Emma Sheerin
Mid Ulster · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“Given what we have seen unfold across the North in recent weeks, it is important that we acknowledge that they are people with particular vulnerabilities who are particularly sensitive and, with that in mind, consider our language.”
“No, I will not give way. You have rambled on for long enough in this place. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to the early clauses of the Bill, I, like others, put on the record our appreciation of the work of Geraldine Hanna and our support for the intent of Part 1 of the Bill, which puts the role that she has been carrying out impeccably thus…”
“I thank the Minister for clarifying that immigration is an excepted matter, which means that it is the responsibility of the British Government and nothing to do with the House.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Members will be aware that the DUP and some of its lackeys in the UUP cynically used petitions of concern, two weeks ago, to block rights for children.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill. I am proud to be from a party that consistently supports the best available human rights advice on all matters.”
“For many years, Donaldson used his position of power to abuse and to escape justice. He presented himself as a role model. We now know that that was bogus and that his public persona was a deception.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,123 lines we hold for Emma Sheerin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 23.
“Like the Member who just spoke, I am appalled by what we have just witnessed. I feel sorry for the new leader of the UUP. You watched how the DUP used masked men last weekend and then criticised and condemned masked men in the following days. Just watch how you will be treated in years to come when you have done their bidding.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am absolutely astounded. He is making the argument for us. If children are more likely to be coerced at 12, 13 and 14 than they are at 10, they need to be protected. Genuinely, how is it the answer to criminalise them?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The reason why we brought this proposed legislative change is to prevent crime. The data tells us that the younger a person enters the criminal justice system and the younger they are systemised, the more likely they are to continue in a cycle of crime. The whole point of this is prevention rather than punishment. As with my earlier point, if young people received appropriate relationships and sexuality education in school and were properly taught about the appropriateness of relationships, we would not have the threat or the risk of downblousing or upskirting. That is something that we have as a result of young children not being properly taught about appropriate relationships. It is always better to teach our young people rather than punish them.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I would like to correct the record, because I did not make that assertion, and the Member knows that full well. Someone said earlier — I think that it was Sian — that the most fitting tribute that we can make to any victim of crime is to ensure that that crime is not inflicted on anyone else. It is not because of the risk of public uproar; it is in recognition of the fact that some offences are so dangerous that we would not like to risk someone else falling victim to the same crime. That is the rationale behind it, not fear of public uproar. That is an awful thing for the Member to have said.”
“That is the rationale behind the particular offences that carry the maximum penalty available, acknowledging the severity of those particular offences.”
“I thank the Member for giving way again; he has been very generous with his time. I understand his concerns about what might almost be called the arbitrary nature of the listed offences. All of this is a balancing act, and we chose offences, as the exceptions to the rule, that held the maximum penalty because they are the most extreme offences. We are coming at it from the position that these are children, acknowledging that most children do not understand the fullness of what they have done or been accused of. We are trying to provide intervention as opposed to punishment. These are the most extreme cases. We are not trying to legislate for everybody on the basis of some extremities. These are very rare cases.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The rationale of the Members who tabled the amendment is that prevention is always better than cure and that we would rather not see children be placed in such a position. The party of the Member opposite blocked a measure to enable girls to wear trousers in school. If they were allowed to do so, they would not be victims of upskirting. Is that not something practical and real that would lead to less damage to young women in class?”
“Similarly, it is not acceptable that our migrant community and people of colour in Belfast feel threatened in their own homes in the wake of one horrific incident. <BR /> <BR />We need to think carefully about the language that we use, because we must show the world that we are a welcoming community. Irish people emigrated all around the world, made homes for themselves and helped build countries, and it is our responsibility to show the people who want to come here to make a better life for themselves that they have the right to do so. We need to tread carefully as we go into the summer months and not allow the disgusting racism and sectarianism, which is reminiscent of a time when other people in this country were burnt out of their homes, leading some to feel that the attacks of the past week are the same.”
“If we are to deal properly with the scourge of racism that we saw in all its true reality last week, we have to think carefully about the words that we use. It is not acceptable for Members to conflate issues. <BR /> <BR />We stood in the Chamber at the same time last Monday to talk about a family of colour that was targeted in Belfast and had their business destroyed, and, rightly, we all condemned that. In the following hours, we did not see an attack on every white person in that community, nor should there have been, because that does not reflect the people of the Shankill Road. We have seen the real spirit of the people of the Shankill Road reflected in their condemnation of the attack and in the welcome for the would-be business owner in their community.”
“What we saw last week on the streets of Belfast was disgusting. It was racism in all its ugly reality, and it has to be condemned outright by everyone in the Chamber. Unfortunately, as others have touched on, the leadership needed to deal with what happened and to deal with the poor, affected communities came not from the Communities Minister but from people on the ground. It came from activists, from members of the clergy, from the community and voluntary sector and from residents, who showed what the real spirit of Irishness is by welcoming people into their homes and community centres with open arms. <BR /> <BR />We have heard doublespeak from the DUP and others across the Chamber in recent days and weeks. Careful consideration has to be given to that as we move forward.”
“I apologise for intervening again so soon. For clarification, a fortnight ago, a nine-year-old was arrested in Derry. What you have just presented is misinformation. Given your previous role, I think that you know that that is misinformation. It is not in order for you to mislead the House.”
“I thank the Minister for her pronunciation of "doli incapax" given how I was going to say it. I appreciate your clarifying that, Minister. <BR /> <BR />Does the Minister agree that we have seen, across the world, that that model is costly and inefficient and that best practice across the world tells us that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility leads to better outcomes for young people across our society?”
“It is not acceptable that police disciplinary processes cannot begin until criminal proceedings have concluded. We therefore welcome the amendments that allow the Police Ombudsman to submit a report for disciplinary procedures during an investigation when the evidence suggests that there has been wrongdoing, as well as the amendment that will allow police officers to be investigated during a criminal investigation where it looks as if there has been wrongdoing. We also welcome the creation of police barred and advisory lists, because somebody who is found to have broken the law cannot be responsible for implementing the law. <BR /> <BR />I welcome all the amendments.”
“We cannot have the current situation whereby police officers can be suspended indefinitely, remain on full pay for years at a time and then retire or resign before allegations are brought to light. That gives them a protection that is not deserved. In exchanges with DUP representatives on the Justice Committee, we have had a conversation about the fact that police officers are charged with a heavy responsibility and duty in society, which means that they should be held to a standard and do not have the right to implement the law when they break the law. That is important, and we have to bear it in mind. <BR /> <BR />Our justice system is underfunded and is slow because of that. That means that criminal investigations are often held up longer than they should be.”
“The review into the murder of Katie Simpson found institutional misogyny in the PSNI. We have seen a case in which the lies and testimony of a known abuser, who had previously been convicted, were believed, and we know the ramifications of that across society for confidence in policing. We have also had a report by the Police Ombudsman's chief executive that found that PSNI officers had abused their position to gain sexual favours. None of those things is acceptable in a modern society, and they have to be addressed. <BR /> <BR />The Police Ombudsman has called for new, fast-tracking disciplinary powers that can be used when it is obvious that there has been misconduct.”
“I will speak on the group 4 amendments that Sinn Féin will support, and I thank the Minister and her party colleagues for the work on them. <BR /> <BR />We all acknowledge that there are massive problems with the structure and accountability of existing PSNI disciplinary procedures. The problems are not just historical but are reflected in recent media coverage and reports that have had negative implications for public confidence in policing. My colleague Linda Dillon, who represents our party on the Policing Board and has spoken about the issues for a number of years, will talk about that in more detail. <BR /> <BR />The recent Langdale review found that there was:”
“I thank the Member for giving way, and I appreciate his remarks on the tough job that police officers do and the challenges that they face. Will the Member agree that, when wrongdoing is found on the part of police officers, it damages public confidence in the police? If we resist measures to ensure that those police officers are no longer able to carry out their function, we further that lack of confidence in greater society.”
“We have also brought motions on the issue to the House, but, as we face into another summer where such care is not provided properly, we need to see urgent action from the Minister.”
“It is emotionally and mentally draining, and it leads to unacceptable tension in families. The level of responsibility that is placed on families to carry out what should be provided for by the state is unacceptable. <BR /> <BR />In the particular case that I talked about, the lady made multiple phone calls to a social work team to deal with her mother's care and found that there was no social worker assigned to her mum; she was dealing with multiple duty social workers, none of whom was aware of her mother's complex needs. She had to re-brief each of them every time that she phoned. She felt as though she was begging for very basic provision for her mum, which still has not been delivered. I have made the case directly to the Minister on a number of occasions.”
“The level of desperation that those people have to go to in order to get the most basic care provision for elderly people who have worked all their lives, contributed to the system and are entitled to dignity at home in their last years on this earth is absolutely heartbreaking and ridiculous. <BR /> <BR />I have appealed to the Minister of Health on a number of occasions to properly provide for our elderly communities and properly resource our domiciliary carers. One of the biggest problems that we face in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust area is that we cannot facilitate packages of care because the carers who carry out that vocational and heartbreaking work are not paid sufficiently to do so. Therefore, it is left to unpaid carers — family members — to pick up the burden.”
“I will speak briefly about an issue that I have raised in the House on numerous occasions: domiciliary care provision and home care, specifically in my constituency of Mid Ulster. It is appropriate that I speak about it during Carers' Week, when we acknowledge the role of unpaid carers in our society and the struggle that they face. <BR /> <BR />I was recently contacted by a constituent who was forced to make what was almost a public appeal for support after spending the best part of six months trying to get the most basic of care provision for her elderly mother. The appeal that she made would bring tears to a stone. I am frequently contacted by daughters, daughters-in-law, nieces and neighbours, and, to a lesser extent, by sons and male members of the family, about the care that elderly parents, aunts, uncles and neighbours need.”
“I appreciate the Member providing that clarification. I know that there was conversation on the inclusion of commercial animals as well as just domestic pets, and I believe that you have given a commitment to include that as well. With all that said, I am content with this part of the debate.”
“It has a very progressive and powerful message to send in that it completely dispels any notion or myth, which we sometimes have as a by-product of the pro-contact model, that an abuser will abuse a victim because of something that the victim has done or because the victim is somehow complicit in their own suffering and somehow to blame. This exposes the fact that an abuser will abuse whoever they can get away with abusing, so an innocent animal will be a victim as well.”
“a couple of hundred times a day, I am definitely on board with that. We will support amendment No 73. <BR /> <BR />I also want to briefly mention Mr Frew's amendments on domestic abuse involving animals, namely amendment Nos 88 and 89. My colleague Aoife Finnegan will touch on those in more detail. Initially, we were concerned about those amendments and worried that they would perhaps water down the grievous nature of domestic violence and have the unintended consequence of minimising victims' pain and suffering. However, after having spoken with Sonya McMullan from Women's Aid and having listened to the research, it became very clear that not only are animals being used as a means to torture victims, they are also suffering in those scenarios themselves.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also want to touch on amendment No 73, which abolishes the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. Of course, Sinn Féin supports that amendment. There is absolutely no place for criminalisation of blasphemy in a modern, pluralist society. As someone who exclaims "Ó a Dhia"”
“We support the amendments on that basis. <BR /> <BR />I will touch very briefly on some of the other issues in this group. Ciara Ferguson will go into more detail on amendment No 70, which is about repealing the historic legislation that criminalised vagrancy. We have already had contributions from across the Chamber on the fact that the language that was used in that law, which predated partition, was antiquated, grossly offensive and completely lacking in empathy or compassion. We want to change that. During the Committee Stage, we had conversations about whether or not there was a need for replacement legislation, and we are quite reluctant in our support of that because we are not quite sure of the perceived gaps. However, we are happy to support those amendments today and watch how that plays out.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. That will be key and integral to the success of the legislation. If the police have new powers to deal with criminal gangs, organised groups, paramilitaries or whatever you want to call them, we have to ensure that there is a twin-track approach and that all issues are dealt with holistically. As well as having increased powers to punish those who are directing crime, we should have support systems in place and acknowledge the socio-economic factors that lead people from deprived areas to become victims of gangs in the first place. We heard from the Independent Reporting Commission that paramilitarism cannot be tackled through criminal justice measures alone. However, we are content that the amendments are being included for the right reasons and that the outcome should be positive.”
“I appreciate that clarity from the Minister. The concern came from a recent presentation to the Committee, and Criminal Justice Inspection’s (CJINI) report on child criminal exploitation presented us with some worrying findings. The inspection team could see that children had been exploited, but there were zero referrals to the national referral mechanism. The findings of Criminal Justice Inspection were that there was no strategy in place and that there had been no learning.”
“The proposals to introduce a new definition of organised crime gangs and the new offences of participating in illegal activity related to organised crime and of directing illegal, organised crime gangs are all welcome. <BR /> <BR />We have a wee bit of concern about amendment No 46, which proposes new clause 19B. Our specific concern is that children and young people are among the most vulnerable groups and are often victims of criminal gangs. The evidence received by the Committee on the issue was referred to earlier, as was the advice from human rights organisations and the children's sector. That has almost been dealt with, in that the Minister feels that the defence specific to children has already been covered.”
“I will speak briefly on a number of the issues covered in this group of amendments. My party will support all the amendments in the group. I appreciate the clarification given earlier in the debate. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 45 to 48 tackle organised crime gangs, and my party agrees with the principle of all those amendments. It is clear that they will strengthen the police's ability to tackle such criminality, and we support that. Those groups are a scourge on our society, and they cause enormous harm across our communities. As others have said, we know the damage that they do and the coercive control that they exert on many of the people whom we represent. They do not represent our communities; they harm our communities and have no place in our communities.”
“Nobody, regardless of their background, race or religion, should be subject to violence, intimidation or abuse of any kind. Nobody should have to justify why they deserve to be here. We should have a migrant population in the North of Ireland that feels free and safe to go about their business without having to give rationale as to why they should be allowed to live peacefully. As the summer continues, I hope that, across the House, we show that we are a welcoming community and that we have a place here for everyone.”
“I thank the Member for West Belfast for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Chamber. I associate myself with a lot of the remarks that he made. <BR /> <BR />What happened to this gentleman and his family on Saturday was wrong, and I welcome the condemnation from across the House and society. A lot of the commentary has referred, in good faith, to the fact that the gentleman has been here for almost 20 years, that he has worked hard and that he buried his life's savings into the potential business, which has all been scuppered by the disgusting racism that was on show during the early hours of Saturday morning. However, it is important to remember that a person's worth is not measured by the financial contribution that they make.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has been generous with his time. I can appreciate the neatness argument and the alignment argument. I understand that, and I imagine that most Members do. However, that should be prioritised over young people's well-being. We know, because there is a significant body of evidence, that locking children up does not work. We want to see a youth justice system that supports the rehabilitation of children and young offenders and encourages compassion and empathy. Our position is that that is what should be prioritised.”
“There are, however, more reasons than that for why we do not want to see children younger than 14 placed in custody or being liable for youth custody orders. We saw from the evidence that we received from the children's rights organisations the harms and risks that that poses to younger children, which is part of the reason that we support raising the age of criminal responsibility. I am a bit confused, given the fact that your party has tabled a petition of concern. I do not know where that sits.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that he had a reason to be out of the Chamber earlier. That causes us some confusion about where you and your party stand on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The position that you just outlined makes sense, because it means that the two ages would align, which seems reasonable enough.”
“We should all be working together here to stop stigmatising children and young people who find themselves in situations that none of us wants them to be in. We should be supporting young people in those scenarios and providing them with compassion and empathy as opposed to criminalising young people and setting them on a negative path for the rest of their life.”
“To move away from existing practices and norms in such a dramatic fashion without consulting either publicly or with the Youth Justice Agency, the Probation Board, the PSNI, the Courts and Tribunals Service or any other criminal justice agency would be a dereliction of our duties as MLAs. <BR /> <BR />I am somewhat confused, and, as I said, the news of the petition of concern submitted in the name of the Member who tabled amendment No 44 is, in my view, a stunt and an abuse of that power as it was written in the Good Friday Agreement. His contribution today further suggested that, because it sounds like it was a disingenuous attempt and that he does not want to change the minimum age of criminal responsibility at all. I would appreciate clarity on that.”
“Oh right. OK. <BR /> <BR />I cannot understand that position. The evidence tells us, as we touched on in the earlier debate, that children who are in the system and criminalised from a young age have much greater rates of reoffending and that a compassionate approach to children and young people leads to less crime. Apart from anything else, diversionary measures and restorative justice practices are better for everyone involved. We know that custody should not be used for under-14s as it currently stands, unless for very serious offences. That is in line with the consultees who responded to us on that matter.”
“I am kind of confused because the Member in his earlier remarks seemed to suggest that that would almost be motivation for Members to increase the age of criminal responsibility to match it at 14. That is Sinn Féin party policy, and we have an amendment, with other parties, to reflect that. I would like to see the DUP support that, but I am confused because I know that the Member has tabled a petition of concern. He is not here to answer through an intervention, and I do not know whether any of his party colleagues want to come in to give some explanation.”
“I note that the Member for North Antrim has left his seat, but I found his contribution kind of concerning and confusing, if I am honest. The amendment aims to begin youth custody orders at the minimum age of criminal responsibility, as opposed to at 14 as proposed by the Minister. That is something that we in Sinn Féin will not support. I cannot get my head around the rationale for it. The amendment stands in stark contrast to the positive principles of the Bill, which I referred to. It seeks to change the age at which a child may be subject to a youth custody and supervision order from 14 to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is currently 10. I know that we are going to have further debate about changing the minimum age of criminal responsibility, so I do not want to stray into that.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak to the group 2 amendments relating to child bail, custody arrangements and live links. I also welcome the tone in which the debate has been carried out so far. I put on record again my thanks to everyone involved on the staff side from the Department, the Committee and the Bill Office in getting us to where we are. I welcome the focus from the Minister in the Bill on youth justice and children's rights as a priority. That represents progressive and positive legislation that better implements the principles of public authorities in representing the best interests of children in their decision-making as a priority, as we are mandated to do in the Justice Act 2002. That is positive and should be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />I will speak specifically about amendment No 44, which gives me grave concern.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I listened intently as you set out your case initially, because I was confused about what you were advocating, to be honest with you, when talking about the change. In the first instance, I would say that what you have set out could be solved, perhaps, by raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I know that we will get on to that. You prefaced those remarks by talking about the cases that you have dealt with and the anxiety of the parents and young people whom you have helped as an MLA. Would that not lead you to want to take a compassionate approach to those young people and, rather than risk punishing people who have been the victims of crime, deal with everyone more compassionately? Would that not make more sense?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is important to note that the Human Rights Commission’s advice was that the 75/50/25 model is too broadly constituted, disproportionate and not compatible with article 8. That should be the standard that we set for ourselves.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, I want to touch briefly on the issue of photographs, which my colleague Aoife Finnegan will talk about in greater detail. Along with other Committee colleagues, we are clear that the legislation needs to be future-proofed. Technology moves fast, and existing PSNI practices should be accounted for in the biometrics framework, given that the PSNI already regards as biometric information photographs that have gone through that process. It is a pity that photographs were not included in the Bill, but we welcome the fact that other Members have suggested that they will support the Committee's amendment No 40 on the future addition of photographs as biometric material. I thank them for that.”
“That is of particular importance, given the recent revelations of illegal surveillance of journalists by the PSNI and its failure to delete material on the back of a court order. <BR /> <BR />Our amendment No 35 would place a duty on the biometrics commissioner to issue guidance that sets out the information that a custody officer should provide in writing to an individual or their solicitor, parent, guardian or appropriate adult before biometric material is obtained. That should include the maximum period for which the material may be retained and the circumstances in which an individual has a right to appeal against a determination to retain data, as well as the procedure for such appeals. That is an important safeguard, and we encourage all Members to support amendment no 35.”
“As I have outlined, we have concerns about how the commissioner would carry out their function and how we can ensure their ultimate independence. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to my next point. We feel that the PSNI needs to provide appropriate information to individuals who are having their biometric data taken and retained. When people have been arrested and are going through the biometrics process, information about the process and their rights is unlikely to be at the forefront of their thinking. Therefore, we believe that the PSNI should have a duty to inform those individuals of their rights. Where someone is in that stressful situation, they might not be considering all of those requirements.”
“I thank the Minister for that, but the legal briefing that we received from the Department in March 2025 highlighted the importance of the reviewer. The Chief Constable is not independent of the policymaker or those who will carry out the policy, which is the PSNI. The commissioner will be appointed by the Department and must report to the Department. The Scottish commissioner talked about the importance of independence, free from political influence. The Scottish commissioner is appointed by and answerable only to Parliament. There are two concerns there. I am not saying that everything in Scotland is perfect, but we were not able to achieve any clarity around the complete independence of the biometrics commissioner, as you have set out in your proposals thus far.”
“Thank you for that, Minister. We had extensive conversations and engaged with your team on the topic at Committee Stage, because the guaranteed independence of the biometrics commissioner has been a concern for Sinn Féin from the start. Having asked DOJ officials, we did not get clarification that the PSNI ultimately would not be the ultimate arbiter of how the biometrics commissioner carried out their functions or that they would not have to take direction from the PSNI. We are yet to receive anything to dispute that.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. In my earlier remarks, I said that our key concern was around the fact that the biometrics commissioner — we teased it out in Committee sessions — is, ultimately, answerable to the PSNI. The Law Society's advice was that it would be helpful to refer to the Scottish model and how the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner handles the data.”
“We ask Members to support amendment Nos 29 and 32, which achieve that aim by removing the PSNI as the ultimate decision-making authority so that it does not mark its own homework and by ensuring that there is an individual with the necessary independence to carry out reviews on the basis of proportionality, fairness and rights. Again, we can look to the Scottish model to see how the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner is answerable to the whole Scottish Parliament, not to one political advocate as such. <BR /> <BR />Moving on to my next point —.”