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 3 of 21.
“Rather, it is to build a system around the child that spots exploitation earlier, safeguards the child, supports victims, disrupts the adults and pursues those adults with far more determination.”
“It found that there was no mechanism to understand the nature and scale of CCE in Northern Ireland and that specific markers or flags were absent from police and prosecution systems that led to missed opportunities to identify exploitation. It found that children were often treated as suspects rather than as victims, that safeguarding referrals such as the NRM were not always timely and that the child's voice was largely absent from the sample of police records. The report found that the system lacked clear outcome measures to show whether children were being helped, adults disrupted and outcomes improved. <BR /> <BR />We are told by some that raising MACR will create a new incentive for exploitation. Adults are already exploiting children. The answer is not to keep the burden of adult criminality on the child.”
“It is almost as if the Minister and I are synchronised or that we believe some very similar things, because that leads me right on to the recent Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report on child criminal exploitation. It should be required reading for every single Member of the House who is involved in the debate. When we see a 10-year-old or a 12-year-old involved in disorder, drugs, intimidation or violence, the question should not simply be one of how quickly we can criminalise that child. The questions should be these: who is behind them? Who is benefiting? Who is frightening them? Who is grooming them? Who is sending a child to take risks that an adult cannot take themselves? We have to concede that the CJINI report makes for uncomfortable reading. It is not a pleasant read.”
“When I think about it, if a 12-year-old is burning down a house, I want to know why. I want to know why a 12-year-old is out on the street burning down a house. If a child is 13 years and 364 days old and is doing that, I also want to know why. If adults are grooming, threatening, coercing or using children to commit offences, the answer is not to punish those children more quickly so that adults will not take advantage of them. The answer is to identify exploitation. The answer is to protect the child and disrupt the adults, and I am really pleased to see that the Minister of Justice has been progressing that in other areas of the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Another argument that I have heard repeatedly, especially after the week that we have just had, is that, because of child criminal exploitation (CCE), we should not raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It is said that paramilitaries, organised crime groups and drug gangs may exploit children should the law change. Of course we should be worried about child criminal exploitation. If Members have not been worried before now, catch up. It is already happening. I do not accept the logic that the answer to the issue of exploited children is to keep them criminalised. That is not good law. It is not good public protection.”
“The Republic has a general higher age, with exceptions for serious offences. Most comparable jurisdictions have moved far beyond where Northern Ireland remains today. <BR /> <BR />The youth justice review that was commissioned in 2011 recommended that the age be raised to 12 immediately, with consideration given to raising it to 14 within three years. That was 15 years ago. Members say that reform is difficult. I do not disagree, but difficulty cannot be a reason to leave the law unchanged, year after year. If we move only to 12 now or move to 12 with broad exceptions that leave the door open to criminalise 10-year-olds and 11-year-olds, we are not leading on reform. With the system that we have, we should be. Instead, we are catching up with where we should have been more than a decade ago.”
“That is not the view of just one campaign; a Department of Justice consultation in 2022 showed really strong support for raising the age beyond 10. That involved stakeholders from right across civic society that all, in different ways, pointed away from routine early criminalisation and towards earlier intervention, family support, diversion, restorative practice and, importantly, trauma-informed responses. <BR /> <BR />The 10 is Too Young Coalition's comparative analysis shows that Northern Ireland has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the entire world, and the lowest in Europe. Of the 51 European countries listed in its briefing, the average MACR is 14. Only 12 have an age of 13 or under, while the age in the majority — over 75% — sits somewhere between 14 and 18. Scotland has already raised its age from eight to 12.”
“Those organisations are not detached from reality; they work with children in care, children in conflict with the law, families under pressure, victims of systems failure, and communities living with the consequences of harm. Their joint briefing is incredibly clear: Northern Ireland's age of criminal responsibility is unacceptable, the Justice Bill is a critical opportunity to deliver lasting change, and reform is necessary to align Northern Ireland with international children's rights standards. It argues that every day that the age remains unchanged is another day that a child as young as 10 can be criminalised, causing ongoing harm while failing — this is the most important point — to invest in responses that would have a more constructive outcome.”
“Thank you very much. I referenced some of the points that were made, and I will reference the final point later in my speech. <BR /> <BR />I will address the idea that the minimum age of criminal responsibility's being raised is somehow a fringe, soft, lefty ideological proposal — I am looking at the other Member for North Antrim — that is disconnected from public concern, professional evidence and the realities facing our communities. The 10 is Too Young Coalition brings together organisations with deep expertise in children's rights, youth justice, care experience and community support: Children in Northern Ireland, the Children's Law Centre, Include Youth, NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, and Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC).”
“No problem. On the basis of decorum, I believe that I have carried out my engagement with all Members on this topic with respect, but Mr McGlone, Ms Sheerin and I have been told that we are not fit to legislate because we have tabled amendments. That has to be addressed. Perhaps the Member will apologise to Ms Sheerin, Mr McGlone and me when he intervenes.”
“Sorry. I should have said, "Through the Chair". I apologise.”
“Absolutely, but please take a seat for a second. You missed the start of my speech.”
“Absolutely. I spoke to the Youth Justice Agency just after the delegation from Chicago was here. It just goes to show that our system is internationally recognised. The one thing that I heard from them was that we do so much that we need the law to catch up.”
“What they do and the outcomes that they achieve are something to be proud of.”
“Those statistics do not prove that diversion alone causes better outcomes, because children receiving different disposals will have different levels of need, risk, seriousness of offence and previous contact with the system, but they provide strong, Northern Ireland-specific evidence that deeper justice system involvement is closely associated with worse reoffending outcomes. <BR /> <BR />Northern Ireland should know the value of doing things differently. Our youth conferencing model is internationally recognised as a significant and groundbreaking restorative justice approach. I record my admiration of and gratitude for the work of the Youth Justice Agency. I thank its staff for their time and for sharing with me their expertise and lived experience of working in the field as I prepared amendment No 79.”
“It can reinforce the very identity that, we say, we want that child to leave behind. It can damage self-worth, weaken trust in institutions and reduce opportunities. It can also increase contact with children in difficulty and create a cycle in which a child begins to see themselves and be seen by others as an offender first. <BR /> <BR />The pattern in Northern Ireland's reoffending data is that, for the 2021 cohort, youth reoffending after diversionary disposals was 21·5%. Compare that with 49·5% after supervised community disposals, with almost half of those released from custody reoffending. For the 2022-23 cohort, the one-year youth reoffending rate was 20·8% following diversionary disposals. Among the small number of young people released from custody in the same year, five out of nine reoffended within the first year.”
“The evidence does not support that simple claim. The Edinburgh study of youth transitions and crime (ESYTC), which is a major longitudinal study following around 4,300 young people, is one of the most influential studies in modern youth justice. It found that serious offending is linked to wider vulnerabilities and social adversity; that early police contact and formal processing can predict later persistent offending; and that diversion from formal justice reduces escalation. One of its clearest conclusions was this:”
“The research showed how trusted adults, safe relationships, predictable routines and support inside and outside the family unit can make a real, measurable difference. That is not soft evidence; it points to prevention evidence. It tells us that relationships, stability and support are not optional extras but part of how we reduce harm, reduce risk and interrupt the pathway from childhood adversity into later violence, victimisation and justice system contact. The real test is not simply whether a child knows that a rule has been broken but whether the response that we choose will help that child to understand the harm and change their behaviour and whether it will make victims and communities safer. <BR /> <BR />That leads me on to another misconception, which is that criminalising children earlier will reduce their offending.”
“That is not an excuse, but it is an explanation that we should be mature enough to hear. If the response to a traumatised 10-year-old makes her more frightened, more distrustful and more alienated from the adults who are supposed to be helping her, we have to ask what that response is protecting. Is it protecting the public, or is it storing up more harm for the future? <BR /> <BR />When someone says that a 10-year-old knows right from wrong, my answer is this: yes, many do, but a child who has never lived with trauma, violence or instability may not be choosing from the same pool of options as a child who feels unsafe, threatened and traumatised. The protective side of Professor Bunting's evidence is just as important here. She did research on positive childhood experiences, which, admittedly, I had not heard an awful lot about.”
“She had experienced more adversity in her short life than any adult I have known. She told me what was like to be 10 years old and in trouble with the police — the bright lights, the adults talking over her and everyone being really loud. Yes, she had done something wrong, but what happened to her and around her did not prevent harm. It did not help her to understand the harm or change her behaviour. It frightened and traumatised her. It reinforced the trauma at the very age when the system should have been trying to understand what had happened to lead her to that point. Now, at 16, she was able to tell me about how that experience, she believes, contributed to how she kept offending. At 10 years old, it affected how she saw authority, how she pushed back and why she kept offending.”
“That data shows that two thirds of girls in JJC custody — 65·4% — were care-experienced. Those figures should stop us in our tracks, because, if young girls who are entering or are held in custody are so often young women already known to the care system, we have to ask a very uncomfortable question: why are young women with care experience so much more likely to be in custody? We have to ask whether the state is stepping in early enough to support some of our most vulnerable children. What interventions are we missing? <BR /> <BR />To humanise this, I think about a young woman whom I met in a residential centre in the Western Trust area. She was bright, amazing and articulate — just the sort of person about whom, if you met her today, you would think that her voice needs to be heard in all of this.”
“Most children appeared once, admittedly, but there was a small group that had repeated contact with the system. Care-experienced children accounted for 105 of those 298 referrals or 35·2% of referrals in that age group. That paints a troubling picture. The children who are repeatedly coming to the attention of the youth justice system are not a random group of children. Most are already known to the state and already carry care experience, instability, trauma or unmet need. <BR /> <BR />There are even starker details when we look at girls and young women in the Juvenile Justice Centre (JJC). This is not about those who are sentenced in custody. JJC figures include children held under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE) on remand and under sentence.”
“Adults with four or more ACEs, compared with those with none, are eight times more likely to report personal contact with the criminal justice system. I want to be really clear, though, about what that means and does not mean. It does not mean that adversity determines a child's future, nor does it mean that every child who experiences trauma will cause harm. It does not excuse harmful behaviour. It does not erase the victim, and it does not remove the need for accountability. What it shows, however, is that knowing right from wrong is not enough as the legal test for criminal responsibility. <BR /> <BR />The Youth Justice Agency data makes that point even clearer. In 2024-25, 172 individual children aged 10 to 13 were referred to youth justice services, generating 298 referrals.”
“However, what about children who have experienced trauma, neglect, domestic or sexual violence, poverty, care instability, exploitation, unmet mental health need or continued disruption in school or family life? Professor Lisa Bunting's work on childhood adversity has been important in shaping the narrative. Her evidence tells us that childhood adversity in Northern Ireland is not marginal to the debate; it is central to it. Almost half of young people aged 11 to 19 in Northern Ireland have experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE), and that exposure is patterned by deprivation. Professor Bunting also highlights the clear dose response relationship between ACEs and later harm.”
“That is the core issue here. Our laws should be based on what we know about the brain development of children now, not what we wish children would be capable of in moments of crisis. We already recognise that children are different in almost every other area of their life. We do not treat them like adults in any other context, because we understand that children are still developing and maturing. <BR /> <BR />This is not just about neuroscience in the abstract; it is also about the children who are most likely to come into contact with the justice system. When someone says, "My 10-year-old knows right from wrong", they are thinking about a child who is most likely safe and cared for.”
“A major review commissioned by the Scottish Sentencing Council found that the brain does not fully mature until at least the mid-20s, with systems linked to self-regulation developing much later. Dr Phil Anderson, a consultant in child and adolescent psychiatry, said that young people are "demonstrably and substantially different" from adults and that legislative approaches need:”
“As I said before, the most effective way to protect victims is to prevent future victims. <BR /> <BR />There is another myth that I have heard many times: that a 10-year-old knows right from wrong. I understand why people say that. I am a parent of three children, and I know that many parents will look at their children and think about their moral awareness. Knowing that something is wrong is not the same as fully understanding its impact or having the maturity to regulate emotions and actions in the moment. A child can know a rule and still lack the developmental capacity to respond like an adult. Developmental research is clear that the parts of the brain that are responsible for judgement, impulse control, risk assessment and self-regulation are still developing right through adolescence and into early adulthood.”
“<BR /> <BR />Victims need more than a system that reacts; they need a system that prevents. The best way to protect victims is to prevent further victims. We should be very careful about telling the public that serious harm becomes legal simply because the response is not the criminal prosecution of a child. Not only is that wrong, but it risks frightening families and victims unnecessarily. None of this diminishes victims. They are entitled to expect that the Assembly will take their pain seriously and that the state will do everything that it can to prevent harm from happening again. Victims deserve more than the appearance of accountability; they deserve a system that holds a child accountable in the right way but also reduces the risk of harm to another victim.”
“However, the one common thread that I have heard often when I have met victims and victims' organisations is that they want reassurance that no one will go through what they went through. If MACR is raised, victims must be informed, and they must still be supported. Harm must be recognised, and victims must not be excluded from the process or given the impression that, because there is no prosecution, there is no action. The absence of prosecution must never mean the absence of support for victims. As referenced by the Minister, the Victim Charter makes it clear that, if no one is brought to justice, victims still have entitlements and can access services. Victim Support NI was clear that it provides emotional support, information and practical help even when a victim does not want to progress with the reporting of a crime.”
“I agree. That brings me to my section about victims. Any reform that does not take victims seriously will fail. That is why the reform needs to be victim-centred. It is not about choosing children over victims but about recognising that, if our current response does not reduce future harm, it is not serving victims well. <BR /> <BR />The Victims' Commissioner rightly warned that there has not been any ethically or systematically gathered evidence that would allow anyone to claim that there is a settled victims' position on the minimum age of criminal responsibility, so I do not claim that there is a single victims' view: there is not. Crime and harm will be experienced differently by every victim, and justice will look and feel different to every victim.”
“It can require a child to face the harm that they have caused and accept that responsibility. Importantly, for victims, restorative practices can offer what a traditional judicial process does not always provide: acknowledgement, explanation, apology, reparation and, most important, reassurance that the behaviour is being addressed.”
“Experts in trauma-informed practice, including Professor Lisa Bunting and her colleagues, are clear on that point: trauma-informed accountability does not ask what is wrong with the child and then stop there. It asks, "What has happened to the child? What harm have they caused? What risk do they pose? What risks are they facing? What response will promote safety, responsibility and recovery? Those are more demanding questions, not easier ones. <BR /> <BR />Victim Support made an important point to me about restorative justice. It described restorative justice as "extremely powerful" but also warned that it is, too often, misunderstood as the soft option. In reality, when it is safe, victim-led and properly facilitated, restorative justice can be one of the most demanding forms of accountability.”
“It has the ability to conduct joint protocol investigations, and, if there were a safeguarding concern, it would make a referral to social services and ensure that those pathways are met. The route changes. The responsibility does not. The incident can still be reported. <BR /> <BR />When I am asked whether raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility removes all consequences, my answer is clear: it does not. The amendment is not about removing accountability. However, it changes the route through which responsibility is addressed. It asks whether placing very young children into the criminal justice system is genuinely the best way to reduce harm. That is the test that we should apply: not whether the response sounds tough but whether it makes people and our communities safer.”
“Absolutely. Thank you, Minister. I will go on to that in my section on victims, but yes, the Victim Charter still outlines what can be done to support our victims. <BR /> <BR />There is a difference between saying that a very young child should not be arrested, charged, prosecuted or convicted in the current way and saying that the police, social services or safeguarding partners cannot establish what happened; assess risks; record an incident; support a victim; and put an intervention in place. <BR /> <BR />The PSNI's evidence to the Justice Committee was clear that the response does not disappear. Chief Superintendent Gary McDonald told the Committee that, if there were any concern about, for example, the child's well-being or safeguarding, the PSNI has good mechanisms in place with social services.”
“The incident can be recorded as a non-offence referral; risk can be assessed; parents and carers can be contacted; the matter can be flagged to a youth diversion officer; safeguarding referrals can still be made to social services where needed; and, in serious safeguarding cases, police can act to protect the child from significant harm, so, while the response changes, it does not disappear.”
“A child who causes harm must still face consequences, but the amendment asks whether criminal prosecution is the most effective way to reduce harm or whether a different response would prevent future victims. <BR /> <BR />I want to address the claim that raising MACR means that no investigation or understanding of what happened can take place. That is simply not right. At present, where a child under 10 behaves in a way that would be an offence were they older, police cannot treat that child as having committed an offence. There is no criminal investigation of that child as a suspect because they are below the minimum age of criminal responsibility. That does not mean that there is no response.”
“Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility does not make harmful behaviour legal; it means that, below the age set by the Assembly, a child cannot be criminally prosecuted or convicted through the criminal justice system. That is not the same as saying that the behaviour is acceptable, ignored or without consequence. There is a profound difference between legalising harmful behaviour and changing how we respond to it, and it is wrong to present the choice as prosecution or nothing. <BR /> <BR />Some will intervene or potentially get up to speak and offer lists of hypothetical events and ask whether it would be right that those children are not prosecuted. The amendment is not about removing accountability. It is not about denying that serious harm can happen.”
“I continue to have a deeply held belief that raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not only the right thing to do but a necessary step, as I now see it, towards a justice system that is more effective and more focused on preventing future harm. I will structure my remarks around the main concerns that were raised during that engagement and from comments made by others, because, for the most part, those concerns are real and genuine, and the debate is too important for there not to be a respectful, evidence-led debate. <BR /> <BR />The first concern that I will address is the idea that raising the age means that children involved in offending behaviours will face no consequences or, as some who should know better have suggested, that harmful behaviour will somehow become legal. That is simply not what is being proposed.”
“<BR /> <BR />I take the opportunity to record my thanks to and admiration for the individuals and organisations that have been at the heart of the campaign for decades, particularly my former party leader and former Minister of Justice David Ford, who initiated and commissioned a review of the youth justice system. Raising the minimum age was suggested then, 15 years ago. This debate has been a long time coming. It is not new. <BR /> <BR />This is about changing a system that, on the evidence before us, is not working as well as it could. While not required to do so for an amendment to an Executive Bill, I have, over the past year, met as many stakeholders as possible.”
“For some Members, who are not even here for the beginning of the debate, to say that the amendments were not thought through and that Emma Sheerin, Patsy McGlone, of all people, and I are not fit to legislate is offensive and, frankly, off-the-scale arrogant. To say that the amendments were not thought through is grossly dismissive of the huge effort that was put into them by people who are far more knowledgeable and have far more expertise than I or, for that matter, anyone else in the House. That is the last bit of attention that I will give to that.”
“I begin by recognising the seriousness and importance of what we are debating today. Raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is about whether our response makes further harm more likely or less likely. That is at the heart of the debate. <BR /> <BR />When it came to tabling my amendments, I did not do so lightly. As a former youth worker, I tabled them because I genuinely believe that they can make a difference. I have listened to practitioners, victims and those with lived experience. We have tried to table amendments that are serious, workable and victim- and child-centred. <BR /> <BR />I will address one element of negativity before I begin.”
“Enabling a programme such as Right to Try will depend on employers being able to provide opportunities. What discussions have you had with the Minister for the Economy to ensure that employers are ready and willing to provide such opportunities?”
“I will not try to pronounce the phrase, because Emma has confused me about how I was going to pronounce it. Does the Minister agree that reintroducing that framework would be a backward step, because we would end up with 10-to-13-year-olds still being open to arrest and prosecution rather than being diverted away from the justice system altogether?”
“<BR /> <BR />I want to highlight the Northern Trust's new carer support programme, which is being launched today. It includes walking groups and peer-support groups across North Antrim and beyond. It includes book clubs, journaling and a mix of in-person and online events for ease of access. I pay tribute to the trust's carer pathway steering group, which has shaped that programme for carers so that it feels supportive, practical and designed with carers in mind. <BR /> <BR />This Carers' Week, I pay tribute to every unpaid carer across Northern Ireland, including those who do not even recognise themselves as carers. If we are serious about building healthier, fairer and more compassionate communities, we have to build communities that recognise, value and support our carers not just this week but every week.”
“Public transport was viewed as the least carer-friendly service in Northern Ireland, followed by financial services, workplaces and social care. Those are everyday systems that carers need to navigate just to get through the week. Building carer-friendly communities means practical change. It means all facets of civil society recognising that carers are part of each and every one of our communities. It also means legislation and policy that makes carers' lives easier, less arduous and much less lonely. We need a joined-up, cross-departmental approach that recognises that carers do not live their lives in departmental silos. Their needs cut across Health, Communities, Education, Infrastructure, Economy and Finance, so our response should do the same.”
“It can mean missing out on work, education, relationships, community life and, most important, looking after your own health. It also tells me that we too often wait until carers are at breaking point before the support that they need arrives. It is not fair, and it is not sustainable. We need to invest upstream. We need early intervention with carers before a crisis develops, and we need proper respite, replacement care and practical help before exhaustion becomes burnout. When we support carers early, we do not just improve their lives but help to protect the well-being, dignity and independence of the person whom they care for. <BR /> <BR />The report also shows where carers feel the gaps most sharply.”
“This week marks Carers' Week 2026. This year's theme is "Building Carer-friendly Communities", and it could not be more timely. Across our communities, thousands of people care every day for someone, often quietly, often without recognition and, far too often, without the support that they need. Therefore, Carers' Week is a chance to say clearly that unpaid carers are not invisible. <BR /> <BR />The updated Carers' Week 2026 report shows that almost a third of unpaid carers do not feel that their caring role is understood or valued by their community. Nearly a quarter of current and former carers said that they had not been able to maintain a healthy lifestyle, and 22% said that they had been unable to take part in local groups or activities. That shows us that caring can still mean isolation.”
“It is time that the petition of concern and other protective mechanisms are not abused because you will not win the argument or do not agree with the proposal on the table.”
“At the time, the Democratic Unionist Party leader, Arlene Foster, agreed that the petition of concern needed to be changed; yet here we are, 10 years later, with a party that puts in a petition of concern because it does not agree with a policy and does not think that it has the numbers to legitimately and democratically win an argument. If any Member who signed that petition of concern wants to approach me today and tell me how any of the amendments that I and others have legitimately laid before the House discriminate against or in some way disenfranchise a portion of our society or, indeed, the constitutional status of this place, I am all ears. That is what the petition of concern was designed for, not to be used because you do not agree and might not win the debate. <BR /> <BR />It is time for reform.”
“For the Democratic Unionist Party to lay petitions of concern against amendments based on legitimately held policy decisions just because it does not agree with them is an affront to democracy and to the protections that the petition of concern and other mechanisms were designed to put in place. Debate the issues, bring us the evidence, bring us your reasons for not agreeing with proposals, but do not abuse the Chamber and the protective mechanisms that are in place. <BR /> <BR />In 2016, my party said that we needed a reform of the petition of concern.”