Debate contribution: Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland

Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on 4 June 2024.

MLA

Ms Paula Bradshaw

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 June 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Opposition Business

Heading

Hate Crime Legislation in Northern Ireland

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4494340

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to see the issue raised in the Chamber today. It is already clear that the key objective is legislating to ensure that hate and prejudice have no place in our society. Sinéad McLaughlin, the proposer of the motion, spoke powerfully about the importance of the issue, particularly in the context of the abuse that her colleague, Councillor Lilian Seenoi-Barr, has had to endure, not least in the past couple of weeks. The Minister also recognised that. Joanne Bunting emphasised that no hate crime is acceptable and that we must tackle it in all its forms. Kate Nicholl paid tribute to all those who have had the courage to speak out when they have been the victims of hate crime, up to and including the loss of their homes and businesses. She challenged elected reps to speak up too. We are all keenly aware that politicising such an objective will go down poorly with the public. What matters is delivery. We need to be clear about the activity and time that it will take to deliver legislation that will work effectively on sensitive issues, and that is the point of the amendment. On delivery, Sinéad and her colleague Colin McGrath raised the issue of stand-alone legislation. However, other Members, such as Ms Bunting, emphasised that it is not the technicality of whether legislation is stand-alone that matters but the impact that the legislation would have. Paul Frew urged us to exercise caution and to take time to get the process and the vehicle right. Stewart Dickson pointed out that not all of Judge Marrinan's recommendations are for a single Department and nor, indeed, are they all legislative. The Minister made a similar comment. Turning to the issue of legislating for a statutory aggravation model, some Members outlined how and why Judge Marrinan's recommendations are important. Sinéad correctly noted that the current system is not fit for purpose. Deirdre Hargey called for a robust approach, and Stewart emphasised that the key message would be delivered through effective legislation. Connie Egan went further, emphasising that the objective must be full legal protection for violations of human rights on the basis of a cross-sectoral approach, including intervention and prevention. The Department has accepted the need, as the Minister mentioned, for the new legislative statutory aggravation model. That is of relevance to the Committee for the Executive Office, which I Chair, as it is significant in respect of race relations and good relations more generally. On time frame, the motion raises the importance of the implementation of Judge Marrinan's recommendations but emphasises that it must be done within 12 months. However, several Members, including Doug Beattie and Jim Allister, took the opposite view, saying that the process must not be rushed and that there must be full scrutiny. The challenge is to secure implementation of the recommendations in the context of a constrained time frame and competing priorities. The recommendations provide an excellent foundation from which to strengthen our current legislation. In her response —

Yes, I will.

Thank you, Minister. I was just coming to that point. When the Minister set out her clear priorities in her response, she mentioned that the time frame is restricted by the need for legislative drafting, consultation and complete policy development within that condensed period. Those priorities include legislation on the most impactful elements for victims that will provide not only the delivery of key aspects now but a foundation for the future. I will draw my comments to a close by urging unity on our amendment. The outcome of the Minister's legislative plans is clear: we will see the introduction of a new statutory aggravation model for prosecuting hate crime, providing for better outcomes for victims during this mandate. Furthermore, legislation will be future-proofed to allow for further consultation, as I have just outlined, and engagement. It will be accompanied by other policy work emerging from Judge Marrinan's review, as the Minister clarified. Therefore, we see from the Minister a commitment to deliver hate crime legislation and a detailed road map on exactly how that will happen, taking into account the obstacles that others have put in her way, not least by collapsing the institutions for much of the current mandate. I urge the Assembly to commend her work and to unite behind the clear route laid out, which will provide practical and better outcomes for victims.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:36 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