Brian Kingston
North Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“As a DUP member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill moving to Second Stage. As other Members have mentioned, we are currently handling three substantial Bills at Justice Committee: the Justice Bill, the amendments on which we completed voting on earlier today after seven days of debate; the Criminal…”
“We recognise, however, that the commissioner is not to be an appeal mechanism for when, for example, the outcome of a trial is considered to be unsatisfactory, such as when an unduly lenient sentence is handed down.”
“The special measures include ensuring that an alleged perpetrator is not allowed to cross-examine the victim of the alleged offence, including in sexual crime cases. <BR /> <BR />We heard comments from the Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster in praise of her party's support for victims' human rights.”
“We are aware that the trial process often focuses more on the defendant who is charged with an offence than it does on the victims of the alleged crime. Victims must be at the heart of the justice system, not peripheral to it.”
“We welcome the fact that, through the legislation, the post will be formally established and regulated. <BR /> <BR />The principal aim of the commissioner is to promote the interests of victims and witnesses. The commissioner is intended to have a strategic role rather than to become involved in individual cases. Indeed, clause 8 states:”
“Although the Minister notified us a week ago that he would make his statement, it was disappointing that we received the text of it less than an hour before he was scheduled to give it in the Chamber, which did not help us with scrutiny.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,072 lines we hold for Brian Kingston, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 22.
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Is the issue of character references addressed in the Bill or will it be dealt with in an amendment that she intends to table?”
“We are aware that the trial process often focuses more on the defendant who is charged with an offence than it does on the victims of the alleged crime. Victims must be at the heart of the justice system, not peripheral to it. The commissioner must be a champion for victims and witnesses, and we will support the establishment of that post if it carries out that function.”
“The special measures include ensuring that an alleged perpetrator is not allowed to cross-examine the victim of the alleged offence, including in sexual crime cases. <BR /> <BR />We heard comments from the Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster in praise of her party's support for victims' human rights. If that is the case, perhaps her party will stop glorifying the actions of victim makers in the IRA, as it regularly does. Perhaps she can call on members of her party who have knowledge of acts of violence carried out by the IRA that created victims to come forward with that information. <BR /> <BR />DUP Committee members will listen to the views and concerns of all those who attend the Committee's evidence sessions.”
“We recognise, however, that the commissioner is not to be an appeal mechanism for when, for example, the outcome of a trial is considered to be unsatisfactory, such as when an unduly lenient sentence is handed down. There are separate mechanisms to deal with that, such as through the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Court of Appeal. The commissioner will be required to keep the operation and effectiveness of the Victim Charter and the Witness Charter under regular review. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also seeks to strengthen special measures that relate to offences involving aggravation by hostility, which are commonly known as hate crimes. That ties in with the work that the Committee is already undertaking on the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill.”
“That will be an important balance. The commissioner and their officials must be available to engage with victims and should listen to their concerns from a perspective of system-wide oversight.”
“We welcome the fact that, through the legislation, the post will be formally established and regulated. <BR /> <BR />The principal aim of the commissioner is to promote the interests of victims and witnesses. The commissioner is intended to have a strategic role rather than to become involved in individual cases. Indeed, clause 8 states:”
“As a DUP member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill moving to Second Stage. As other Members have mentioned, we are currently handling three substantial Bills at Justice Committee: the Justice Bill, the amendments on which we completed voting on earlier today after seven days of debate; the Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill, for which we are currently engaging with witnesses at Committee; and now, this important Bill, which aims to strengthen support for victims and witnesses of crime. <BR /> <BR />In particular, the Bill provides for the appointment and functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime for Northern Ireland. The post has existed in designate form for four years, with Geraldine Hanna in post since 2022.”
“Certainly, the Peace funding has been a substantial extra financial boost for Northern Ireland, particularly when it comes to capital projects. How do Ministers ensure that funding decisions by the SEUPB align as much as possible with the Northern Ireland Executive's Programme for Government?”
“Although the Minister notified us a week ago that he would make his statement, it was disappointing that we received the text of it less than an hour before he was scheduled to give it in the Chamber, which did not help us with scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />I welcome all initiatives to reduce the blight and waste represented by domestic and business premises that are not in use. Will the Minister clarify the terms of the Back in Business scheme? Will the discount still be 50% for 24 months? How will he cooperate with other initiatives such as the Vacant to Vibrant scheme in Belfast, which provides grants with support from the Department for Communities and what was the UK Shared Prosperity Fund?”
“Thank you, Minister. For my understanding, would you be comfortable with the idea of a biological male being accommodated on a female prisoner wing and having free association with the female prisoners on that wing, or is that something that you would seek to avoid and rule out?”
“She does not. That is fine. <BR /> <BR />I consider amendment No 97 to give us the opportunity to provide such protection for women prisoners in Northern Ireland to avoid the mistaken guidance in Scotland. The DUP will therefore support it.”
“Currently, the Scottish Prison Service uses a system of individual risk assessment that permits circumstances in which trans women born biologically male can be housed alongside women if they are deemed not to pose an unacceptable risk to them. The court, however, ruled that article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects private and family life, does not mean that there is an automatic right for a transgender prisoner to be housed in a prison designated for the opposite biological sex. As others have said, Lady Ross said that article 8 rights were qualified and may be restricted where there is a legitimate justification, including maintaining sex-based segregation in the prison estate. <BR /> <BR />I do not know whether the Minister still wishes to come in.”
“In a wee minute. I will finish this part of my contribution first. <BR /> <BR />Put simply, the court ruled that a biological male prisoner who says that he is a trans woman should not therefore be admitted to a female jail. Judge Lady Ross said in her ruling that sex segregation in prisons must be based on biological sex on the basis of the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a man and a woman in equality law in April last year. The campaign group For Women Scotland had challenged the Scottish Government's guidance through a judicial review (JR), saying that only those born biologically female should be held in the women's estate. Lady Ross said that the existing guidance was:”
“<BR /> <BR />It is clear that some political parties and legislators in Scotland got on the wrong side of public opinion and of the law on such matters. It has taken some time for that to be rectified. As we have discussed, a few days ago in Scotland, a judge ruled that existing prison guidance that allowed some transgender prisoners to be held in jails that match their preferred gender identity, rather than their sex at birth, is unlawful.”
“namely that of "biological sex". <BR /> <BR />The matter has come to the fore in recent years as society as a whole has worked out its position on people claiming to be transgender. We in the DUP have been clear that women-only protected spaces — toilets; changing rooms; accommodation, including prison accommodation; sports categories; and so on — must be reserved for biological girls and women. Biological men should not be admitted to those spaces. That is common sense in the interest of safety. Going against that could have serious consequences for biological women and their safety. It is naive to think that biological women would not be at threat from biological men in the same prison accommodation.”
“The amendment adds that, as per the Supreme Court ruling in April 2025:”
“We consider that to be a common-sense policy that will support rehabilitation and help to prevent repeat offending and a cycle of re-imprisonment. I welcome the words of support for the amendment and trust that it will receive support across the House. <BR /> <BR />I will also comment on amendment No 97 from Timothy Gaston MLA on the accommodation of women prisoners. We consider it also to be a common-sense proposal in providing protection, and it should be supported. The amendment to rule 90 of the Prison and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995 would allow the Department of Justice to make individualised accommodation arrangements for a prisoner, provided that:”
“I rise to speak on the group 9 amendments to the Justice Bill, as we are all doing, on day 7 of our Consideration Stage. The end is in sight. <BR /> <BR />I will comment first on amendment No 96, tabled by DUP members Paul Frew, Maurice Bradley and me. As Paul Frew explained yesterday, the purpose of the amendment is to avoid the difficulties that arise for prisoners who are released at weekends or on public holidays, when support services — both statutory and voluntary sector services — are less likely to be available for them. That can result in difficulty securing accommodation and access to support services to help them reintegrate into society. Therefore, we propose that, in such circumstances, the release day should be brought forward by a day or two to a normal weekday to ensure that those support services are available.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that your Department's figures show a 76% increase in agency staff across the Northern Ireland Civil Service in the three years from 2023 to 2026, reaching a total of over 5,250 such staff in January of this year. I know that just under half of those staff work under the DWP contract in the Department for Communities, but, at the Finance Committee, we have heard of agency staff working under such contracts for seven years or more. I heard what you said, Minister, but is there an active policy to enable long-term agency workers to become directly employed, with the Northern Ireland Civil Service having the flexibility to deploy them as needed?”
“There may have been an element of admission in that, but perhaps something in the system could encourage there to be no disincentive to shortening a case if there is an opportunity to do so. <BR /> <BR />The overall opinion from the Law Society and the Bar of Northern Ireland was, "Why fix what is not broken?" Along with my colleague Paul Frew, I have presented some of the concerns that were expressed to us. We will continue to scrutinise the matter in the interest of public accounts, fairness to the professionals concerned and access to justice.”
“I was happy to take that long intervention from the Minister, because I had put a lot of concerns on the record that had been expressed to us. As I have said, we believe in accountability for public funds and good value for money, but we also believe in access to justice and ensuring that people do not find — as has happened with NHS dentistry, by way of comparison — that they struggle to find a professional who will undertake the work for them. People are entitled to fair pay for their work, but the public want to know that it is fair and not exaggerated. <BR /> <BR />Another comment that was made to us was that there should be an incentive to shorten court cases where possible rather than dragging them out.”
“We must avoid a situation where there is a shortage of solicitors and barristers who are willing to take on legal aid cases because of the poor rate of return, similar to what has happened with NHS dentistry. The Law Society said that solicitors who take on private cases typically charge at two or three times the rate paid for legal aid work, and that a higher rate is charged for private work that is more complex. The Law Society said that solicitors had already withdrawn from legal aid work in some rural areas, which they described as becoming like "legal aid deserts". <BR /> <BR />I will give way to the Minister.”
“The Bar and the Law Society said that the taxing master, as the protector of the legal aid fund, was not previously accountable to the departmental accounting officer. Indeed, the proposed new clause 27A was described as a power grab by the Department. In reply, I pointed out that, as elected representatives, having responsibility for public expenditure and taxpayers' money, we believe in accountability for public funds and that, in general, good value for money for the public purse is a positive. Our primary purpose is to represent the public interest, to represent the taxpayer and to uphold fairness. <BR /> <BR />Equally, those who provide a publicly funded service should be paid fairly for their service.”
“The Bar and the Law Society asked that the Department carry out a review with them as active participants. They claimed that the Department had already indicated its intention to move to an hourly rate, which, they said, would be a huge shift. Nevertheless, I was left with the impression that solicitors are more used to detailing their claims by way of time spent and hourly rates, whereas barristers, it seemed to me, tend to use the Comerton scale, if I understand it correctly, with less detail provided.”
“They were, however, deeply concerned by the uncertainty over how that change could end up and the unintended consequences that it could have.”
“— let me finish this section — that would be set out in a remuneration order dictated by the Department; and that the role of the taxing master would be reduced to just counting the number of hours that were spent working on a case, with payment based on a fixed hourly rate without due regard to the complexity of the case — I am presenting what was presented to us — and they feared that brief fees would no longer be recognised, which, I understand, is a fixed amount that applies to every case for producing the report that is sent to the taxing master. They said that that was a clear encroachment on the independence of the taxing master as a legal officer. <BR /> <BR />I will carry on for another wee bit. <BR /> <BR />The Bar and the Law Society said that they were not opposed to a wider package of reform.”
“The legal representatives' greatest concerns were that there was uncertainty about the consequences and that the overall purpose of clause 27A was to reduce legal aid payments, though they accepted that the legal aid budget was under huge pressure. Their concerns were that the discretion and insight of the taxing master, who receives those legal aid claims and decides what amount should be paid in each case, would be significantly diminished; the taxing master would have to determine payments strictly in line with relevant fees, hourly rates and arrangements —”
“They welcomed the fact that the Minister had indicated that she will not proceed with clause 28 on taxation, meaning payment, of legal aid costs. Indeed, I confess that I found it difficult to understand clause 28. However, it is now proposed that we replace clause 28, which took up a page and a half in the Bill, with the much shorter new clause 27A. Whilst that new clause is just 10 lines, the representatives of the legal profession were concerned that clause 27A would have huge significance. <BR /> <BR />Clause 27A would bring in an enabling power for the Department to make unspecified provisions for the setting of legal aid payments.”
“As a DUP member of the Committee for Justice, I will comment in particular on amendment No 91 on legal aid and the role of the taxing master. As my colleague Paul Frew MLA said, we had considerable engagement in Committee on that amendment, which proposes new clause 27A as an amendment to the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. That would enable the Department of Justice to include provision about how the taxing master should determine the amount of legal aid that is to be awarded to solicitors and barristers who are working on eligible cases. <BR /> <BR />In particular, we received representations from the Bar of Northern Ireland, which represents barristers here, and the Law Society of Northern Ireland, which represents and regulates solicitors.”
“The amendment in the name of Jemma Dolan and Deirdre Hargey is an improvement on the original motion, removing the nonsense about a 5% cut and highlighting the better funding settlement for Scotland and Wales. The DUP will support that amendment.”
“The figures showed that, while Northern Ireland receives just 0·63% above its recognised level of need of 124% in the current financial year, Scotland receives over 20% more than its most recent recognised level of need, taking it to over 125% and above the per capita figure in Northern Ireland. Likewise, Wales receives over 8·5% above its most recent recognised level of need, bringing its figure to around 124% as well. Northern Ireland needs recognition of its additional needs, such as its rurality and the level of need here. <BR /> <BR />The Democratic Unionist Party will continue to lead the charge for a sustainable Budget for Northern Ireland while pushing for greater efficiency and transformation in our public services.”
“The gap between what our public services need and what Treasury provides is growing year-on-year, and it is no longer feasible to make the books balance without additional funding. <BR /> <BR />The permanent secretary recently confirmed to the Finance Committee that, without an agreed Budget by 1 August, Departments can allocate only 95% of last year's Budget. However, it is nonsense and scaremongering by the SDLP to claim, as it does in the motion, that the final 5% could not be allocated subsequently. That is a fallacy; of course it could be unlocked. <BR /> <BR />Last week, the Finance Committee received important figures comparing the funding from Treasury per person in each of the four nations of the United Kingdom with the official level of need calculation, which is based on population characteristics and socio-economic conditions.”
“It would mean agreeing to implement cuts of £1 billion that would involve substantial job losses, closure of services, poorer education provision and longer waiting lists for health. Is that what the SDLP wants? Perhaps, as an Opposition party, that is what it wants in order to increase public discontent. The SDLP is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. At the same time as it criticises the Executive for not implementing the current block grant, it says that the block grant is not sufficient. The SDLP cannot have it both ways. Perhaps the SDLP could do more to persuade its sister party at Westminster to increase the block grant to the Executive and the people of Northern Ireland.”
“I rise as a DUP member of the Committee for Finance. I hope that all parties across the Assembly agree that the funding that we receive from Treasury is not enough to meet our level of need in Northern Ireland. However, there is clearly a difference in what the response to that should be. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP, in its motion, criticises our Executive for failing to agree a multi-year Budget based on our current funding from Treasury. The SDLP should be clear on what agreeing to that Budget would mean in the current financial year. It would mean agreeing to a Budget more than £1 billion below our combined departmental needs for the current year, particularly in the public-facing Departments of Health, Education and Justice.”
“— the elected representatives of the unionist community?”
“The Member is a member of a party that championed the Good Friday Agreement, part of which is the petition of concern. Does the Alliance Party support the existence of the petition of concern only when it is used to protect the interests of the nationalist community and not when it is used to protect the interests of the unionist community —”
“<BR /> <BR />In closing, I return to the observation that we have agreed on during the debate, which is that children should be treated differently in our justice system; that crime should be investigated by the PSNI; and that, if children are identified, they should be referred to the Youth Justice Agency in order for it to take the lead. However, our position in the DUP is that children from the age of 10 are old enough to know right from wrong and that people should not be told that, just because someone is 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 or 15 years old, they cannot be convicted of a crime. The victims of those crimes are entitled to receive justice and to know that the matter has not been dismissed by the police or by our justice system.”
“I have heard nothing from the proposer of amendment No 79 and those who have spoken in support of it that convinces me that we would gain anything by raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. As I said, we already have the Youth Justice Agency, social services and a multi-agency approach to child offending. I see no advantage in saying that an offence is not a crime just because the offender is 12, 14 or 16. I see no advantage in saying that the Police Service of Northern Ireland cannot be involved; on the contrary, its involvement highlights the seriousness of the matter to the young person and their parents or guardians.”
“OK. I think that there was a compliment in there somewhere. The majority of the comments have been about helping young people to turn their lives around, but we are talking about circumstances in which there are victims of crime, and we should focus on them first. <BR /> <BR />At the heart of the debate are questions. At what age is a child responsible for their actions? At what age should their actions not be considered a crime? Should the police have no role in investigating them, even though those actions would otherwise be a crime? At what age are there consequences for committing a crime? At what age should the victim know that they are important and be recognised as a victim of crime? The public messaging and perception are important.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party argues that 10- to 13-year-olds should not be charged or convicted but then accepts that they can be charged and convicted of certain major offences such as murder, manslaughter, rape or assault by penetration. That position seems to be based on avoiding public outrage rather than on any principle about age. <BR /> <BR />Alliance Party and Sinn Féin Members have spoken a great deal about the needs of the poor young perpetrator, but have made virtually no mention of the victims of crime.”
“To say that a child aged 12, 14 or 16 cannot commit a crime would make them more vulnerable to exploitation by those who wish to orchestrate public disturbances or involve them in criminal activities such as drug trafficking. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party Members spoke passionately about rehabilitation projects, as we have discussed. Those are, of course, working within the context of MACR currently being 10. There is already multi-agency working and a holistic approach, but that happens in the context of compulsion and is not just voluntary. The seriousness of the offence is recognised, and that process provides an opportunity for individuals to turn their life around, if they are ready to take it. However, they cannot escape the consequences of their offending.”
“I agree with the Minister that rehabilitation is important for young people in order to give them a chance to turn their life around, but so is the message of deterrence for others, including young people, to see that crime has consequences. It has consequences for the victim, but it must have consequences for the perpetrator. The programmes that Sian Mulholland talked about are happening within the current framework, with 10 being the minimum age of criminal responsibility, so it can work. <BR /> <BR />Those who wish to raise the minimum age would, effectively, be saying that any action of a child up to 12, 14 or 16 cannot be considered to be a crime, even though there would be a victim of that crime. I have been in many situations where young people have been taking part in public disturbances.”
“That is a helpful list. I believe that those apply whether the perpetrator is an adult or a child for the purposes of punishment, protection, deterrence, rehabilitation and making reparation. <BR /> <BR />In her speech — she is not in the Chamber now — Sian Mulholland seemed to imply that, for child offenders, rehabilitation is the most important purpose. I would say that rehabilitation is an important goal for all criminals to turn their lives around and not commit further crimes. However, that does not negate the importance of the other purposes of the justice system: fairness, deterrence, punishment and the protection of the public. I cannot accept the argument, which we have heard in the debate, that children aged 10, 12, 14 or 16 do not know right from wrong.”
“All of those agencies can become involved or are involved already. <BR /> <BR />The Criminal Justice (Sentencing etc) Bill, which the Justice Committee is now considering, sets out the purpose of sentencing. In clause 1(2) of that Bill, those are stated as:”
“I think that we can all agree that children who are charged with or convicted of committing crimes should be dealt with differently from adults who commit crimes. That is already the case. That is why we have the Youth Justice Agency, as we recognise that a child does not have the independence of an adult. That is why social services generally become involved and consider whether parental responsibility has been lacking and whether the child and family need additional support or intervention from statutory and voluntary services.”
“That might be a hard act to follow, Mr Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />The group of amendments on the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland is the most consequential group. The age of criminal responsibility is currently 10, and amendments have been tabled that propose changing that to 12, 14 or even 16. It has even been proposed that we have different minimum ages for different types of offence, which would be problematic. Clearly, there is disagreement on the matter among political parties. Sinn Féin has been doing the hokey-cokey. Its Members do not even seem able to decide whether they want to be in the Chamber, but I see that they are now back for the third time.”
“Are you going to walk out for a third time?”
“The police involvement gives it that seriousness and recognises the fact that, when a crime is committed, there is a victim, rather than it being the case that a young person of 12, 14 or 16 can somehow not be the perpetrator of a crime, so the police cannot be involved.”
“The Member has spoken passionately about a number of active projects in Northern Ireland that are doing rehabilitation and multi-agency intervention with young people. She makes the point that those projects operate within the current system of 10 being the minimum age of criminal responsibility, showing that that is not enforced in some rigid way but that there is a multi-agency, cross-sectoral approach that recognises the fact that young people are different from adults. Our argument is that the compulsion to take part in that exists because the minimum age is 10, so the police do get involved. The police are there, so there is a compulsion to get involved rather than it being seen as some optional programme.”
“As a party, we have sought throughout the Bill's stages to emphasise the importance of that provision. The Fiscal Council's reports will be of great public and political interest, but the council must be free from political manipulation, which would compromise it. We welcome the Bill's getting to this stage.”