Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 151.
“In addition, when setting any fees and rates in secondary legislation, the Department is required to consult with key stakeholders, including the Lady Chief Justice, the Law Society and the Bar. Importantly, the associated expenditure is subject to economic appraisal, regulatory and statutory impact assessments, and scrutiny by the Justice Committee and the Assembly. It is the intention of my Department, under taxation reform, to retain the taxing master in an assessment role for costs being paid out of the legal aid fund, but applying the fees, rates and arrangements set out in the remuneration order, which is subject to the statutory criteria that I have just set out, subject to appropriate appraisal mechanisms and Assembly scrutiny, as is the case for all other legal aid expenditure.”
“The amendment relates to departmental powers to implement a framework that is consistent with 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' and the concepts of regularity and propriety, which are fundamental to the right use of public funds. <BR /> <BR />The vast majority of legal aid expenditure is determined by the LSA in line with the fees and rates arrangements that are set out in secondary legislation by the Department, and has to have regard to the following statutory criteria: the time and skill required of the persons required to provide the services; the number and general level of competence of the persons providing those services; the cost to public funds; and the need to secure value for money.”
“Currently, in the High Court and Court of Appeal, solicitor costs are assessed against an hourly rate that is determined by the taxing master. That hourly rate is then uplifted by a variable percentage to reflect care and conduct. For barristers, some fixed fees, which are known as interlocutory fees, are set by the taxing master, but the vast majority of barrister costs are dealt with by way of a brief fee, which is a catch-all fee that is determined by the fee recipient — the barrister — and submitted to the taxing master. Crucially, the brief fee does not detail the amount of time spent or the type of work carried out on the case, nor is there any framework set by the master.”
“The £30 million of public money assessed by the taxing master is not subject to the same level of transparency or accountability as other legal aid expenditure, which is quite rightly more readily available to anyone with an interest in the use of public funds.”
“<BR /> <BR />Approximately 75%, or £90 million per annum, of legal aid expenditure is based on legal aid fees and arrangements set out in secondary legislation made by my Department and administered by the Legal Services Agency (LSA). The remaining approximately 25%, or £30 million per annum, is assessed by the taxing master and paid by the LSA.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will speak to amendment No 91, which amends the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 — the 2003 Order — by inserting two articles. The proposed amendment does not change the current legal position; it simply clarifies it by making explicit the provisions for the termination of remuneration that is set out in a remuneration order made under articles 12(3) or 24(3) and applied to anyone who, in accordance with the remuneration order, is determining the amount payable. In adopting that approach, I am withdrawing clause 28 of the Bill, as it no longer reflects the policy intent of reforming taxation of legal aid costs by legislating for legal aid rates and arrangements to be applied by the taxing master.”
“I beg to introduce the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill [NIA Bill 39/22-27], which is a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime for Northern Ireland; to amend the law relating to criminal evidence and procedure in cases involving aggravation by hostility, sexual offences and death or serious physical harm of a vulnerable person; and for connected purposes.”
“It is better that we simplify the list as far as is possible without losing any of the protections that we have, ensure that people's offences are filtered out only where appropriate and ensure that the protections remain in place, particularly for the excepted employment areas that I mentioned, where the most vulnerable people would be or where people would have access to vulnerable people, such as in policing or justice roles. <BR /> <BR />I commend the amendments to the House. I thank Members for their engagement on them at this late hour. I thank the officials at the Table, who have also endured a lengthy day. Without further ado, I thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“A further benefit is that it will allow for more straightforward and timely maintenance of listed offences and the associated list in the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order 1979. <BR /> <BR />From our perspective, the important thing about how the offences are filtered is that, at its heart, it is about better public protection, a better understanding of how the system works and more clarity and simplicity. Most people recognise that many parts of the justice system are complex. Even when I read out the legislation that we are going to amend, it is, at times, like a tongue-twister. For the ordinary member of the public to follow all the Parts of the Police Act and all the categories of offences is really complicated.”
“The final point is about the filtering scheme. The provisions are in there to allow improved ease of use and understanding of which offences can be filtered from standard and enhanced checks. The creation of a detailed list of offences with the new schedule to the Police Act 1997 is of benefit to citizens who want to understand the content of their disclosure certificate so that they will not have to phone AccessNI to ask why things are or are not on it. It will also benefit AccessNI by ensuring that it is accurate and consistent in the treatment of the offences. One of the things that we are trying to do is to simplify the list of offences in order to get consistency and clarity, reduce error and thereby improve safeguarding outcomes in Northern Ireland, which is always the priority in such circumstances.”
“I regret that I stand here so often and say that we have no resources to do the things that we wish to do, but that will be part of the Department's forward work plan in the next mandate. I reassure Ms Hunter that that is our intent and it will happen.”
“That is another reason for my constantly saying in the House that we should reserve custodial sentences for those longer sentences that are for the most serious offences. The MOJ study in England and Wales suggested that the highest rates of reoffending occur in burglary, robbery and theft offences, while sexual offences are amongst the lowest. That is, in large part, due to supervisory arrangements, but it is worth noting that that is the lowest level of reoffending. <BR /> <BR />If I may, I also want to reassure Cara Hunter that a review mechanism will be taken forward in the next mandate. There is no intention on our part not to do that, but there is just no resource in the Department of Justice to do it in this mandate.”
“Such bright lines have been subject to legal challenge in the past, and I suspect that they will be again. However, by using the existing definition of a serious offence in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and setting the upper limit in Northern Ireland at 10 years, we are offering clarity, certainty and ease of understanding. <BR /> <BR />I understand that some Members may still have concerns about such long sentences being able to become spent. To those Members, I say that convictions that attract sentences of over six years' imprisonment tend to be in the low single figures across all offence types per year. Reoffending rates in Northern Ireland are also lower for those who are released from custodial sentences of over three years than for those who are released from shorter sentences.”
“The changes to rehabilitation periods in Northern Ireland in amendment No 92 directly mirror those in England and Wales and Scotland for all convictions of fewer than four years imprisonment where all offences, regardless of the nature of the offence, can become spent. <BR /> <BR />Where our schemes differ is in how we treat serious offences. The scheme in England and Wales specifies 182 different offences as serious, and convictions for sentences of over four years' imprisonment cannot become spent. That scheme is quite difficult to navigate, nor is it easy to understand, and it can create confusion as to what offences can and cannot become spent. There is no clear rationale either for setting the bright line that separates the same offence as serious and non-serious at four years.”
“Of the approximately 25,000 convictions in 2019, which was the last full year of normal figures, over 50% were fines, and 93% of custodial sentences under the existing arrangements could become spent. That said, 96% of respondents to the consultation exercise supported a review of rehabilitation periods here; 97% supported a reduction in existing rehabilitation periods and 94% supported an uplift of the current limit of 30 months. <BR /> <BR />What is being proposed in these amendments is, I think, a balanced approach. It supports effective rehabilitation and, at the same time, has public protection at its heart. It is important that, while seeking to reform existing rehabilitation periods, the scheme should remain simple and workable. As is currently the case, convictions for the most serious offending will never become spent.”
“That feedback from victims who have been referred to those services — for example, by the PPS or the courts — will need to come back to us. The protocol lead will also have the ability to undertake unannounced visits to those who are providing restorative justice services, so that they can assess for themselves on a regular basis the work that the organisation is doing regularly. The Department will also require accredited organisations and independent practitioners to report to it on key performance indicators on the provision of services. Those will be quarterly and end-of-year reports. That will provide a good balance. <BR /> <BR />Moving on to rehabilitation periods, the current rehabilitation arrangements allow for the vast majority of convictions to become spent.”
“We are still waiting for more referrals to that body, and the test will be when those referrals start to come through. I hope that the training that is being provided to our partner organisations will start to see that transpire, and, hopefully, that will bring a new service to victims. <BR /> <BR />Under the new practice standards and the accreditation framework, there is a very clear provision on the skills, experience and expertise that organisations and practitioners have to achieve and maintain in order to be and remain accredited. Critical to that are the reporting requirements that will be in place to demonstrate that service provision is being maintained to the necessary standard, and there will be an inherent need to reflect the views and satisfaction of those to whom services are provided.”
“The final episode of Carl Frampton's TV programme about probation was profound. That young woman would still, many years on, love to have those answers. She has been through the justice system, and she got justice for her partner, but she has never found the answers that she seeks to her questions. That is what restorative justice can provide that the formal justice system cannot. It is really important that, where appropriate, people across Northern Ireland get access to that. <BR /> <BR />We also intend to have a virtual restorative hub. We will have around 20 DOJ-accredited restorative justice practitioners operating at levels 2 and 3. They will work together to ensure consistency of practice, co-facilitate referrals and undertake shared training.”
“The idea is that, as we go along, we will start to roll it out across the various policing districts. It will require training for the PSNI and PPS on the new restorative justice diversionary disposal. Work continues to reinforce the use of that disposal approach in both organisations. We do not want to put it on the statute book only for it never to be used. We want to ensure that restorative practice becomes part of the formal justice system. <BR /> <BR />Earlier, we talked about what victims want. I meet with many victims every week, many of whom have had a very traumatic experience when going through the formal justice system. However, when they come away from it at the end, they find that they never got what they wanted: answers. Why me? Why was I targeted? Why did it happen? What made you do it?”
“Members have referred to local groups that provide a very good service in particular localities. The challenge is that there are other localities. In one part of Belfast, a lot of restorative practice could be happening, but, in another part, there could be none. It is about trying to widen that scope so that people have access, particularly in rural constituencies. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members asked questions about the roll-out. The pilot is under way as part of the ARJS vision to expand the use of that practice. The first phase launched at the end of March, and it focuses on diversionary disposals, initially in the policing districts of Ards and North Down and Lisburn and Castlereagh. That will be followed by those in Antrim and Newtownabbey, Mid and East Antrim and Derry/Londonderry.”
“I can give him my assurance that my intention in tabling amendment No 87 is that we do not end up in the situation that we are in now: almost 20 years on from the previous round of accreditation, people still have that accreditation stamp, if you like, without having had any engagement with the Department since. That is what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to ensure that there is support, consistency and a quality standard that is applicable right across the board. That is what we want to ensure through monitoring, inspection and reporting. <BR /> <BR />The amendment will assist in increasing the availability and geographic spread of quality services across Northern Ireland to allow more victims to access restorative justice in line with the adult restorative justice strategy.”
“Amendment No 87 will enable me to take decisions around the accreditation and registration of suitably qualified restorative justice providers and ensure that the required high standards continue to be met through monitoring, inspection and reporting mechanisms. <BR /> <BR />I take on board the point that the Member made about "may" or "shall". The difficulty is that my imposing those duties outside of regulation would create some challenges if we were to end up in a situation in which resources were, for whatever reason, strained. I am, however, happy to engage with the Member between now and Further Consideration Stage, and we can have a discussion about how we can best provide the reassurance that he seeks.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At this very late hour, I thank all Members for their brief but informative contributions. I will try to cover everything that was asked. If I miss anything, forgive me; it is not out of rudeness, and I am happy to come back to Members should they want to make an intervention. <BR /> <BR />I will take restorative justice first. Amendment No 87 rectifies an oversight that occurred when other powers and functions were transferred. It has the approval of the Secretary of State, and I hope that it is agreeable to everyone. Members will remember that it would have been part of what was to be an administration of justice Bill until that was narrowed to become the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill at the end of the previous mandate.”
“However, we are concerned about that, because we recognise that it is important that people right across Northern Ireland have access to high-level service.”
“Just to be clear, there will be organisations that will continue to do community-based practice that will not want to be part of the framework, and it is not necessary that they are. They can continue to practice outside the framework, and that is fine. The issue is about people who would be called upon to provide restorative practice within the justice system. The accreditation is for that purpose. If a small organisation that does restorative practice in their local community wants to continue working at that community level, it will not be affected by the change. If, however, it wants to participate in more formal structures as part of the justice system, this is the system that it will have to go through. That is likely to involve either skilled sole practitioners or slightly larger organisations.”
“The important part of this is to get people accredited at the start. It will not neglect the experience that people have, but it is about trying to start with a tiered approach, because, in addition to the stuff around community practice that the Member referred to, we are now looking at this as part of the formal justice system. A lot more will need to be done to prepare people, for example, to do restorative practice in the very sensitive cases that Cara Hunter spoke of, including those that involve death by dangerous driving or, indeed, serious sexual offences. That will be a different tier. That is the thinking behind it: it is not to exclude anyone or to put them back to square one. It is simply to start everyone off with the right accreditation for their level of expertise.”
“The truth is that the last accreditations were done so long ago that many of the people who were working in the organisations at that point have moved on, yet those accreditations, technically, still stand. People can say that they are accredited by the DOJ, but you are, effectively, dealing with a completely different organisation.”
“I am happy to try to provide some clarity on that. The issue is not that we want people to start from scratch. They will still have that experience, and that will be recognised as they go through the accreditation.”
“<BR /> <BR />That concludes my remarks on the group, other than to reassure Mr Paul Frew again that any changes that he may have identified between the texts are simply technical adjustments to accommodate changes made by the Office of the Attorney General with a view to ensuring that the provisions operate specifically as intended. There is no change of policy, new policy or change to the rehabilitation periods that have been proposed.”
“<BR /> <BR />New clause 29A also amends section 113A(6E)(f) of the Police Act to provide greater clarity as to the definition of "relevant matter", specifically with regard to the meaning of "sentence of imprisonment", "sentence of service detention" and "custodial order". Collectively, the amendments remove doubt as to what is in each of those disposal categories. Provisions in new clause 29A amend article 1A of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979 to ensure that the appropriate treatment of protected convictions accurately references offences listed in new schedule 8ZA to the Police Act 1997.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to speak to amendment Nos 94, 95 and 129, which introduce new clause 29A that amends section 113A of the Police Act 1997. The provisions make no substantive change to the offences listed in that section of the Police Act; rather, they streamline arrangements for maintenance and ease of understanding of what is known as the "list of specified offences". Essentially, that is a list of serious violent or sexual offences that cannot be filtered from AccessNI's standard and enhanced checks. Provisions under the amendment create a new schedule to the Police Act that will provide additional structure in legislation by setting out a clearly detailed list of offences that will replace the more cumbersome list at section 113A(6D) of the Police Act.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are also minor changes to terminology used for certain service disciplinary offences in the table of rehabilitation periods and the removal of certain entries for under-18s subject to specific service disciplinary offences where those offences have been repealed and consolidated under existing disciplinary offences in service legislation. Those are technical changes that were made at the request of the MOD to reflect changes introduced in England and Wales through the Westminster Armed Forces Bill 2026 that it wishes to see copied here in order to ensure a consistent approach across both jurisdictions. They do not represent a change in policy or new policy content. I hope that Mr Frew will be satisfied with that reassurance and that there was no ulterior motive on my part.”
“<BR /> <BR />I again wish to address concerns that, I understand, Mr Frew expressed in relation to differences between the text of the draft amendments shared with the Committee at the beginning of the Committee Stage in September 2024 and the text of the final drafts tabled in my name and before Members today. I reassure Mr Frew that, while there are a number of small changes to the text of the amendments, they are minor technical changes, rather than any change of policy or new content, to ensure that the amendments operate as intended and reflect comments made by the Attorney General's office for the purposes of clarity only.”
“I was, therefore, satisfied that there would be no increased risk to public safety as a result of the proposed reforms on the grounds that all spent and unspent conviction data would continue to be disclosed for sensitive employments such as work with children, young people and vulnerable adults. <BR /> <BR />A successful rehabilitation system must strike a balance between allowing a person to put their past behind them, the needs of employers in the recruitment process, the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system and protection of the public. The provisions in my amendment Nos 92 and 93 strike that balance, and I trust that MLAs will be able to satisfy themselves similarly.”
“For Northern Ireland's purposes, those exceptions are set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order (Northern Ireland) 1979. Officials were able to reassure me that the 1979 Order, and the employments and professions specified as excepted therein, would not be amended as part of this reform exercise.”
“While I considered the options presented to me for a direction on the way forward, I was concerned, as some here today might be, that the prospect of certain offences becoming spent might be considered problematic, and I sought more information from my officials in that regard. By way of response, officials advised that there are certain jobs and professions where applicants must always declare their convictions, even where they are considered spent. Those are known as "excepted employments or professions", and they can include working or coming into contact with children or vulnerable people. They also include working in financial institutions, the medical world and law enforcement, amongst others, where a particular conviction could have a strong bearing on an individual's suitability for employment in that area.”
“They will do so by not having to disclose as much conviction information to prospective employers for as long as required under the current rehabilitation regime. In some cases, disclosure of conviction information that would have to be made under the current regime will not need to be made as a result of the proposed changes. They may also be able to have more than one conviction become spent sooner than a single conviction under the existing scheme. <BR /> <BR />I want to support the effective rehabilitation of offenders, while recognising that more serious offences attract particular public concern regarding safety and represent a more serious risk to the public where reoffending occurs.”
“Continuing to use the length of sentence as a measure of seriousness of offending for rehabilitation purposes, and using the 10-year sentence as a metric for what constitutes a serious offence, as set out in the 2008 Order, the latter option among those presented to me offered the most clarity and certainty and was the easiest for people to understand, in line with the requirements under which the original rehabilitation law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was established. <BR /> <BR />I consider that adopting that model for implementation in Northern Ireland would enable more ex-offenders to put their convictions behind them, increase their opportunities for gaining meaningful employment and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.”
“<BR /> <BR />The latter option was not offered as a model for consideration as part of the consultation exercise. Rather, it was included in the options offered to me following officials' analysis of conviction and reoffending statistics specific to Northern Ireland, alongside the nature of the offending and consideration of responses to the consultation exercise that called for any reforms to be simple to understand and straightforward to operate. The rationale for setting the upper limit for that option at 10 years was that article 14 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 defines a serious offence as one that is specified in schedule 1 to the order. Schedule 1 lists 120 offences, which, for public protection purposes, are considered serious because they carry a penalty of 10 years or more.”
“<BR /> <BR />When officials in my Department analysed the responses to the public consultation exercise on my proposals to reform rehabilitation periods in 2021, they presented me with a number of options for consideration. The options included doing nothing by maintaining the existing regime; mimicking the arrangements in Scotland, where sentences over four years can never be spent; copying the model in England and Wales of allowing all sentences of over four years to become spent, except for those serious offences that I mentioned in schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008; or adopting a hybrid option that mirrored arrangements in England and Wales for sentences of up to four years imprisonment, but with a fixed upper limit of 10 years for any offence.”
“<BR /> <BR />The changes that I am seeking to bring forward deviate from those in England and Wales in the treatment of sentences of imprisonment of over four years. In England and Wales, a sentence of imprisonment of over four years for a non-serious offence can become spent after the term of the sentence plus seven years. The exclusions to rehabilitation in England and Wales are public protection sentences, specified violent offences, specified sexual offences or specified terrorism offences, as defined in schedule 18 to the Sentencing Act 2020. There are 182 offences specified in schedule 18, under 36 different pieces of legislation.”
“However, it is worth drawing Members' attention to some aspects. Rehabilitation periods for a fine will reduce from five years to one year, and rehabilitation periods for a number of community rehabilitation or supervisory orders will become spent when the requirements of the order are complete. Those changes are consistent with arrangements that have been in operation in England, Wales and Scotland for some years. So, too, are the rehabilitation periods for convictions involving sentences of imprisonment of up to one year, where the rehabilitation period becomes the term of the sentence plus one year, and sentences of imprisonment between one and four years will be capable of becoming spent after the term of the sentence plus four years.”
“Rehabilitation periods in Northern Ireland have remained essentially unchanged since first introduced in 1978. Since then, changes in sentencing practice have meant that longer sentences are now being imposed than when rehabilitation periods were first established. In addition, the bar on custodial sentences of over 30 months being treated as spent in Northern Ireland may act as a barrier to employment for former offenders who have not reoffended since their release. The reforms also reflect developments in neighbouring jurisdictions, thereby ensuring that ex-offenders in Northern Ireland are not treated less favourably than those in other jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />Members will be able to see for themselves the new rehabilitation periods contained in my amendment, so I do not intend to rehearse all the changes here.”
“Although the Supreme Court judgement of 6 March 2025, in the case of JR123, determined that a review mechanism is not required in order for a rehabilitation regime to be considered lawful, I believe that there is merit in continuing to develop proposals in that respect following further policy development, stakeholder engagement and public consultation. <BR /> <BR />The main purpose of the legislation governing the rehabilitation of offenders is to boost the chances of former offenders gaining employment and living within the law by helping them to put their past convictions behind them. By reducing reoffending through the rehabilitation of offenders, we are aiming to ensure that there are fewer victims of crime, that our communities are safer and that less money is spent on repeat offenders circling within the justice system.”
“Importantly, expansion of the use of restorative justice is on a phased basis, starting with diversionary disposals in order that the process can be properly bedded in and ensure effective delivery before being extended to court cases. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 92 and 93 aim to deliver some long overdue legislative reforms to reduce rehabilitation periods for existing convictions and to allow more convictions to become capable of becoming spent. The amendments also create an order-making power to allow the Department to establish a review mechanism in future for some additional convictions not captured by the revised arrangements.”
“My Department continues to progress work in that area under administrative agency arrangements agreed with the Secretary of State until the new provisions are in place. Amendment No 87 enables provisions to be placed on a statutory footing locally. <BR /> <BR />I would like to reassure Members that underpinning the legislative provisions is a comprehensive and robust practice standards and accreditation framework. That clearly sets out the expertise, training and experience that service providers must have to provide restorative justice services as part of the criminal justice process. That is intended to provide reassurance about the quality of the service that is being provided, with the requirements increasing for more serious and complex offences.”
“There have been a number of developments in restorative justice over the intervening period, including the publication of an adult restorative justice strategy and a comprehensive review of the restorative justice protocol, which governs that work. <BR /> <BR />The new provisions will allow me, as Minister of Justice, and my Department to take decisions around the accreditation of organisations and individuals that provide restorative justice services and to maintain a register of accredited providers. They will also enable monitoring, inspection and reporting on those providers and, in extreme circumstances, their removal from the register of accredited service providers if necessary.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to discuss amendment No 87, which deals with the transfer of powers found in section 43 of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007. Those powers relate to the accreditation and registration of organisations that deliver restorative justice services in Northern Ireland, which were overlooked when relevant functions were transferred to my Department on the devolution of policing and justice. <BR /> <BR />The transfer of powers has been agreed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and a draft clause to transfer those powers was originally included in the final Justice Bill of the previous mandate but was withdrawn when the scope of that Bill was narrowed.”
“Will somebody explain to me how anything that is proposed in the amendments relates more to a unionist or a nationalist; a Catholic, a Protestant or somebody who is neither; a Hindu; or a Muslim? Explain it to me like I am a child, because I do not see where anybody's rights are being offended by what has been proposed.”
“The Member will be well aware that the last time on which a member of Alliance signed a petition of concern was to do with a debate on abortion. To be fair, it is not often that I disagreed with my colleague Anna Lo, but I did on that occasion: I would not have signed it. David Ford spoke against her signing it because we had said long before 2016 that we wished to see reform of the institutions, with the vetoes and the petition of concern being removed. Part of the impetus for it becoming a bigger issue was that they were being thrown around like confetti at one stage in the Assembly, to the point where nothing could get done. People pre-signed them and all sorts of nonsense. That, at least, is gone, but they are still not being used for the purpose for which they were intended. <BR /> <BR />Brian mentioned unionists and nationalists.”