Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Sinéad McLaughlin on 23 June 2026.

MLA: Ms Sinéad McLaughlin
Party at the time: Social Democratic and Labour Party
Date: 23 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5637338

Text

The SDLP will support amendment No 96 and oppose amendment No 97. On amendment No 96, the Chamber should ask itself a simple question: are we setting people up to succeed when they leave prison, or are we setting them up to fail? Rehabilitation begins not the week after someone is released but the moment they walk through the prison gates. For many people leaving custody, the first few hours and days are critical, often making the difference between reconnecting with support services and falling back into the crisis that took them into prison in the first place.
I have seen that first-hand on many occasions. My office on Spencer Road in Derry is next door to a bail hostel. Often, people are placed in that hostel over the weekend without support and maybe without medication. There are no doctors on call, so they can end up in A&E. Complete and utter chaos can be set upon them, which does not give them the chance that they need. People are often placed outside the area where they lived or were brought up, and they have no connections where they are placed. Those people are so vulnerable and can be preyed on in such situations. It is therefore really important that amendment No 96 be supported across the House. It can make the difference between rebuilding a life and returning to the old patterns that ultimately lead back into the justice system. Under the current arrangements, someone can be released on a Friday evening or before a bank holiday with little or no access to support. We heard some of the figures from Paul Frew last night. The number of releases on a Friday evening is incredible. No housing support, no healthcare, no addiction services, no benefits advice and no employment support or probation services until days later: that simply does not make sense. If someone leaves prison with nowhere to stay, no access to support and no way of getting help until Monday morning, it is not surprising that things can and do go wrong. We often talk about rehabilitation as if it is something abstract, but rehabilitation is about practical things. It is about having somewhere safe to sleep. It is about being able to access healthcare in a timely fashion. Often, the people involved are vulnerable and on support medications that they need immediately. It is also about finding work and, hopefully, reconnecting with family and community support, the ground for that having been laid in advance of release. It is about giving people a genuine opportunity to move forward, which is what the amendment seeks to support. It is important to be clear that it is not about reducing sentences or weakening accountability. It is not about being soft on crime; it is about being smart on crime. In reality, every person who successfully rebuilds their life after prison is one less victim of crime in the future. The public interest is not served when people leave custody and immediately face barriers to support.
Rather, the public interest is served when people are given the best possible chance to reintegrate and find stability and thus avoid reoffending. If we genuinely want safer communities, fewer victims and lower levels of reoffending, we should support the practical measures that will help make that happen. For those reasons, we will support amendment No 96. I turn to amendment No 97, which the SDLP cannot support. Prison accommodation decisions are among the most sensitive and complex decisions that the prison authorities are required to make. They involve the balancing of rights, safeguarding concerns, welfare concerns and individual circumstances and require careful assessment and professional judgement. That is precisely why I am concerned by an amendment that would impose a blanket legislative approach on an area in which nuance and flexibility are essential. Northern Ireland is operating in an evolving legal environment. The Equality Commission has acknowledged the ongoing legal uncertainty following the For Women Scotland judgement and has sought further legal clarity before issuing definitive guidance. In those circumstances, it seems premature to legislate in such a prescriptive way before the work has concluded and before the wider legal position here has been settled. It is also worth remembering that Northern Ireland's equality framework is different from that operating in Great Britain. The Equality Act 2010 does not generally apply here, and that distinction matters. Beyond the legal arguments, there is a broader point to make, and it is that amendment No 97 appears to focus on a single scenario, when, in reality, prisons are complex places. Prison authorities deal with a much wider range of complex and challenging situations. The responsibility of prison governors is to ensure the safety, dignity and welfare of everyone in their care. Decisions should be informed by evidence, risk assessment and professional expertise. I believe that they are, so we should support the Prison Service and those who work in it in doing their job. Politicians in the Chamber are not better placed to make those decisions than the professionals in whom we put so much trust and who manage our prison system every day. At a time when our prisons face significant challenges with rehabilitation, staffing pressures, overcrowding and safety, I am not convinced that the amendment addresses a pressing operational problem. Instead, I feel that it risks importing another culture war debate into legislation, when its is careful judgement and practical decision-making that are required. The people working in our prison system need flexibility to respond to individual circumstances. They need the ability to make decisions that protect everyone in custody. Blanket rules may make for simple political arguments, but they do not always work as good policy. Our focus should be on ensuring that our prisons are safe, that people are treated with dignity and that rehabilitation remains at the heart of our justice system. That is how we create safer communities, how we reduce offending and how we build a justice system that works not only for those in custody but for the whole of society. For those reasons, the SDLP will support amendment No 96 and oppose amendment No 97.

1,030 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification