Sian Mulholland
North Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Members from different parties recognised that our justice system must continue to evolve and continue to have children, young people and victims at its heart. What, we know, works to reduce offending and create safer communities has that support. <BR /> <BR />Not every contribution reflected that approach.”
“I will use my final Member's statement before recess to reflect on the work of the Ten is Too Young Coalition and all those who have worked so passionately to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), including Voice of Young People in Care, the Children's Law Centre, NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Childre…”
“We so often hear calls in the Chamber for legislation that is evidence-led, data-driven and compliant with our human rights obligations. Those are principles that I wholeheartedly support, but they cannot be principles that are applied only when they are convenient. Children's rights are human rights too.”
“<BR /> <BR />The triggering of the petition of concern mechanism was a misuse of a mechanism that was designed to protect minority rights. Here it is, blocking change designed to protect those who are most vulnerable.”
“Safeguarding falls within your remit, Minister. We know that, but we also know that it is the responsibility of each and every one of us. That is part of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Faith-based counselling is not subject to the same regulation as other clinical counselling services.”
“Thank you, Minister. I am glad to hear you say that the role played by social workers is "complex and challenging". From what I hear from those who have contacted me, social workers are stretched to capacity. What is the Department doing to address that?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,013 lines we hold for Sian Mulholland, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 21.
“<BR /> <BR />The triggering of the petition of concern mechanism was a misuse of a mechanism that was designed to protect minority rights. Here it is, blocking change designed to protect those who are most vulnerable. None of the proposed reforms diminishes the impact of crime on victims; they recognise that the best way to prevent future victims is to intervene early. The system can change, and I believe that it will. I thank those who have fought the fight, and I pledge that I will continue that fight with them in the years ahead.”
“We so often hear calls in the Chamber for legislation that is evidence-led, data-driven and compliant with our human rights obligations. Those are principles that I wholeheartedly support, but they cannot be principles that are applied only when they are convenient. Children's rights are human rights too. They do not become optional just because they are politically uncomfortable or do not grab the headlines. <BR /> <BR />The reality is that our youth justice system has changed remarkably over the past number of years. Through the dedication of those who work in it, there is now a greater emphasis on prevention, diversion and rehabilitation. In practice, most children who come into contact with the system are already diverted away from formal criminalisation, so the law must reflect that reality.”
“Members from different parties recognised that our justice system must continue to evolve and continue to have children, young people and victims at its heart. What, we know, works to reduce offending and create safer communities has that support. <BR /> <BR />Not every contribution reflected that approach. Some Members chose to sensationalise the issue rather than engage with the evidence. Instead of grappling with decades of research and professional expertise, they dismissed it. They ignored the voices of those who work day in, day out with vulnerable children and young people. Even more disappointingly, organisations such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, respected children's organisations, youth justice professionals and others were belittled in the Chamber simply because their evidence challenged established views.”
“I will use my final Member's statement before recess to reflect on the work of the Ten is Too Young Coalition and all those who have worked so passionately to increase the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), including Voice of Young People in Care, the Children's Law Centre, NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, Children in Northern Ireland and Include Youth, alongside 70 other organisations, and the social workers, the youth practitioners, the Youth Justice Agency and all who have worked to create a better justice system that will continue to have victims and young people at its heart. <BR /> <BR />The debate on MACR in the Chamber demonstrated something really significant, which is that there is now a substantial body of support across the Assembly for that type of youth justice reform.”
“Safeguarding falls within your remit, Minister. We know that, but we also know that it is the responsibility of each and every one of us. That is part of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. Faith-based counselling is not subject to the same regulation as other clinical counselling services. That points to a real issue and a real risk. All that I want to do, Minister, is put that on your plate in order to make you aware. We need to look at that legislation and what we are doing to keep safe vulnerable children and those who are at risk. Will you commit to, at least, looking into faith-based counselling provision and regulations in particular?”
“That was exceptionally hurtful to a lot of social workers who got in contact with me.”
“Thank you, Minister. I am glad to hear you say that the role played by social workers is "complex and challenging". From what I hear from those who have contacted me, social workers are stretched to capacity. What is the Department doing to address that? Will you take the opportunity to refute your party leader's assertion that social work, in this context, is about a:”
“Thank you very much, First Minister. The recommendations in the review obviously laid out where that would sit better. In light of recent criticisms, by some commentators and politicians in the House, of the Children's Commissioner for robustly defending children's rights, does the First Minister agree that that underlines precisely why the role should be fully independent and free from political pressure, and that the post holder should be able to speak out in the best interests of children and young people and their rights?”
“I thank the Minister. I associate myself with the comments made by my colleague Nuala McAllister about Glynn Brown. I have also been thinking quite a lot about Timothy, Mervyn and Timothy's mum, Dawn. <BR /> <BR />Minister, the scandal is yet another example of families being failed when they raise concerns about standards of care. The drawn-out process for investigations of serious adverse incidents results in patients and families waiting far too long for accountability and the necessary improvements in their care, and, all the while, other incidents could be happening. What will you do to ensure that trusts complete that process faster whilst ensuring that patients and families are brought along and retain confidence in the process throughout? Additionally, will you examine whether the resettlement scheme has worked?”
“I am sorry that you have heard your skills and expertise being diminished and degraded by some in the Chamber. However, I am not sorry for tabling the amendments, for making the case that we should interrupt cycles of offending behaviour or for arguing that we can and must do better for children and victims. I will never apologise for standing alongside the dozens of organisations that work on the ground with children, families, communities and victims. The amendments have been blocked, but the evidence and the need remain. The argument continues, and I look forward to continuing to make it.”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to see Members pushing hard for better relationships and sexuality education; better mental health and addiction services for young people; better investment in early years and family support; more effective and efficient poverty interventions and welfare support; a serious commitment to prevention, rather than waiting until something becomes a crisis; and a system that recognises that real public protection does not come from criminalising young people or children but from intervening earlier and supporting them better. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I say this to the organisations, practitioners and individuals who have supported the reform: your work is not wasted. I am sorry that the House has not been allowed to decide on the amendments tonight.”
“Thank you. I will move on, because we have talked quite a bit about the petition of concern, but I will let the Member for North Belfast know that I do not support just one or the other. That is not in my nature, and it is not my frame of reference. I do not know how many more times that I or other members of my party can make that clear. <BR /> <BR />I admit that it feels as though every argument and every piece of data and evidence have been wasted. I hope that we will see movement, perhaps in the next mandate. However, I expect the DUP to row in behind the calls for votes at 16, now that we have heard clearly its enlightened view on the brain development of young people. If you can be criminalised at 10, you can absolutely put your tick in a box six years later. Thank you very much.”
“Brian, you have worked with me on Belfast City Council and on the Communities Committee. Do you genuinely — sorry, I will speak through the Chair. Does the Member for North Belfast genuinely believe anything of what he has just said? Does he believe that I would agree with a protective mechanism that only protects nationalists? My party has not engaged in a petition of concern — the leader can correct me if I am wrong — since 2016. We have campaigned for reform because we believe that it has been misused. The intent in 1998 of the Good Friday Agreement has been lost.”
“However, what happened here was not simply about disagreement. A small group of Members, in effect, used a veto designed to protect minority rights in order to prevent the House from making a decision. The petition of concern was used to block a democratic decision of the House. That disregards my vote and that of 17 other Members from my party and Mr Carroll just because we do not fit into a nice wee binary box. How is that fair? How is that just? We are talking about a Justice Bill. I have said before — I said it in my Member's statement — that social justice is at the heart of my identity and my politics. It is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment and why I was so angry at the petitions of concern.”
“Yesterday, I could easily have engaged in shock stories about children who are coerced, abused, violated and manipulated into committing crime, but this is not a media programme. We are not on a radio show. We are legislators in a legislative House. Where were the datasets? Where was the evidence? We do not need anecdotal shock stories. The Chamber should be better than that. The amendments were repeatedly presented as a choice between victims and children: that is a false choice. A better system would support both. <BR /> <BR />Ultimately, the debate was overtaken by something more fundamental. I will make a brief comment on the petitions of concern. Members are entitled to disagree with me, my colleagues and others. They are entitled to vote against the amendments. That is democracy; it is what we are all here for.”
“Victims were referenced over 30 times in my contribution alone, let alone throughout the contributions of many colleagues around the House. I will repeat something that I and many others said, that I stand by and that is one of the driving forces behind the amendments: the best way to prevent victims is to prevent further harm. That evidence is clear. Early criminalisation does not do that. I still have not been convinced otherwise. <BR /> <BR />Much of the argument that we heard last night and today was around the most extreme cases. Those cases matter — of course they do — especially when there is deep and serious harm, but hard cases make bad law. Legislating on the basis of fear and rare, extreme examples does not make communities safer.”
“That is a really big point, but the conversation also needs to look at what we do around family support. That is the key element. We can work with young people, but I know from experience that, if you do not work holistically around the child, they are much more likely to reoffend. The work has to be holistic. <BR /> <BR />I reject the suggestion that those who support reform do not stand with victims. I heard that suggestion so many times yesterday and last night. There is no monopoly in the House on supporting victims. I have to address a comment that was made, on which my colleague the Justice Minister intervened on my behalf, which was that I spent a great deal of time talking about the needs of "the poor young perpetrator" but made virtually no mention of the victims of crime.”
“Thanks, Nuala. I have reflected on the entire process as a legislator, as a former youth worker and as a parent of a child who, in four months' time, will be that age. I find it really frightening but also really sad, because I know that my son and your son are exponentially less likely to come into contact with the justice system than some other children because of the upbringing that they have had. There are a lot of mixed feelings around that. <BR /> <BR />As a parent, I also want to see more parental responsibility. As I have said, if a child of 10 or 11 is out burning buses, burning out homes and throwing petrol bombs, where is the responsibility? The Member for North Belfast, my colleague Nuala McAllister, said that so many of those young people simply do not have a parental figure or caregiver in their life.”
“They are children's organisations, youth workers, social workers and legal experts. They are psychiatrists, psychologists, human rights organisations, women's organisations, education voices, community groups and victim and survivor support groups. Their work is not only life-changing — I have seen it — but life-saving, yet they were dismissed in some of the comments that we heard last night. That is not OK. They were not asking us to ignore harm; they were asking us to respond to harm better. They were not asking us to abandon victims; they were asking us to build a system that prevents future victims. They were not asking us to excuse harmful behaviour; they were asking us to recognise that criminalising a child in P6 is not the same as accountability. It is certainly not the same thing as justice.”
“This is something that I and others have been working on for a year, with over 100 hours of meetings for one amendment. To say that they were ill conceived and casual completely dismisses my work and that of Ms Sheerin and Mr McGlone. It is a dismissal of the evidence of the many organisations and professionals who gave their time and expertise to the process. How can Members of the House call for evidence-based policy and legislation and yet dismiss so readily the expertise and evidence of those whom we have worked with? <BR /> <BR />The list that Nuala read out shows the breadth of organisations and individuals that support reform. That does not sound like:”
“I will, however, right here, right now, on record, commit that, if I am standing in the Chamber on this day next year, there will be a private Member's Bill that I will be proud to introduce. I expect the Members across the Chamber who have muzzled my vote on the amendments — I am not looking at you, Mr Deputy Speaker — to weigh in with their support and their ideas as to how we make the youth justice system better. I give that commitment now. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 79 and 82 were grounded in evidence, in practice and in the experience of those who have worked daily with victims, children, families and communities. I cannot accept that the amendments were casual, simplistic, ideological or ill conceived. I have spoken about the process behind the amendments. This was not dropped in on a whim.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Holy moly, it feels like a lifetime ago since I stood here to open debate on this group of amendments. First, I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. I will make comments about the nature of the debate at a later point. Today has been what it was supposed to be. You will be delighted to hear that I do not intend to use my winding-up speech to repeat every argument that I and others have made. I will say, however, that the debate was meant to be about evidence, children and victims, and how we prevent harm; instead, we heard an awful lot about fear, distortion and political tactics. <BR /> <BR />First, to those who want a stand-alone Bill, let us be clear that it ain't coming from the Minister and it ain't coming from the Department via the Executive.”
“Does the Minister agree that, while some may have that perception of social work — softly-softly, nicey-nicey; sit on a beanbag — it is social workers who are at the coalface, doing the day-to-day heavy lifting? While other professions parachute in and out of a young person's life, social workers and youth practitioners are there for the long run.”
“Will the Member accept the criticism that, by giving the DPP that latitude, it does not give clarity and does not give a concise picture of what to expect? That was a lot of the criticism when we were looking at your amendment. With respect, the challenges were that it would be very difficult, be quite unworkable, lead to expense and be a bit unwieldy for the legal system to manage.”
“For some, it is to get an apology, while for others it is to put somebody in a justice centre.”
“Thank you. You talk about a young girl and her parents who want to seek justice. When I met representatives of Victim Support and, in particular, other women's organisations, the one thing that came out really clearly from them was that not all victims feel the same and that justice does not feel the same. They were saying that they had engaged with families who told them that they did not want a child to have their life changed irreparably because of an incident. Those families would rather know that no other family would have to go through what their daughters did. <BR /> <BR />Do you accept that justice does not always look the same? Whilst I understand where you are coming from when you say that the family wants to seek justice, what is that justice going to look like for every victim?”
“For the most part, the exceptions are based on those that exist in other regions of these islands, such as the Republic of Ireland and Scotland. The amendment was modelled on what works and what the law is in the other regions. That is where the exceptions came from.”
“There are a couple of points to address there. The most recent one is this: I do nobody's bidding. I am not doing the Justice Minister's bidding. I came into the House as a former youth worker with a long-held passion for this subject, as, I am sure, every single one of my colleagues and those who served on councils with me would attest to. I did not pluck this out of the air because the Justice Minister told me to. I take offence at that, Mr Gaston, because it implies that this is party political. For me, it is not party political; it is moral and a way to make society better. You may disagree with me, and that is fine, but I take offence at being told that I am just doing somebody's bidding.”
“Thank you, Minister. As others have said, any news of new homes being built is positive. Please take my question in the spirit in which it is meant: why was the £61·5 million of public loan support for this project not used for social houses? How do we know that this will be the best use of public money? Were these houses already being built? Will this programme have a genuine impact on our waiting lists, more so than social housing would?”
“It is a compromise, rather than my changing my mind.”
“I want to correct what the Member said. It is not that I have changed my mind. I have come to a place where, if you can get more political backing on an element of an amendment —.”
“The amendment has been shaped by evidence, informed by lived experience and challenged by and grounded in what we now know from stakeholders about childhood development, trauma and effective intervention. The real question that we have before us today is not about whether change carries risk; it is about whether doing nothing, and maintaining the status quo, carries a greater risk still. <BR /> <BR />I commend the amendment to the House.”
“Hence why I stood, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was aware of that ruling. <BR /> <BR />It has nothing to do with outrage; it is about looking at the most serious crimes. It has nothing to do with moral or public outrage. That is a really offensive suggestion. <BR /> <BR />The amendment has been described as "reckless" and "beyond stupid". I disagree. What is reckless is leaving the law unchanged, despite the evidence and data. What is reckless is confusing prosecution with prevention. What is reckless is knowing that the current system is not delivering the outcome that we want for victims, children or communities but deciding that change is simply too difficult.”
“I have talked to others about that. Again, it is about public perception and public confidence. That is why it goes hand in hand with a review. We need to look at assessing, after five years, which of the exceptions have been used. We know that harm caused by young children, including serious harm of the sort that I put into my exceptions, is very rare. Those are the offences that are recognised as causing the most serious harm, so that is why they are in there. It is a public confidence measure and a safeguard in that respect. However, I understand where the question has come from. It is about focusing on the offence level.”
“Harm has been caused, and harm matters, but if we are serious about preventing the next victim, we must also ask what response is most likely to change the child's behaviour. That is why amendment No 79 and this work are not about choosing children over victims. It is about recognising that the best way to support future victims is to prevent further harm, yet our current law states that a child of 10 can be held criminally responsible. At 10, a child is still in primary school, so I just cannot accept that. Ten is too young. It is too young, if we are serious about child development, about trauma, about prevention and about victims.”
“I think of the child whose school attendance has collapsed; the child in care who has been moved from placement to placement, often with a plastic bag and nothing else; the child who is living with domestic abuse; the child with unmet needs who is struggling in school; the child who is being exploited by older people who they thought were safe or were friends; the child who has caused harm but has also experienced harm. I think about the victims: the person who should never have been hurt; the family that should never have been frightened; the child who deserved protection, support and justice; the teacher who deserved a safe workplace. A good justice system must be able to hold both truths at once.”
“We can and should legislate for reform now and say that 10 is too young. We cannot pretend that a date in the Bill, by itself, will build the infrastructure and the necessary framework that children, victims, families, police and communities need. The responsible route is to accept the principle, pass the reform and require the Executive to build the framework before commencement, otherwise we risk replacing one flawed system with another. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the people at the heart of the debate.”
“I will jump forward three pages in my speech, given that the Minister has outlined exactly and probably much more succinctly what I was going to say. <BR /> <BR />There is also an implementation issue with amendment No 86, which was not mentioned. Setting a two-year time frame may sound reassuring, but it does not answer the practical question of what will happen if the framework is not ready within two years. It is too important to commence simply because the date has arrived. If there is no mandatory intervention mechanism, the framework is not in place and there is no clarity on information-sharing, it would create precisely the gap that Members are worried about. That does not mean that implementation should be used as an excuse for delay; it means that we have to set clear statutory requirements — clear milestones.”
“That matters, but raising the age only to 12 while still allowing a route back into the criminal justice system for 10- and 11-year-olds does not go far enough.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 84 would remove the specific, tightly drawn exceptions in the cross-party amendment No 82 for children aged 12 and 13 and replace them with a much broader exception for offences that are triable on indictment. I would point out that, in the past year, there were only 15 indictable offences in the most serious category. In practice, I would worry that that would create an inconsistent and too wide a route back into criminalisation. The question that I will always return to is this: what response will make people safer? I therefore cannot support amendments that broaden the route back to criminalisation. They may feel like a safety net, but they risk becoming a trapdoor. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that Doug Beattie's amendment No 86 recognises that the current age of 10 is too low.”
“They point to something quite important, which is that reform cannot be done simply by changing a number in law and hoping for the best. I have been clear with the Member that there has to be a framework, with clear duties and clear referral routes. I agree with all that, but that is where I part company with Mr Frew. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 83 would have the effect of removing the caveated increase to 14 and leaving the new minimum age of criminal responsibility at 12. At the moment, I do not believe that that amendment goes far enough. The youth justice review recommended raising the age to 12 immediately, followed by a move to 14. That was in 2011. We are not really leading on reform. Rather, we are just catching up.”
“<BR /> <BR />I say respectfully that I understand why amendment No 81 was tabled, but, beyond the current law, it is not there now. Hopefully, the Assembly will return to the evidence. <BR /> <BR />Gerry Carroll’s amendment No 85, which would provide for a review following the joint amendment, reflects an important principle, which is that, whatever route the Assembly chooses, there has to be review. We cannot simply either pass or not pass a reform and then leave it at that, so I support that amendment. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to the amendments from Paul Frew and his colleagues tabled. I understand why Mr Frew has raised concerns, because he has done so previously at the Justice Committee and in the media. His concerns are not unreasonable.”
“My amendment No 80 would allow us to return to the evidence, assess its impact and consider any further changes in a properly informed way. <BR /> <BR />I believe that raising the age to 14, with limited exceptions, is, for two reasons, the most pragmatic route to take. First, it would allow us to design, test and embed a new framework for responding to concerning behaviour in a way that is manageable, properly monitored and properly resourced. Secondly, it would build confidence in reform. If the public, victims, families, the police, social workers, schools and communities can see that children are still being held accountable, that victims are still supported and that behaviour is being addressed earlier, we create the conditions for trust in a new approach.”
“Right now, I would not. I would rather focus on what is in front of me. If, in five years' time, the review comes back, and we see that the change is working really well, perhaps then we can move to 16. Right now, however, that is not for me. I say that with full respect to those who hold that position, including you, Gerry. <BR /> <BR />Today, I am asking the House to support a change that, I believe, can command broader support, can be implemented responsibly and is the right step for Northern Ireland now. Raising the age to 14 would represent major and long-overdue reform. It would meet the minimum international standard as recommended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and it would force a proper alternative framework to be developed.”
“I do not think that we are quite there yet. The independent youth justice review recommended that MACR be raised immediately to 12 with consideration being given to the further increase to 14 within three years.”
“It also says that 12- and 13-year olds should only be criminally responsible for the most serious listed offences. <BR /> <BR />I will also speak, with respect, about amendment No 81 from Gerry Carroll, which would raise the age to 16 without exceptions. I understand why he has tabled that amendment. Many organisations that work directly with children and young people believe that 16 is the right age. They point to the reality that a 14- or 15-year-old is still a child. They point to neuroscience, trauma, care experience, poverty and exploitation. Those are serious points, and I do not dismiss the concerns behind them. Members will know that I have long supported an increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is not a new position for me. Whilst it has not been debated before, it is not a new debate for the Assembly.”
“It is about coming back to the evidence and asking whether victims are being properly supported, whether we can learn from what is happening and what is working well, whether reoffending is being reduced, whether services are responding quickly enough, and whether the age should potentially be raised even further. Good law does not end at the point of receiving Royal Assent. It continues right through the implementation, scrutiny and review stages. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 82 is the joint amendment, which I co-signed with Emma Sheerin MLA and Patsy McGlone MLA. It is another attempt to move the Assembly forward. It is a serious, thoughtful and meaningful reform. It says:”
“That is why my amendment and the joint amendment include exceptions for those most serious of offences. I understand the position of some, particularly those in the children's rights sector and those advocates, who would prefer there to be no exceptions. I understand that, but I have tabled an amendment that moves away from the current law whilst recognising the particular sensitivity and the seriousness of those offences. The need to build the confidence of the public was really clear in the stakeholder evidence that I took on board. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 80 builds in a review after five years. I have talked about that before.”
“You will get time to ask questions to the Minister during your contribution. If it is OK, I want to get to the amendments and go through them. <BR /> <BR />My amendment No 79 tries to strike a careful and responsible balance. It raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 14 because the evidence tells us that 10, 11, 12 or 13 is too young for routine criminal prosecution. It does so because international standards point us to it being at least 14. It does so because child development, neuroscience, trauma evidence, youth justice practice and stakeholder engagement all point us away from early criminalisation and towards earlier, structured, child-centred intervention. I have, however, listened to the concerns that have been raised about cases where there is the most serious harm.”
“Yes, the other Member for North Antrim wants to make an intervention.”