy Speaker — to weigh in with their support and their ideas as to how we make the youth justice system better. I give that commitment now. Amendment Nos 79 and 82 were grounded in evidence, in practice and in the experience of those who have worked daily with victims, children, families and communities. I cannot accept that the amendments were casual, simplistic, ideological or ill conceived. I have spoken about the process behind the amendments. This was not dropped in on a whim. This is something that I and others have been working on for a year, with over 100 hours of meetings for one amendment. To say that they were ill conceived and casual completely dismisses my work and that of Ms Sheerin and Mr McGlone. It is a dismissal of the evidence of the many organisations and professionals who gave their time and expertise to the process. How can Members of the House call for evidence-based policy and legislation and yet dismiss so readily the expertise and evidence of those whom we have worked with? The list that Nuala read out shows the breadth of organisations and individuals that support reform. That does not sound like:

"an ideology that is dangerously foolish." — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 June 2026, p111, col 1].

They are children's organisations, youth workers, social workers and legal experts. They are psychiatrists, psychologists, human rights organisations, women's organisations, education voices, community groups and victim and survivor support groups. Their work is not only life-changing — I have seen it — but life-saving, yet they were dismissed in some of the comments that we heard last night. That is not OK. They were not asking us to ignore harm; they were asking us to respond to harm better. They were not asking us to abandon victims; they were asking us to build a system that prevents future victims. They were not asking us to excuse harmful behaviour; they were asking us to recognise that criminalising a child in P6 is not the same as accountability. It is certainly not the same thing as justice.

Yes.

Thanks, Nuala. I have reflected on the entire process as a legislator, as a former youth worker and as a parent of a child who, in four months' time, will be that age. I find it really frightening but also really sad, because I know that my son and your son are exponentially less likely to come into contact with the justice system than some other children because of the upbringing that they have had. There are a lot of mixed feelings around that. As a parent, I also want to see more parental responsibility. As I have said, if a child of 10 or 11 is out burning buses, burning out homes and throwing petrol bombs, where is the responsibility? The Member for North Belfast, my colleague Nuala McAllister, said that so many of those young people simply do not have a parental figure or caregiver in their life. That is a really big point, but the conversation also needs to look at what we do around family support. That is the key element. We can work with young people, but I know from experience that, if you do not work holistically around the child, they are much more likely to reoffend. The work has to be holistic. I reject the suggestion that those who support reform do not stand with victims. I heard that suggestion so many times yesterday and last night. There is no monopoly in the House on supporting victims. I have to address a comment that was made, on which my colleague the Justice Minister intervened on my behalf, which was that I spent a great deal of time talking about the needs of "the poor young perpetrator" but made virtually no mention of the victims of crime. Victims were referenced over 30 times in my contribution alone, let alone throughout the contributions of many colleagues around the House. I will repeat something that I and many others said, that I stand by and that is one of the driving forces behind the amendments: the best way to prevent victims is to prevent further harm. That evidence is clear. Early criminalisation does not do that. I still have not been convinced otherwise. Much of the argument that we heard last night and today was around the most extreme cases. Those cases matter — of course they do — especially when there is deep and serious harm, but hard cases make bad law. Legislating on the basis of fear and rare, extreme examples does not make communities safer. Yesterday, I could easily have engaged in shock stories about children who are coerced, abused, violated and manipulated into committing crime, but this is not a media programme. We are not on a radio show. We are legislators in a legislative House. Where were the datasets? Where was the evidence? We do not need anecdotal shock stories. The Chamber should be better than that. The amendments were repeatedly presented as a choice between victims and children: that is a false choice. A better system would support both. Ultimately, the debate was overtaken by something more fundamental. I will make a brief comment on the petitions of concern. Members are entitled to disagree with me, my colleagues and others. They are entitled to vote against the amendments. That is democracy; it is what we are all here for. However, what happened here was not simply about disagreement. A small group of Members, in effect, used a veto designed to protect minority rights in order to prevent the House from making a decision. The petition of concern was used to block a democratic decision of the House. That disregards my vote and that of 17 other Members from my party and Mr Carroll just because we do not fit into a nice wee binary box. How is that fair? How is that just? We are talking about a Justice Bill. I have said before — I said it in my Member's statement — that social justice is at the heart of my identity and my politics. It is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment and why I was so angry at the petitions of concern.

Yes. Go ahead, Brian.

Brian, I hope —.

OK. Thank you.

Brian, you have worked with me on Belfast City Council and on the Communities Committee. Do you genuinely — sorry, I will speak through the Chair. Does the Member for North Belfast genuinely believe anything of what he has just said? Does he believe that I would agree with a protective mechanism that only protects nationalists? My party has not engaged in a petition of concern — the leader can correct me if I am wrong — since 2016. We have campaigned for reform because we believe that it has been misused. The intent in 1998 of the Good Friday Agreement has been lost.

Absolutely.

1,372 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 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