Official Report: Tuesday 02 June 2026

Mr McHugh: Rinne muid Lá Idirnáisiúnta Coimeádaithe Síochána na Náisiún Aontaithe a cheiliúradh Dé hAoine seo caite. Athdhearbhaimid an lá sin ár dtiomantas do bheith ag infheistiú sa tsíocháin, arbh é téama an lae idirnáisiúnta i mbliana é. Rinne muid Lá Domhanda na Croise Deirge agus an Chorráin Dheirg a chomóradh tá cúpla seachtain ó shin. Is den chuibheas é aitheantas, urraim agus moladh a thabhairt do na daoine sin a théann sa bhearna bhaoil le daoine a chosaint, ach ní fiú a dhath iad na laethanta comórtha céanna má thugaimid neamhaird ar a bhfuil ag tarlú do choimeádaithe síochána.

Rinneadh ionsaithe ón aer agus ón talamh ar áiseanna daonnúla in Gaza, bhuail siad in aice le stórais de chuid na Náisiún Aontaithe agus cuireadh feithiclí fóirithinte ó mhaith. Scriosadh otharcharranna na n-oibrithe sláinte agus na bhfreagróirí éigeandála san Iaráin, agus rinnneadh damáiste dá mbunáiteanna. Ní taismí tragóideacha iad sin ach cuid d’fheachtas iad ina ndéantar na daoine sin a chosnaíonn dínit an duine a aimsiú d’aonturas. Tá coicís ó shin tháinig Iosrael roimh chabhlachán lóin a bhí ag tabhairt cabhrach go Gaza. Rinneadh 428 de na rannpháirtithe a fhuadach, agus chuaigh Itamar Ben-Gvir a mhagadh fúthu. Is léir ó na gníomhartha sin go bhfuil stát Iosrael beag beann ar an dlí idirnáisiúnta agus ar údarás an phobail idirnáisiúnta.

Beidh tuigbheáil ag muintir an oileáin s’againn do théama na bliana seo — ag infheistiú sa tsíocháin. Is ar an idirphlé agus ar an tacaíocht idirnáisiúnta atá an próiseas s’againne féin na síochána bunaithe. Ar an lá seo, gabhaimid ár mbuíochas leo siúd a théann in araicis na contúirte le daoine a chosaint agus atá ag obair ar son na síochána buaine.

Mrs Middleton: I rise to pay tribute to a young lady whose life was violently stolen exactly 50 years ago today, 2 June 1976, after she was shot by IRA terrorists on 23 May. Today, I ask Members to forever remember the name of Linda Baggley.

The Baggley family went through so much at the hands of terrorism that they never should have had to endure. They lost a beloved husband and father in another senseless and vile act of terrorism, and then, precious Linda, cruelly murdered around 100 metres from where her father had been murdered just two years before. To add to their pain, Linda's mother, Joan, was prevented from reaching Linda in her final moments due to a terrorist bomb scare outside the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast. Joan, who is now in her heavenly home, and Linda's sister, Lorraine, and brother, Graham, have suffered more than any family ever should. There will never be any justification for it. I make no apologies for being emotional as I pay tribute to the precious life of Reserve Constable Linda Baggley, murdered at the hands of the IRA at just 19 years of age.

On Sunday, I was honoured to attend a remembrance service organised by the South East Fermanagh Foundation, during which Linda's sister, Lorraine, an incredible woman whom I am so proud to know, spoke of her sister, her father and the journey that the family had been through. Linda was described as "bubbly and full of life". Lorraine further said:

Members, I am sure that you will all agree that having a father and husband stolen away in a violent manner, followed by a daughter and sister stolen in a violent manner — both innocent individuals — just two years apart is something unimaginable: a pain that no one should have to bear.

Today, I ask simply for those perpetrators to examine their morality and their conscience. I call for truth and justice. In loving memory of Reserve Constable William Baggley and his daughter Reserve Constable Linda Baggley, both forever loved, forever remembered, and, in Linda's case, forever 19.

Mr Blair: Today, I mark World Peatlands Day, which is celebrated every year on 2 June. It was established by the International Peatlands Society, and the day highlights the vital role that peatlands play in tackling the climate and nature emergencies.

Peatlands are some of our most important natural assets. They lock away vast amounts of carbon, support unique wildlife and act as natural water filters, improving the quality of our lakes and rivers. When degraded, however, they release carbon, increase flood risk and undermine water quality.

I am all too aware of those issues in my South Antrim constituency, particularly regarding ongoing flooding along the Sixmilewater river and the ecological crisis that we continue to face at Lough Neagh. However, when restored, peatlands become vital in our efforts to meet climate and biodiversity targets. That is why I welcome the priority given to protecting peatlands by my Alliance colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, especially in the publication of the peatlands strategy and advancing its implementation. In addition, the recently published wildlife strategy aims to support various projects to restore peatlands that have been damaged through wildfires.

Recently, an Alliance colleague and I visited Divis Mountain to see first-hand the excellent work undertaken there by the National Trust and Northern Ireland Environment Link. Rich in upland heath, blanket bog and species-rich grassland, the site is proving to be an excellent example of ecological restoration.

As part of its Divis — A View to the Future project, it has made great strides in peatland recovery, helping to re-wet degraded peat, slow water flow, reduce erosion and support carbon sequestration and the recovery of native species. The reduction in flood risk to the greater Belfast area is of particular note.

Peatlands are crucial for us to achieve our climate change goals. We need to continue to support their protection and restoration by backing the Minister's efforts to enhance those sites, along with organisations that are at the forefront of peatland restoration.

Mr McGrath: Yesterday was 1 June. Over the past two months, the Assembly has debated legislation, discussed policy and generated countless headlines. This week, more legislation will progress through the Chamber. Yet, somehow, as we stand here today, neither a three-year Budget nor even a one-year Budget has progressed. A Budget is a basic responsibility of the Government, but it remains unfinished. That failure has consequences that go far beyond the Chamber and the Building. It affects every Department, public service and community that relies on public services. Nowhere is that clearer than in our health service and the treatment of our nurses.

Every year, we know how many nurses we employ, what pay bands they are on and that pay awards will have to be funded. None of that comes as a surprise. Once upon a time, those things were treated as inescapable, and so they are. Why do the Executive continue to leave it to the last minute and try to juggle Barnett consequentials or in-year monitoring rounds in order to find the necessary money to make pay awards? Year after year, nurses are left waiting to hear what their pay award will be and whether pay parity will be maintained. While they wait, health and social care trusts are left in deep uncertainty, because, if funding for pay awards is not built into the system from the outset, they inevitably come under pressure to find that funding or make efficiencies elsewhere. We should call "efficiencies" what they are: cuts to the service.

The longer that that cycle continues, the wider the gap grows between what is received by our nurses and their colleagues elsewhere. Pay parity affects patient care. That is as basic as it gets. When experienced nurses leave, vacancies remain unfilled and staff feel undervalued, patients feel the consequences. We then resort to spending more and more money on agency staff. Meanwhile, the public are forced to listen to an endless blame game. One Minister blames another, Stormont points at Westminster, and Westminster points back. Do you know what? It is all becoming utterly desperate, depressing and dull. People outside the Building do not care who takes responsibility; they just want somebody to do it. They simply expect those who sought the privilege of governing to actually govern and take those decisions.

Mr Gildernew: Once again, I raise the issue of the odours affecting communities across south Tyrone. It is deeply frustrating to see continual repetitions of such issues. Two individual communities are particularly impacted on by them: I think of communities in the Killeeshil and Cabragh areas and, separately, the Granville and Eskra areas. In recent weeks, there was a serious gas leak related to the issue in Granville. The issue was reported as far away as Eglish, which is four miles away. Such was the concern that it required attendance by the Fire and Rescue Service.

I met representatives from NI Environment Agency again last week about both those issues. Once again, they have committed to investigate and review. I have no doubt that they will do that, but communities are increasingly frustrated that the same pattern is repeated over and over again. A review is carried out, and, in some cases, enforcement action is put in place — in others, it is not — but the problems continue. Eventually, the enforcement action runs its course, the company continues on its way, and the community continues to suffer.

That is simply not good enough. I think that we need to look very seriously at having an independent environmental agency that will protect communities, stand up to these companies and ensure that some difference is made in relation to these issues. We cannot repeat them over and over again. Just in case Members do not understand it, the impact of this in both areas is such that people have to cancel outdoor events such as children's parties. Training sessions at local sports clubs have had to be cancelled, and schools have had to keep children indoors. That is not acceptable, nor is it sustainable that it keeps happening over and over again.

The agencies that are tasked with this must have the legislation and the resources to make a real difference. I am calling for a serious look at the issue, particularly in south Tyrone. It affects many Members in the Chamber in their areas. You are probably experiencing the same frustrations and difficulties that I am. Whatever happens in future, we need to ensure that communities are protected and companies are effectively regulated in order that this cannot continue to happen.

Mr Martin: On Thursday of last week, I was made aware that the Children's Commissioner, Mr Chris Quinn, had endorsed the position where no young person under 16 should be prosecuted for serious crimes such as rape, murder or sexual assault. I offer full credit to David Thompson, the 'News Letter' journalist, for highlighting that position in the first place. There is a disturbing context to this. Recently, in Hampshire, two girls aged 15 and 14 were raped in separate incidents by two 14-year-old boys, and another boy aged 13 was convicted for the attack. Members may have noted in the media coverage that none of the boys was given a custodial sentence in the initial sentencing. Thankfully, the Attorney General is reviewing that case. Had those rapes occurred in Northern Ireland, and had we adopted the Children's Commissioner's position — some parties here endorse it, while others are not far from that — those young girls would have had no access to justice, which, for me, it is simply unacceptable.

I want to be clear that every child deserves protection, support and the opportunity to turn to turn their life around. However, we must also remember another fundamental principle, which is that every victim deserves justice. When we talk about serious sexual crimes, we are not talking about youthful mistakes or minor acts of wrongdoing, but about offences that leave lifelong scars on victims. We are talking about crimes that destroy confidence and leave families devastated. The first duty of any justice system is to protect and uphold the rights of innocent victims. That principle cannot be abandoned in the debate that we are having, and the DUP will support all victims and make the case for equitable justice across Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Mr Martin, I just remind you that we are not to pre-empt the debate that is to take place on the Bill.

Mr Martin: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I wrote to Mr Chris Quinn on Friday to ask him a range of questions. Do children under 16 possess an equal right to criminal justice when they are raped by boys who are under 16? What message does he believe his position, as outlined, sends to girls who are already fearful of reporting rape due to low conviction rates and traumatic processes? Given the fact that we, as a society, are struggling to deal with violence against women and girls, how can he justify a position that states that boys under 16 should not be prosecuted for rape? I am still waiting for a reply from the Children's Commissioner's office or, in fact, an acknowledgement of my email to him. Hopefully, he will clarify his comments to me. These are incredibly serious crimes that we are considering, but they do occur, and when they do, victims want justice. We will stand up for the victims of crimes in that debate, even if we have to stand alone.

Ms Mulholland: I rise today to talk about the abuse of the protective mechanism by one party in this Chamber. I got involved in politics 15 years ago because, at my core, I believe in social justice. I believe that it is the duty of every single one of us to fight for a fairer and more equal society. When, in 1998, the majority of our communities and society in Northern Ireland voted for the Good Friday Agreement, that is exactly what they voted for. They voted for a fairer and more just society. That is why, at the time, we needed protections such as the petition of concern. We needed them so that decisions could not be imposed on one section of our community and to encourage power-sharing. 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.

In 2016, my party said that we needed a reform of the petition of concern. 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.

It is time for reform. 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.

Mr T Buchanan: Yesterday marked the commencement of Volunteers' Week, when organisations and all those throughout Northern Ireland who give of their time in a voluntary manner are recognised for their sterling work. It was a privilege to meet a number of groups in Omagh yesterday and present them with certificates to acknowledge the work that they had done not only over the past year but throughout many previous years. They are the people who, through their dedication and undivided commitment, quietly breathe life into the heart of our communities, keeping them strong and people-focused. In many towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland, they are the individuals who willingly give their time, energy and compassion not for praise or reward but because they care about the people around them.

Volunteering is one of the greatest expressions of citizenship. It is the work that never makes the headlines but holds our communities together. Whether it is supporting the vulnerable, organising local events, coaching young people or simply being there when someone needs a helping hand, the contribution of volunteers matters so much to people and makes a real difference to their lives.

Today, I acknowledge the service that they deliver. It is about saying to volunteers simply but with all sincerity, "Thank you for the hours that you give, the skills that you share and the example that you set, reminding us that community spirit is something that we build day by day through acts of kindness and commitment". Throughout my years as a Member, I have witnessed, day by day, the huge impact that the work of volunteers has made on our communities. I have seen the difference that they make in homes, in neighbourhoods and in the lives of people who may never know their name but will always feel the benefit of their generosity. Standing shoulder to shoulder with our volunteers, and on behalf of those who can testify to their lives having been touched by their sterling, dedicated work, I express my sincere gratitude. It is a service that strengthens the community spirit in the little place that we call home.

Mr Honeyford: Over the month of May, Manufacturing NI rightly shone a spotlight on one of our greatest economic strengths. Manufacturing contributes more than £6 billion to our economy, directly supports over 100,000 jobs and creates opportunities across the region. Too often, however, our focus on future economic growth can be on attracting the next major inward investment rather than on looking at growing our economy, backing the businesses, workers and innovators that we already have here and helping them to scale.

Our manufacturers invest in innovation and R&D. They create high-quality jobs, and they export their products around the world. Manufacturing is ultimately about people and opportunity. It is about delivering skills, making things and creating opportunities for people to build a better future in this place that they call home. Alliance believes that we need to be much more ambitious. Despite the importance of the sector, we still lack a dedicated manufacturing strategy. We need a strategy that is focused on removing the barriers to growth, addressing skills shortages, reducing energy costs for manufacturers, supporting innovation and export opportunities, and tackling planning delays and waste water connection constraints. Most importantly, it must contain clear priorities, actions and timelines.

We should also be collaborating across this island on a range of issues, including skills, energy, supply chain opportunities and human resources. We need to look at the areas in which it makes practical economic sense to work together, and then do so to deliver better for everyone. Manufacturing has been recognised as being central to the South's success, economic growth and regional prosperity. Some 85% of the jobs in manufacturing sector in the South of Ireland are outside the Dublin area. If you tackle the issue, jobs will spread naturally across the region. The South's success did not happen by accident; it came about because it created the conditions for businesses to invest, grow and succeed. We need to do exactly the same.

Manufacturing is not an industry of the past; it is one on which the foundations of our future are built. If we are serious about growing our economy, creating good jobs and building opportunity across Northern Ireland, manufacturing must be at the heart of that ambition. I thank Manufacturing NI for the outstanding work that it does to highlight and celebrate the manufacturing industry and businesses that we have here. I congratulate the workers who create those businesses and make them thrive and grow, and I wish them all the best for the future.

Mr Carroll: I will briefly bring Members' attention to a workforce dispute that will come to a head in the coming days. Erskine House is known to many Members here. Some of us, including me, have been outside it on many occasions, protesting against government decisions. Occasionally, I have been inside it, having meetings with Ministers and officials. Other Members have done likewise.

Erskine House, like this Building, does not exist out of thin air; it exists due to the work and labour of people who are employed to clean, act as porters and receptionists, and perform other roles inside the building. The workers in Erskine House are in the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), and 100% of them have voted to take strike action. The nature of the dispute is against forced redundancies. Unfortunately, in different sectors across the board, staff and workers are told by management and companies that they no longer have a job. The workers in Erskine House who are employed by Sodexo will take strike action later this week. As I am sure that Members know, Sodexo is not some small-scale corner shop cleaning company; it is a huge multinational organisation that operates in some 45 countries across the world and made at least £1 billion in profit last year.

Those vital workers keep Erskine House operating. They keep it clean, they allow people to come in and out of the building, and they supply food in the building. Obviously, the building does not operate without their labour. Their strike begins on Thursday. Although it is not directly the responsibility of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, pressure from them could help to resolve the dispute. I call on them to intervene and put pressure on the British Government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, because the British Government are paying Sodexo, and it is Sodexo that is coming for workers. I call on those Ministers to intervene, apply pressure and stand by those workers, who keep the building operating. The first picket line begins on Thursday at 12.00 noon. PCS has extended an invitation to everybody here, and all members of the public who are interested in workers' rights, to come along.

Mr Gaston: I bring to the House a tale of two listed buildings. One is a beautiful building that is central to the history of Northern Ireland and its founding. The other is an ugly group of buildings that are judged to have no architectural merit. The first is Craigavon House, a historic Victorian mansion built in the 1870s and home of the Craigavon family. From its steps, the Ulster covenant, the birthright of Northern Ireland, was first read. It was, of course, the nerve centre from which the historic UVF, which went off to fight and die for freedom in the fields of France and Flanders, was formed. In spite of the promises contained in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, it has been sadly left to go to rack and ruin.

The other group of buildings that I want to mention is at the Maze. Those buildings were judged by the Historic Buildings Council to have no architectural merit. They were constructed in the 1970s, yet £324,000 of public money has been spent on their upkeep. Why? To preserve the hospital wing where Bobby Sands killed himself and to keep an IRA shrine up to standard. Keeping those obnoxious buildings offers nothing for future generations. Keeping them is blocking regeneration of the site. Keeping them is stopping inward investment and job creation. A Stormont that preserves listed buildings that are associated with those who want to destroy Northern Ireland is not a Stormont that is delivering for unionism but one that is picking and choosing by keeping buildings that are a blight on Northern Ireland while leaving another building that is associated with the founders of Northern Ireland to go to rack and ruin. We need to get rid of that blight on Northern Ireland. I want to see inward investment and development at the Maze, but that cannot happen while the hospital wing and the associated buildings connected with that shrine are left in place.

Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion the time available for Members' statements.

Mr Speaker: I want to acknowledge that we have approached the scheduling of the Justice Bill somewhat differently from how we have done so in the past. Members will know that I have said before that we need to learn lessons from the previous mandate, and that includes lessons about seeking to debate legislation in unrealistic time frames and therefore ending up accidentally sitting until the early hours and squeezing debate. That does not produce the scrutiny that is required. I therefore thank the Minister of Justice, the Committee for Justice, the Assembly and departmental officials for their cooperation on reaching an agreement to plan proactively for this debate and for agreeing to schedule it over several days. We will see whether the three days that have been scheduled for it are sufficient. They may not be, but, nonetheless, it demonstrates the seriousness that has been given to what is a really complex Bill, with the number of amendments being higher than what we have faced before.

I call the Minister of Justice, Mrs Naomi Long, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are nine groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn.

The first debate will be on biometric data and police photographs. The second debate will be on child bail/custody and live links. The third debate will be on offences. The fourth debate will be on police discipline and police barred/advisory lists. The fifth debate will be on drink-/drug-driving measures and police seizure of vehicles. The sixth debate will be on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The seventh debate will be on restorative justice, rehabilitation of offenders and criminal record certificates. The eighth debate will be on legal aid and technical changes. The ninth debate will be on prisoner discharge and accommodation.

I remind Members intending to speak during the debates on the nine groups of amendments and opposition to clause No 28 stand part that they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments to the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and a Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we should proceed.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 40, 66, 67, 99, 102, 104 to 120, 122 and 126. Any links between the amendments in that group will be indicated at the appropriate point.

I call the Minister of Justice to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mrs Long: Before turning to the amendments, I take the opportunity to thank the Committee for its support and commitment in completing its scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill and the proposed amendments. I also thank the current and previous Chairs, Deputy Chairs and members for their engagement throughout and for their subsequent support for all the substantive provisions of the Bill at its introduction and their endorsement of amendments that they scrutinised during the Committee Stage.

The Committee has tabled a small number of modest amendments, including a regulation-making power to provide for the retention and use of photographs in Part 1 of the Bill that we are to debate shortly. The Committee's other amendments include tweaks to clauses 4, 5 and 6 in Part 2 to include a child's vulnerabilities as a relevant consideration to be taken into account when a decision on whether to release a child on bail or to impose bail conditions is being taken by police or the courts; the inclusion of a review mechanism for the use of live links by police in Part 3; and a consequential amendment to clause 33 to specify a time frame for the commencement of the biometric provisions of Part 1 within five years of Royal Assent. I very much appreciate the Committee's consideration of those issues, and I look forward to debating its amendments at the appropriate point in our proceedings.

Before I speak substantively to the nature of the changes to be made in Part 1 in my name, I want to address some of the concerns that, I understand, the Chair of the Committee for Justice may have had regarding the text of the amendments tabled on my behalf by the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) compared with the format provided to the Committee at the start of the Committee Stage for publication as part of its call for evidence. I reassure the Chair and, indeed, the members of the Committee that there have been no substantive changes to my amendments in policy intent or outcome. While the amendments may have been presented differently, reflecting the sequence in which the amendments are made to the Bill and the consequential nature of a number of the amendments of any changes to the text of the provisions, reflects drafting tweaks and technical adjustments to ensure that the amendments work as originally intended. There is no change of policy approach or any new policy content that the Committee has been unsighted on. Committee scrutiny of those amendments is, therefore, unchanged. Again, I express my thanks for the diligence with which it undertook that work.

The Bill that I introduced to the Assembly in September 2024 has four key principles: to amend retention periods for biometric material; to make changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people; to improve services for victims and witnesses; and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of aspects of the justice system.

Part 1 of the Bill creates a new framework for the retention and destruction of DNA and fingerprints in Northern Ireland. I now want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name in that Part of the Bill.

The amendments to Part 1 tabled in my name are as a result of stress-testing the draft legislation with the PSNI, which identified a need for some modifications to the provisions of the Bill at introduction to provide greater clarity in a complex area and to ensure the effective operation of the new framework. I do not intend to labour the detail of each provision in the grouping, which, I am sure, will be a relief to Members, as a number of the amendments are consequential. I can, however, provide this summary of the nature of the amendments.

A number of amendments were tabled in respect of schedule 2, beginning with amendment No 108 to replace the term "reported" with "a complaint being laid against the person" in Part VI of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which is due to "reported" having different interpretations across the criminal justice system. The amendment, therefore, is designed to provide legislative clarity.

Existing references to a person "being charged with an offence" or "informed" that they "will be reported" will be replaced by "being charged with an offence" or "a complaint being laid against the person".

Amendment No 22 makes changes to retention periods for DNA and fingerprints held on foot of a community-based restorative justice scheme, because stand-alone community-based restorative justice schemes that are directed by the PPS are considered to be on a level similar to that of a caution. That amendment and associated consequentials will ensure that stand-alone community-based restorative justice schemes attract the same retention period as a caution for adults, which is 75 years or 25 years, and, for someone who is under 18, five years.

There are provisions to create grace periods for DNA and fingerprints being held for individuals under investigation. An amendment provides for a 28-day period to ensure that, following the conclusion of an investigation, the PSNI has sufficient time either to lawfully process the deletion of an individual's DNA and fingerprints or to submit an application to the biometrics commissioner for continued retention.

Amendment No 8 makes a change relating to applications to the biometrics commissioner to clarify that the DNA and fingerprints of an individual who is arrested but not charged can be retained by the PSNI until the outcome of an application to the biometrics commissioner is known.

There are new provisions in amendment No 66 to establish a power to photograph individuals in specified circumstances at a police station, thereby putting photographs on the same footing as DNA and fingerprints. Regarding the powers of the PSNI to recall an individual to a police station for material to be taken, there are powers in amendment No 67 to specify a date of attendance at a police station for the taking of DNA samples, fingerprints and photographs. The aim is to improve the process of making arrangements for requiring an individual to attend a police station for their material to be taken and to reduce the likelihood of an individual attending the station when custody staff are not available to facilitate the taking of that material.

Amendment No 111 makes changes relating to informed warnings and restorative cautions that will clarify that any reference to a caution in Part VI of PACE NI is to be interpreted as including an informed warning or restorative caution. Provisions in new article 53B in amendment No 17 will mean that existing references to cautions in articles 61, 63 and 64A are no longer required, so there are amendments to remove those redundant references.

Finally, there are regulation-making powers to require that any future regulations to accommodate changes in the terminology used for informed warnings or restorative cautions or that deal with transitional arrangements for DNA and fingerprints must follow the draft affirmative procedure.

I turn to the amendments that I mentioned at the outset that the Committee for Justice has tabled for inclusion in Part 1 of the Bill. The Committee's first amendment, No 40, creates an enabling power to allow the inclusion of photographs and other emerging technology in the definition of "biometric material" under the retention provisions in Part 1. A second amendment, No 104, on commencement of the new DNA retention framework, which is consequential to clause 33, would require the Department to bring the new retention framework in Part 1 into force within five years of Royal Assent. While I am generally content to accept both amendments in principle, there may be technical issues with the drafting of the provisions that require remedial action to ensure that they operate as intended and do not present any unintended consequences.

I will now speak to the many amendments to Part 1 tabled by Ms Emma Sheerin, Ms Aoife Finnegan and Ms Ciara Ferguson. While the intention behind amendment No 5 is not entirely clear, it appears to relate to article 63I, which deals with charges left on the books. In certain criminal cases, the PPS may invite the court not to proceed with a charge but, instead, to have it left on the books. I consider it both reasonable and proportionate to apply a time-limited retention period in those circumstances, given that proceedings may be recommenced. The Department's consultation in 2020 included an initial proposal for a standard 12-month retention period. However, several respondents questioned whether 12 months would be sufficient. On the basis of the evidence available to the Department, a decision was made to amend the original proposal to a three-year retention period for qualifying offences and 12 months for non-qualifying offences, thereby ensuring a differentiated and proportionate approach. I am satisfied that that remains appropriate.

Amendment No 11 relates to qualifying offences that are listed in article 53A of PACE NI and that include the most serious violent, sexual and terrorism-related offences. Given their seriousness, I consider the maximum retention period of 75 years to be necessary and proportionate for adults and those under 18. However, it is important to note that the statutory review mechanism will include earlier statutory review points for young people than for adults. That will provide an early opportunity to consider whether it remains necessary and proportionate to retain a person's material. I am therefore satisfied that the current proposals are both proportionate and appropriate.

Proposed new article 63JA in amendment No 12 would introduce a three-year retention period for individuals under 18 who are convicted of a qualifying offence and a three-year retention period for those under 18 convicted of a non-qualifying offence, subject to approval by the biometrics commissioner. Those proposals have not, in my view, been sufficiently developed or tested. Moreover, the proposal in amendment No 13 to remove existing articles 63L, 63M and 63O would dismantle the less stringent regime designed specifically for under-18s. I believe that the provisions included in the Bill should be retained as a key component of the framework. They provide an appropriate balance between safeguarding young people's rights, respecting victims and maintaining public safety. As I have previously pointed out, the review mechanism will provide additional safeguards, including shorter time frames for under-18s before mandatory review.

Amendment Nos 23 and 24 would remove article 63P, which provides a five-year retention period for diversionary youth conferences and community-based restorative justice schemes. Both are directed by the PPS and represent a step up from community resolution notices (CRNs), with restorative justice schemes broadly equivalent to a caution. It is therefore appropriate that they attract a five-year retention period for under-18s, and I am of the view that the provision should remain.

Amendment No 28 would remove article 63Q, which provides a two-year retention period for penalty notices issued to adults under section 60 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That aligns with the approach in England and Wales and applies to penalty notices issued for a defined set of recordable offences as follows: indecent behaviour, section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968; shoplifting, section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; criminal damage, article 3(1) of the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977; disorderly behaviour, article 18(1)(a) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, article 18(1)(b) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; and resisting, obstructing or impeding a constable, section 66(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. I am satisfied that, on balance, the provision is proportionate and appropriate, and it should stand part of the Bill.

Article 63T provides an important safeguard requiring periodic review every five years of material retained for long-running ongoing investigations. That is distinct from the provision in article 63U that requires the review of long-term retained material held on foot of a conviction. The provision at article 63T recognises that some investigations, such as those for unsolved murders, can remain open for some considerable time. However, it provides a safeguard to ensure that an individual's material is not held any longer than is strictly necessary. Amendment No 29 would require the PSNI to notify an individual that they are subject to such a review and then enable an appeal process. That would potentially risk undermining an ongoing investigation and is therefore not appropriate. It is also not appropriate or, indeed, workable for anyone other than the PSNI to carry out such a review. I am satisfied that the current provision appropriately balances safeguarding an individual's rights with operational effectiveness, and it should remain unchanged.

The appeals process for a decision arising from a review conducted under article 63U is the next amendment being considered. The proposed amendment seeks to exclude PSNI personnel from determining appeals against a decision to retain material after a review. Under the current proposals, requests for a review will be handled by a designated PSNI team. Where an individual seeks reconsideration, the decision will be reviewed by a different and more senior officer with no prior involvement, ensuring procedural independence. That two-stage process reflects established best practice in, for example, FOI procedures and balances fairness with operational practicality. The PSNI is the data controller and is best placed to make decisions on the necessity of continued retention in the interests of investigating crime and public protection. It is therefore appropriate and, I argue, necessary for the PSNI to have responsibility for the process. In addition to that, individuals may complain to the biometrics commissioner, who can require reconsideration or deletion in cases where retention is unlawful. The Chief Constable will be obliged to comply. I am satisfied that that combination of safeguards for individual rights is sufficiently robust without compromising public safety.

Article 63Z contains an enabling power for the biometrics commissioner to issue guidance. As an independent officeholder, it is appropriate that the commissioner determines whether and how such guidance is issued as well as what should be included in the guidance. Making guidance mandatory and prescribing its content, as proposed in amendment No 35, would risk undermining that independence. I do not think that it would be appropriate for my Department to establish an independent office and then direct it, at that level, on how it should exercise its functions.

In conclusion, the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill are extensive, complex and intricately interlinked. The amendments that I have just spoken to propose to make isolated changes to individual aspects of a carefully drafted suite of provisions in the Bill. To do that would risk rendering part of the new biometric retention framework inoperable through bad drafting, technical deficiencies and potential unintended consequences. As such, I do not support any of those amendments.

Finally in respect of Part 1 of the Bill, Mr Gerry Carroll tabled amendment No 38, which includes provision that individuals should receive written notification whenever their retention period changes as a result of:

National security determinations (NSDs) can authorise a retention period of up to five years for DNA and fingerprints, where that is necessary and appropriate for national security purposes, and are subject to review by the UK Biometrics Commissioner. The legislative provisions relating to NSDs are set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and fall within the responsibility of the UK Government. As such, paragraph 2(c) of article 63C proposed by amendment No 38 would fall outside the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That amendment contains some issues that are within the competence of the Assembly but that would be more appropriately addressed through the updates to PACE code D, which will be subject to public consultation and Committee scrutiny. The revised code will be introduced alongside the new retention framework. I do not, therefore, support amendment No 38.

That concludes my opening remarks on the group 1 amendments. I look forward to hearing and responding to the views of Members and hope that it will be a constructive and positive debate. Thank you.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I will make some general remarks on the Bill in my capacity as Chairperson of the Justice Committee before addressing the group 1 amendments.

I thank the Minister and the Department for all their communication: the letters and the presentations and evidence sessions that they took part in to aid the Committee in scrutinising the Bill. I also thank my predecessor, Joanne Bunting MLA — now junior Minister — who was Chair of the Committee for a significant part of its scrutiny of the Bill, and all previous members of the Committee for their work during the Bill's Committee Stage. The Committee Stage was long and extensive, and there was a bit of churn in the Committee membership, so I thank everybody who sat on the Justice Committee during that time and played a part in the scrutiny of the Bill.

The Bill deals with a range of significant matters. It has 34 clauses and four schedules. The Committee knew, before the Bill's introduction, that ministerial amendments were planned that would cover another six policy areas. Members of the Committee felt that affording those amendments proper scrutiny was the right thing to do. The Committee therefore agreed that a lengthy Committee Stage was necessary, and an extension was subsequently agreed by the Assembly. Despite the best efforts of the Committee to complete its work before that deadline, it regrettably took the full 18 months to conduct its scrutiny. That was due, in large part, to the complexity of the provisions in the Bill and the planned amendments, which required detailed consideration by the Committee. The Bill includes a detailed biometric retention framework with potential human rights implications, which was further complicated when the Committee was advised of the need for amendments to those provisions just days after the Bill's introduction. The biometrics provisions were the subject of lengthy discussions, not least about what the provisions do not cover, culminating in the Committee agreeing to bring amendments relating to that part of the Bill, which I will talk more about later.

The Bill makes changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people. Again, there was a detailed and lengthy discussion on that part of the Bill, as it was important that members fully explored the implications for children and young people.

We know that live links are used in the courts and tribunal proceedings by virtue of provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee examined the proposed administrative amendments to make primary legislative provision for live links in courts and tribunals, alongside the new provisions in the Bill for the use of live links in police custody. It is recognised that the use of live links can be of benefit, not least in speeding up justice. The representations made to the Committee included the need to ensure that people were fully advised of and understand their rights, that communication needs and powers must be considered, that live links should not become the norm by default and that they are not a replacement for in-person attendance.

Part 4 of the Bill is essentially technical or administrative in nature. While the Committee considered each aspect, it is fair to say that our scrutiny of the Part centred mainly on clause 28, which is the restriction of the role of the taxing master. We explored the clause in detail, but towards the end of the Committee Stage, we were advised of the Minister's intention that clause 28 would no longer stand part of the Bill, but instead she would bring a new amendment relating to the reform of taxation. We will discuss that in more detail later in the debate. There are further significant additional policy areas, including new serious organised crime offences, changes to the rehabilitation of offenders regime, provisions relating to restorative justice, AccessNI filtering changes and a proposed repeal of the historic vagrancy legislation, which are all being introduced by way of ministerial amendments.

Over the course of its scrutiny, the Committee heard oral evidence from 26 organisations and individuals, received 36 written submissions, commissioned 14 research papers and amendments, held two informal round-table events, had multiple briefings from the Department of Justice and received several legal briefings on the human rights implications and the delegated powers in the Bill and the planned amendments. We deliberated over eight meetings and agreed on a report on the Justice Bill on 26 March 2026. In total, we considered the Bill and related issues at 51 meetings during the Committee Stage. I, therefore, thank the members of the Committee, past and present, for their contribution to the robust and careful scrutiny of the Bill and planned amendments. I also thank the organisations and individuals who provided written evidence, and those who attended to provide oral evidence. Their contributions greatly assisted our scrutiny and will help inform the final shape of the Bill.

I also record the Committee's thanks to the departmental officials, with whom we had significant engagement through oral evidence sessions and written correspondence throughout the process. The Committee also appreciates the support and assistance provided by Assembly staff, including the Bill Clerk, research officers, the Examiner of Statutory Rules, the Communications Office, the Assembly Broadcasting team, Hansard staff, Legal Services and all the others who played an important role in supporting the Committee to undertake its legislative scrutiny. Finally, I thank the Committee team, who supported the Committee not just to complete the Committee Stage of the Bill but to handle the rest of the normal Committee business, which obviously must continue during the scrutiny of a Bill.

I turn to the first group of amendments. On behalf of the Committee, I will speak first to the ministerial amendments in group 1 that the Committee had sight of and then to the Committee's amendments.

As I said, the Committee was advised during an oral evidence session just before the Bill's introduction that the Department had identified the need to table amendments to the biometrics section of the Bill following stress-testing of the provisions with operational partners. The Committee was understandably slightly taken aback by that development, given that it came just days after the Bill's introduction. The Committee received the text of the planned amendments in late October 2024 and noted that they made changes to clause 1, clause 3 and schedule 2. The amendments also introduced new clauses, which I will come to later.

Clause 1 is the longest clause in the Bill, extending to over 16 pages. It is therefore unsurprising that the Committee heard extensive evidence on its provisions. We heard from rights groups, advocates, academics, children's groups, victims' groups, legal bodies, the PSNI, other justice partners and the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. There was significant support for the move away from an indefinite retention regime and for the introduction of a review mechanism for those who wish to challenge the retention of their biometric material. While that approach was welcomed, many questions were asked about the rationale behind the 75-, 50- and 25-year models that had been selected. Questions were also raised about other aspects of the retention framework, particularly about children and those who had not been convicted of any offence or those who were arrested but not charged. While the establishment of a biometrics commissioner was also largely welcomed, there were some questions raised about the commissioner's independence, role and power.

The Committee sought clarification from the Department on the precise factors used to determine the length of the retention periods. The Department set out a range of factors that were taken into account in the development of the model and advised that it had settled on numbers that could be integrated into a model based on severity and age and that provided for a graduated approach that is not overly complex to administer. We also discussed the proposed framework with the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, who advised that biometric retention varies across Europe and that, in his view, nobody has the gold standard. He also pointed out that it is not indefinite retention that is wrong but indefinite retention of material with no prospect of review. In the end, the Committee recognised that, while not perfect, the retention framework for DNA and fingerprints will strike a balance between protecting the rights of individuals and the need to protect the public and to prevent crime. It should deliver a workable system that will not be hugely complex to administer and deliver.

I turn to ministerial amendment Nos 4, 111, 118 and 119. The text of those amendments was not provided to the Committee, but they give effect to a request that the Committee made during its scrutiny. In clause 1 of the Bill as introduced, new article 63E(11) in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 provides the power for the Department to amend the nomenclature of disposals specified in proposed new article 63E(10), which includes references to a "caution", an "informed warning" or a "restorative caution". Our scrutiny of the Bill included scrutiny of the delegated powers in it. It was noted that the power in new article 63E(11) is a power to amend the primary legislation, commonly known in this place as a "Henry VIII power", although it was subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Department advised that it considered the negative resolution procedure to be an appropriate and proportionate control for that power. It considered that any amendment made by the power was limited and could change the disposals only in order to keep pace with any changes in terminology.

Officials explained that that would also be necessary, as the disposals mentioned in new article 63E(10) were not statutory disposals with fixed names but informal processes and could change in practice. However, the Committee was not content with that position. As I have said, that is a Henry VIII power. While narrow in focus, it relates to the regulation of biometric data, which is a matter of significance and sensitivity. The Committee therefore sought the Department's agreement to amend the power at new article 63E(11) to the draft affirmative procedure. I am pleased that amendments were tabled by the Minister to enable that change. I thank the Minister for that.

On ministerial amendment No 99 and clause 3(10), the Committee also noted during its consideration that the delegated rule-making power at clause 3(10) was absent from the Bill. The Department undertook to correct that at Consideration Stage with an amendment to clause 31. Again, I am pleased to see that that has been tabled by the Minister.

Amendment Nos 66, 67 and 126 introduce two new clauses and a new schedule. The Committee heard from several respondents with concerns about proposed new clause 23A and new schedule 5, which introduce the power to photograph certain persons at a police station. Concerns were raised about the use of photos and whether they should be classed as biometric material and subject to the retention schedule. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), for example, stated that there needed to be further:

I will address further the question of photos shortly, when I come to the Committee's first amendment.

The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime queried how those custody photos would interact with the release of custody images in instances of public interest or for reporting purposes and whether their classification as biometric material might prevent their release. The Committee understands that that is a matter for the Chief Constable and that a working group has been established to develop procedures to govern the release of images.

The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) stressed opposition to the amendments, as it felt that new article 63P would allow for a five-year retention period for material taken from someone who is under 18 and completing a community-based restorative justice scheme. It felt that it was disproportionate to extend the provision to include custody photographs, which would be taken for such community orders.

Amendment No 67 introduces new clause 23B, which allows the police to stipulate a time and date for an individual to attend a police station for fingerprinting. The Committee received a written submission from the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner in England and Wales, who felt that the amendment was missing an opportunity. He said that consideration should have been given to also allow for the taking of fingerprints or other biometric material at locations other than police stations to allow for greater flexibility in the future. His view was noted by the Department and then by the Committee.

During the evidence-gathering phase, in response to concerns that were raised, the Committee sought the views of the PSNI on those proposals. In particular, the Committee asked whether it would constitute a new offence if a person missed an appointment to have material taken. The PSNI advised that it was its interpretation that failure to turn up to provide fingerprints and DNA is not an offence. The PSNI welcomed the amendments, which, it advised, would allow it to plan and allocate resources more efficiently. The Committee heard that work was ongoing to determine how the provisions would work in practice and that the PSNI expects that a level of flexibility would be afforded to an individual but that that would depend on the operational environment and the resources available.

I mentioned that the Committee did not have sight of all the amendments in group 1 tabled by the Minister. I have addressed some of those, as they pertain to specific issues that the Committee considered. The other amendments — Nos 2, 3, 14, 17, 106, 107, 113, 116, 120 and 126 — include changes to the text of the versions that the Committee received. Members noted those at the meeting of 28 May, but the Committee did not have a position on them, and they are not included in the Committee report. The Committee is content with the other ministerial amendments in group 1.

I turn to the Committee's amendment No 40. Whilst the Committee agreed that it was content with clauses 1 to 3 after their amendment as proposed by the Minister, that is only because the Committee agreed to table an amendment to address what appeared to many to be a glaring gap in the Bill: the absence from the retention framework of other forms of identification of a person, such as photographs or images. Many believed that the approach taken in the Bill is limited and that a broader definition of "biometric material" should have been included. The Committee heard that, in itself, a photograph is not biometric data but that, when a technical process is applied to use the photograph to identify someone, it becomes biometric data. There was also a recognition that biometric data will extend beyond photographs: facial recognition and gait analysis are just two examples. It was argued that there was a need to future-proof the Bill in order to keep up with emerging technologies.

In the first instance, the Committee sought to determine the rationale for the exclusion of photographs from the Bill. The Department advised that the Bill aimed to address compliance issues with the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 — PACE — which relates to fingerprints and DNA only; the retention of photographs could not be considered separately from the use of photographs; and detailed policy development, engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation would be required before legislation could be brought forward. The Department also advised that work was ongoing in other parts of the UK on the retention and use of photographs, including facial recognition, and that it would wish to take account of that work in determining how to proceed here.

We also discussed the absence of photographs with the PSNI. The Committee heard that PSNI policy is to treat facial images in the same way as fingerprints and DNA. They will therefore be subject to the same retention regime, even if they are not included in these provisions.

While the PSNI's treatment of photographs went some way towards reassuring the Committee, members nonetheless remained concerned about the absence of photographs from the Bill, believing that that would present a significant gap in the legislation. We initially wrote to the Department indicating that we were actively considering an amendment to bring photographs within the scope of Part 1 and formally asking the Minister to table such an amendment. In response, the Department reiterated its earlier position: making changes to the definition of "biometric material" beyond that already in the Bill would be substantive and complex, requiring detailed work and public consultation. However, it was suggested that the Committee may wish to consider introducing a power to allow the Department to introduce regulations for the retention and use of photographs after it has had time to undertake the necessary work.

The Committee considered the approach proposed by the Department to be an acceptable compromise. Initially, we asked the Bill Clerk whether an amendment could be drafted in such a way that, as well as photographs, it might capture emerging technologies, with the aim of future-proofing the Bill. However, the Committee was advised that the framework for the retention of material applies to those taken under the PACE Order, and that, currently, there are no categories of biometric data in PACE that such a broad amendment could be linked to.

The Committee therefore agreed to table amendment No 40, which requires the Department to make regulations about the retention, use and destruction of photographs. Before doing so, the Department must consult representative justice partners and other public bodies that are:

The Committee felt that that was a necessary step to make sure that any proposals were fit for purpose and made in conjunction with the bodies that could best shape the regulations, such as the PSNI, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Information Commissioner. The Department must undertake further consultation on any changes to its proposals as a result of that initial consultation, and a summary of the consultation must accompany the draft regulations when they are laid. The regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure and must be laid within a period of five years beginning on the day on which the Bill completes all its stages and receives Royal Assent. As I have said, the Committee believes the amendment to be an acceptable compromise between what we heard in evidence and what we heard from the Department. I trust that the House will support the Committee's amendment.

Committee amendment No 104 concerns the commencement of Part 1. Clause 33(3) provides that the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill will be brought into operation on a day appointed by the Department. Clause 33 is the Bill's commencement clause. One of the early pieces of work that the Committee undertook when the Assembly returned in 2024 was post-legislative scrutiny of Acts made in the 2011-16 and 2017-2022 mandates. As part of that work, the Committee found that provisions in a number of Acts had not been commenced. It has engaged with the Department on the reasons for that. Given our legislative programme, the Committee has not been able to follow that work up, but I expect that we will return to it. However, I can say that that work helped to shape members' consideration of the Justice Bill. Therefore, when the Committee was determining the timescale within which the regulations on retention and use of photographs should be laid in the Assembly under our amendment, we questioned why there was no specific timescale for the commencement of the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. Members felt it was important that those provisions be commenced at the earliest possible opportunity, given that they deal with sensitive data and are necessary to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgements in the Marper and Gaughran cases.

The Department advised of the volume of complex work that needs to be done in preparation for the implementation of the new legislation. It includes a range of subordinate legislation and related consultations and the development and testing of software systems. In addition, the Home Office will be required to legislate for excepted matters before commencement. While it is estimated that the new retention framework would not be in place until 18 to 24 months after Royal Assent, that will be kept under review. Given the scale of the work required, some of which is outside its control, the Department considered that a statutory duty to commence the provisions would be problematic. However, the Department suggested that, if the Committee wished to proceed with such an amendment, the day to be appointed should be within five years of Royal Assent.

Members expressed some concern about the proposed timescale of five years, believing that the DNA and fingerprint retention frameworks should be implemented at the earliest opportunity, as they are necessary to address human rights concerns. However, given the risks that the Department highlighted, the Committee agreed to table amendment No 104 to require that Part 1 be commenced within five years of Royal Assent.

Mrs Long: I thank the Chair for giving way. While many of the things that he referenced do not fall to the Department in terms of our ability to influence their timing, I confirm that we concur with the Committee that five years is a reasonable term in which to do that. I also reassure Members that, if it can be done sooner than five years, we will take the opportunity to do that.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention. It is important in the debate that we can engage, confirm and clarify things, so I really appreciate the Minister's intervention. I hope that that will give succour to Members with regard to the amendment on the commencement of Part 1. Again, I ask Members to support those Committee amendments.

I thank the Minister for that clarification, because it is really important that the Committee sees work being done and progress being made in that five-year period. I hope that the Department will work with partners in the justice system and beyond to ensure that those important provisions are commenced well before that five-year period has elapsed. I take into consideration what the Minister has said about ensuring that this is done appropriately and properly, so I hope that due diligence is given to the commencement.

That ends my commentary as Chairperson of the Justice Committee. I now wish to make some remarks as DUP spokesperson for justice on this Part of the Bill. Mr Speaker, you will remember that, at Second Stage, I described the Bill as half a Bill. I was absolutely scathing about it, even before I became Committee Chair. I was here on Bench duty, and I was so aggrieved that I wanted to speak. I spoke at length about the Minister bringing half a Bill to Second Reading. Why was I so alarmed? Quite simply, given their depth and width, the text of the tabled amendments — were I to take out all my guff from inside the Bill — is thicker than the Bill itself. This is a special day —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: Would the Member like to point out how many of those pages contain amendments to the Bill that he has tabled? [Laughter.]

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention.

Mr Speaker: I remind the Member not to use props. [Laughter.]

Mr Frew: Yes, of course. I could not resist it, Mr Speaker. The Minister is right, because we have taken advantage of the licence given to us by the Minister with regard to the Bill.

In all seriousness, however, it is really important that we scrutinise legislation properly. This is a special day, because that half a Bill is meeting its partner: the other half of the Bill. At Consideration Stage, it is important that we are able and willing to scrutinise all the amendments. The Minister and the Assembly will know that I love a good amendment. This is the place to scrutinise and debate amendments. I wish that we had been afforded that at Second Reading.

Here we are with the Bill. Even the half a Bill has been through a bit of an odyssey to get here. Homer could not have written this, because even what was half a Bill has been transformed in its journey through Committee Stage, with massive changes proposed to Part 1. The Minister brought those amendments quickly to the Committee so that we could get sight of them. However, those amendments were stress-tested after the Bill was introduced: that stress-testing should have been done beforehand. We would not have had such a long Committee Stage. We would not have had to look at so many blue and white pages of amendments. That is not a wise way to legislate. I hope that no other Department or Minister would try to introduce a Bill in that way.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. He has been generous with his time. We all agree that the ideal situation, as with the Sentencing Bill for example, is where the vast majority of clauses are in the Bill at Second Reading. Obviously, we were coming out of a period of suspension of the institutions, which meant that we needed to act at pace. The Bill was always going to be diverse and would therefore require considerable scrutiny. My priority was to ensure that it was able to get to this stage before the end of the mandate.

I appreciate what the Member said about sharing our amendments early, which we did to maximise Committee scrutiny. I want to be clear that I respect the role of Committees. Their work is vital not just for scrutiny but for identifying areas where new policy can be developed. I would have preferred to do that more slowly. In the next mandate, perhaps, if we get a five-year mandate, that will be how we will proceed.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that clarification. I also thank her for clarifying the changes that have been made at this point of which the Committee did not have sight. I accept her explanation about their tidying-up nature. When I read them last week, I was worried that they changed policy in some way, so I am glad that they do not.

There is absolutely no doubt that Part 1 is massive. First of all, it is really important to comply with human rights, which we should do as a state, when it comes to our personal data. However, that must be balanced with the duty that we place on our police force to protect us and keep society safe by preventing crime and catching the criminals who commit it. That is really important, so it is right that the Minister looks for a structure in which to do that.

The Minister has tackled it by using what is labelled as the "70/50/25-year model". That is complex. Reading the clauses that deal with it, you see a complicated picture of a sliding scale of offences, ages and different scenarios — they are not all offences — that comes into play. At the start, I had to chart out on a piece of paper everything that the Bill does in each clause. Seventy-five years seems like an awfully long time — a lifetime — to hold somebody's personal data, but that is for people who have been convicted of a qualifying offence, which is the most serious offence in our land. It is therefore appropriate, because, from time to time, we have historical cases that need to be investigated and could link certain crimes with other crimes. That will bring truth, if not justice, to victims. In this age of biometrics and the digital world, it is important that we give the PSNI the tools that will help us defeat crime.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. That was a key concern for me when I read the Bill. Does the Member agree that many victims across Northern Ireland would look on with concern if the fingerprints or other biometric details of individuals who were potentially connected to the murder of their loved ones were removed?

Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point. I mentioned victims because it is important that the police use modern technology to solve crime and bring justice to victims, to society and to the culprits.

Proposed new article 63K states:

their material will be held for 50 years. There are differences when it comes to age. I found it difficult to get my head around why age would be a factor. If we are talking about the retention of the data of someone under the age of 18, surely there is an argument for retaining that data for a longer, not shorter, period, because, given their age, they are going to live longer than most of us. The Minister, however, settled on the structure that she has suggested in the Bill. Here is the thing, however: once a structure is in place, it is very hard to change it completely or to come up with a better model.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mrs Long: I appreciate what both Members have said. To reassure them, there is a mechanism in the Bill to ensure that, where there is an open or unsolved case, data can be retained. The police will review their files every five years to make sure that the case is still open and then make a decision about whether retention is proportionate.

The Member raised the particular issue of the retention of young children's data. The issue there is about proportionality. For example, if someone commits an offence as a minor and then goes on not to reoffend, that will be taken into account, but, to be clear, that is a challenge that they will be able to take to the commissioner. They will have the opportunity to request that their data be removed. The checks and balances are therefore carefully crafted to ensure that we protect public safety but that we also give people the opportunity, where their data is no longer required, to have it properly removed from the system. We have already had a court judgement about indefinite retention, which was also helpful in saying that one consideration that we had to make in any new scheme was the age of the person involved in the offending.

Mr Frew: The Minister has raised a very important point. The appeals structure should not be just one way but both ways. If someone has their data retained, and they or their family feel that they should not have it retained, there should be procedures in place whereby the PSNI can scrutinise that decision and process it. As the Minister rightly said, the PSNI retains and controls that data, but the individual involved will be able to appeal to the independent commissioner.

Proposed new article 63K also states that, where P is convicted of a recordable offence but is not given a custodial sentence, their material will be held for 25 years. Proposed new article 63M refers to P's being aged under 18 at the time of the offence, their not being given a custodial sentence of five years or more, their having completed the combined restorative justice process and the offence not being recordable. We can therefore see how the structure cascades and how the years drop. Proposed new article 63M(5) states:

and the offence is their first offence, and if P is under 18, their:

That is very complicated, but I understand the logic. That article also states that P's material will be held for five years if P is under 18 and is convicted of a recordable offence that is their first offence. I can understand why we are doing that for first offences. People, especially young people, sometimes make mistakes, and they have to pay for those mistakes. Justice must be seen to be done. Victims need justice to be served, but there is that exemption for first offences. I like that idea.

Proposed new article 63G states:

their material will be retained for three years. Sometimes, those lower years are more controversial. If P is charged with a recordable offence, their material will be held for 12 months.

Proposed new article 63Q states:

their material will be held for two years. When I first read that, I thought, "A penalty notice? Really? We are getting DNA collected for penalty notices?". As the Minister has pointed out, however, it is not a penalty notice such as that for a driving offence. It is not that type of penalty notice. Rather, it falls under section 60 of the Justice Act, which, as the Minister recited, includes indecent behaviour, shoplifting, theft and criminal damage. I think that being drunk in a public place is in there as well, although the Minister did not include that in her list. The Minister also said that section 60 includes disorderly behaviour, behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace and behaviour where it is alleged that the accused resisted, obstructed or impeded a constable. If P is guilty of a penalty notice under section 60 of the Justice Act 2011, those are quite serious offences, so the DNA and biometric materials can be retained for two years. As the Minister outlined, there are times when the Chief Constable can apply to have the biometric materials kept for longer.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. Will the Member agree that the term "breach of the peace" is a pretty wide definition? I was previously in a court case for protesting peacefully, and that was classed as breach of the peace. Obviously, there are more serious elements of breach of the peace. Is he concerned that that quite loose term could be used to keep people's data for quite a long time where, by most people's definition, the person may or may not have been involved in a serious crime? Does he have any concerns about that?

Mr Frew: Yes, I do. I thank the Member for his intervention. I do have concerns about that, but if crime has been committed, no matter how light-touch it may seem to some Members, I do think that the sliding scale appreciates and acknowledges that. I think that it is right that the Chief Constable, who is the holder of the data and who is tasked with investigating and solving crime, has the tools and the flexibility to apply to have the retention of DNA material extended. There will need to be good cause for the Chief Constable to apply for retention of that data beyond the scope of this structure. If there is good cause and that is coming from the Chief Constable, it is right and proper that it will be attested to and assessed, with a decision then taken on that.

Of course, there is a court process involved too. The Justice Minister has produced a structure. You could come up with all sorts of structures, and I will come to that in a minute. The Minister settled on the structure that she has agreed, and her Department is comfortable with that structure. For the Assembly to mess about with that too much at this point could put Part 1 of the Bill in jeopardy and could tie the hands of the PSNI and all the other criminal justice organisations in investigating crime, solving crime and putting culprits behind bars. We need to make sure that they have all the information that they require on anyone who has breached the law.

Where I do have an issue is where someone has not been convicted of a crime, and I will explain why. Where someone has not been convicted of a crime, they are innocent, but there are parts of the structure that allow for retention of their DNA. When you think about that and about how a court case works, you see that, sometimes, people can get off on technicalities or because there has been a flawed investigative process. Sometimes, people can get off because they have not been asked the right questions at the right time in custody. Therefore, I believe that it is appropriate that DNA be retained for a time, even in such cases. It builds up a knowledge and intelligence base for the PSNI to investigate crime further and in other parts of the country where you might have a single culprit.

I think that the Minister's structure is a sound one. We could all pick holes in it, and we could all come up with our own ideas on biometric retention. However, when the Minister and the Department have decided on a structure, we have to assess it and scrutinise it. When we come down one way or the other, we have to say, "this that is the way it is going to be."

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. On the point that you have just made, do you have concerns relating to the fact that the Law Society and other human rights advisers have told us very clearly that the ability to retain someone's data after they have been acquitted is potentially in breach of article 8 of the human rights convention?

Mr Frew: I do have concerns around all of that. We took evidence on that. However, it is for the Minister to answer on her structure and her operation of her structure and the Bill that she has produced. This is not perfect. There are areas of concern, but the challenge — I will come to Sinn Féin's amendments soon — is how to produce something that is similar or better than that which the Department has produced and that, in communication with the PSNI, strikes the balance between human rights compliance and the detection, investigation and solving of crime? There is a balance there. It will not be a perfect balance. We will not get it right. The Minister and Department will not get it right. However, we have a framework in place that we have to go with. There is no other show in town. It is important that these things are reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose and that they afford people justice and protection and are human rights-compliant, which is the whole point of the Bill.

Ms Sheerin: I appreciate the Member giving way. Your earlier comments go to the heart of the matter. We have to balance human rights compliance with the ability of the judiciary and the Police Service to carry out their functions. We also have to remember that the assumption of innocence is paramount. The Member for West Belfast referred to somebody being charged with a very minor crime as a result of their being at a protest, for example. Someone in that situation could then be presumed to be capable of further crime, even though that person would not ordinarily be involved in crime. Are we setting a dangerous precedent, or putting a theory in the mind of the police, that that is the first cohort that they go to as being likely to be involved in crime when, in fact, those people are not so at all?

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her contribution, because she raises valid points. However, the fact that the PSNI retains a person's biometric data is not a presumption of that person's guilt. There will be data from innocent people in storage, so there should be no —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: The Minister wants me to give way.

Mrs Long: The holding of a person's biometric data is not a presumption of their guilt or that they are likely to offend further. The holding of biometric data is a tool to allow the PSNI to investigate crime thoroughly as it occurs. It does not limit the cohort of people that the police will investigate to those whose data is already in the system, but it does allow the police to, for example, take fingerprints and compare them with the databases that they already have, which may help them to eliminate people from their enquiries or, indeed, identify people who need to be investigated further. The key is that it has to be proportionate. We have put that structure in place to ensure that there is no indefinite retention; that there is a proper scheme, depending on the seriousness of the offence committed and the age of the offender; and that people have a right to appeal to have their data removed if they feel that it is disproportionate for it to be held, with that appeal being considered by an independent biometrics commissioner. Those are the checks and balances. It is not a presumption of guilt or that people will go on to reoffend. Many people with data on the police database will never reoffend. Equally, there will be people who reoffend and are not on the database. We need to give the police the opportunity to be able to search the information that they already have on people who have known convictions and then eliminate them from or include them in their enquiries.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that important intervention. I hope that that goes some way to clarify the matter for the Members opposite, and to assuage their concerns.

We are in an age when, if you travel —.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member giving way. He has been very kind with his time.

I mean this in the most genuine way. When he was on the Health Committee, the Member expressed concerns about COVID vaccines and different issues, which is not wholly disconnected because that is about the storing and presentation of data. The Member has, perhaps, undergone a bit of a conversion as Chair of the Justice Committee, because this is a whole lot of data that we are consenting to being held. I am not OK with that, but other Members seem to think that it is OK for the PSNI to hold that amount of data on people. Does he not have serious concerns about that? With respect, I am not hearing that from him.

Mr Frew: The Member is right with regard to my concerns about what the Coronavirus Act did to our people. I am totally and utterly opposed to digital ID, but I am opposed to those measures because of how our data would and could be used, not necessarily because of the retention of the data. We have been getting fingerprints for ages: when the police have investigated crime and arrested someone, they have always taken fingerprints. DNA or biometrics is that, but it is being retained by the PSNI. You could argue, "That's the state", but it is about how that data is used. If the Minister were to come here with a structure that meant that anybody who is in the PSNI database could not go to concerts, obtain everyday living accommodation, get a job, travel or have all the freedoms that we enjoy, I would have a problem, and I would be right to do so.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to provide clarity, because the retention of the data of people who have been acquitted was discussed earlier. In order to comply with human rights, if someone is acquitted, their data has to be removed from the database. If the police wish to retain it, they will have to apply to the biometrics commissioner and have an independent assessment. This is not a catch-all whereby the police can simply collect data and keep it. In fact, the evidence shows that, if they thin their data, they are more likely to find information; otherwise, you cannot see the wood for the trees.

I share the Member's concerns about people's private data. I do not want the police or any other organisation to have unfettered access to my data and to be able to use that for any purpose. The point of these biometrics regulations is to ensure that that is not the case. Of course, there are legitimate purposes for people to hold our personal data and biometric data. Those are legitimate and fair, but they must also be proportionate and respect people's right to a private life and their privacy and dignity. It is important to strike that balance. Members may argue about whether the balance has been struck in the right place, and I will come back to that in my closing remarks on this group, but it is important to say that none of us in the Chamber wishes to see unfettered access to people's data or the ability to retain things indefinitely, which, is, unfortunately, the situation that we are in prior to this Bill's being passed.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will, yes.

Mr Kingston: I thank the Member. This is an important topic. There are a range of timescales in the Bill — two, three and five years at the bottom end, going up to 25, 50 and 75 years for convictions for the most serious recordable offences — so it is on a scale and is not uniform. For those who are arrested but not charged with a qualifying offence, or those who are charged but not convicted, it is the periods at the bottom end of the scale — two or three years. Does the Member acknowledge that, during an investigation, information can come to light that was not available to the police at the start? It is sensible to allow the DNA data of someone who has been arrested, who was a suspect or who has been charged but not convicted to be held for a period in case something else comes to light during the investigation.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution, as I thank the Minister and Gerry Carroll for their interventions. This is a really serious topic, so we need to take it very seriously, but, in the first instance, it is about our trying to be human rights-compliant. That is our base — it is what we are trying to do; it is the motive behind the Bill, and it is really important. Whilst the Coronavirus Act is in the Bill, and we could and should talk about it in relation to live links, the issue with the Coronavirus Act is that what it did to our people was awful. The stigma and harm caused by the use of the regulations will be with us for decades. That includes our children who will not and cannot now go to school — all of that.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Nice try, Paul. The Coronavirus Act is, as you say, related to the provisions on live links. I have read the Bill as well. However, can we return to the biometric data aspect of the Bill, please?

Mr Frew: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Emma Sheerin raised an important point about data collection and innocence. The question of innocence should come into it. That is why this structure must have safeguards whereby you can appeal in order to have such data removed. I say to the Member that we now live in an age where, if you want to travel to other countries, you must go to the airport and put the palm of your hand on an electronic pad in order to align that with the photograph on your passport.

Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I do not like that, nor am I comfortable with it, but that is the state of play. I will give way to the Member.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that. Does the Member agree that that is somewhat voluntary, because people do not have to travel by aeroplane, whereas the data that we are talking about is being held without people's consent, in many cases? There is a bit of similarity, but it is slightly like comparing apples with pears.

Mr Frew: There are two issues. The first is choice. Not travelling is not really a choice for someone. That is like saying that it is your choice whether or not you want to work or that it is your choice whether or not you want to go to a pub or restaurant. That is why I am totally opposed to data being used in that way.

The other point is about human rights. If someone commits a crime, we have to allow for a diminishing of their rights, such as the right to freedom if they get a custodial sentence and are incarcerated. There are qualifying aspects to all human rights, and this is just one part. This is a really in-depth, good debate on these serious matters. It is right for us to have this debate, because we are trying to be human rights-compliant, and that is the most important thing.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Ms Sheerin: On the first instance, the Member can invoke his right as someone born on the island of Ireland to have an Irish passport and therefore not have to go through that process.

Secondly, the Minister referred to the application to the biometrics commissioner, and I will talk in more detail about our concerns on that. There are worries about the independence of that person, who will, ultimately, still be answerable to the PSNI. The concern is that there is a presumption that someone who has been arrested is more likely to commit another crime. We are worried about the proportionality element.

Mr Frew: We have to strike a balance in giving the police the powers to solve crime and bring criminals and perpetrators to justice. That is the balance that we have to strike. That is what we are debating and arguing about on Part 1. Somewhere along the line, we must fall down on what the structures should be. That is why it is important that the Department has the structure in place and that it is contained in the Bill. The Department has changed it in many ways, but that is where it has fallen down and what it has agreed.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mrs Long: Does the Member agree that if, for example, somebody who was released without charge during an investigation and had their data immediately removed from the police database went on to commit further serious offences, that would be seen as a failure of the PSNI's investigatory processes and that there therefore have to be checks and balances? If somebody's data is collected, it is right that that should be removed at the point where their guilt or innocence has been established in a proportionate way. To simply remove someone's data from the database because they have not been charged with an offence would potentially hamper police investigations, because they would not be able to follow up on people who are persons of interest for that crime or, indeed, others.

Complaints have been raised about the fact that, for example, fingerprint data was not immediately accessible, and that has led to problems with investigations. This is about trying to find a balance so that the data is retained for as long as is reasonable but no longer and that people, once their innocence has been established, have the right to have their data removed from the database at the appropriate point. The Members are, of course, right: a person's data may be held for a period even though they have not been convicted or charged with an offence. That is called the investigation phase. There are measures in the Bill that deal with the investigation phase, and those require the PSNI to seek permission from the commissioner to continue to hold data for long-running investigations.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I feel like I am an intermediary between Sinn Féin and the Minister.

I will make progress and talk to Sinn Féin's amendments. It is for Sinn Féin to try to sell its amendments to the House, and I will listen attentively when its Members speak to those amendments. It is really hard to look at what the amendments would omit from the Bill and to try to work out the structure of the Bill alongside the structure of the biometrics framework and to then try to work out what Sinn Féin is actually trying to achieve. Sinn Féin will have time to talk about that, so I do not need to take an intervention on it.

From what I see, if I have got this right, Sinn Féin is trying to say that, where P is over 18 and is convicted of a qualifying offence, or where P has completed the community-based restorative justice piece and the offence is a qualifying offence, P's material would still be retained for 75 years. As I see it, Sinn Féin's amendments would make a difference in cases where P is under 18 and convicted of a qualifying offence, or where P is convicted of a recordable offence and a non-qualifying offence — because there are differences in offences. They would mean that, in such cases, P's data would be retained for only three years, unless the Chief Constable applies for an extension for a further two years and a further two years after that.

If I have read that correctly, it means that, if someone under 18 is convicted of a qualifying offence — we must remember that that includes some of the most serious offences on the statute book — their data will be able to be retained for only seven years at most. I may be wrong in that, so I will certainly listen attentively when they speak to the amendments. Where P is convicted of a recordable offence other than a qualifying offence, and if P is aged 18 or over and is given a custodial sentence, their data can be retained for 50 years. If I am right, we can therefore see the difference between the 75 years for a qualifying offence, the 50 years for a recordable offence and the 25 years where P is convicted of a recordable offence but not given a custodial sentence. I will listen intently to the contributions from Sinn Féin Members to establish whether it means anything other than that, but it seems to me that Sinn Féin has struck out everything at five years, three years and two years. Of course, one of its amendments also does away with the penalty notice.

Why would we not retain DNA for someone who has been convicted of indecent behaviour such as shoplifting, criminal damage, being drunk in a public place, disorderly behaviour or behaviour that is likely to cause a breach of the peace, and where it is alleged that the accused resisted, obstructed or impeded a police officer? Why would we not retain that DNA, even if for only a small period of time? That probably makes a mockery of the police requiring people to come to the police station to have their biometric data taken.

Another issue with Sinn Féin's amendments, although its Members can speak to them and we will make a judgement based on that, is the fact that they seem to have stripped away any control that the PSNI has other than actually holding the data. They would mean that the PSNI would not have any sort of control over appeals or assessments. Sinn Féin does not even want the PSNI about the place when it comes to assessing such things. The PSNI, which is there to keep us safe, to investigate and solve crime and to be the holder of that material, should have a part to play — it must have a part to play. I worry about how Sinn Féin's amendments would alter the structure that the Justice Minister has created.

I understand Gerry Carroll's amendment and why he has tabled it, because it reflects exactly some of the views that I have.

I worry, however, about whether it should be in the Bill or in the PACE codes. I do not know the answer to that. Maybe the Minister does. She may give us some information on that in her winding-up speech.

I really understand the checks and balances that Gerry Carroll is trying to create. I would like a lot of that good stuff included somewhere, but my question is this: should the amendment be in the Bill or in the operational PACE codes? I will reserve judgement until we hear from the Minister or from anybody who can provide clarification on that. The Member will speak to his amendment, so maybe he can clarify that.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mrs Long: I reiterate that there are two concerns about Gerry's proposals. The first is about national security determinations, which are a matter for the UK Government and do not fall within our purview, as they are reserved matters. Paragraph(2)(c) of amendment No 38 falls outside our legislative competence. That is the first thing.

The Member is correct that his other amendments are within the legislative competence of the Assembly, but we argue that they would be better addressed through updates to PACE code D, which would then be subject to public consultation. That revised code will be introduced alongside the new retention framework. There is not blanket opposition to the intent, but we cannot legislate on reserved matters, and there are better ways of dealing with the amendments that are not to do with reserved matters. We are therefore not in complete disagreement.

Mr Frew: Thank you for that, Minister. That is basically where I am with Gerry Carroll's amendment. I am grateful for the clarification from the Minister.

I do not want to take up any more of the Assembly's time, other than to plead with Members to consider the Committee's amendments in the group. They are sensible and reasonable, are human rights-compliant and add protections for people. I worry about the need to future-proof the Bill and make sure that we can somehow encapsulate photographs, which will come into play later in our lives, given the use of facial recognition and other technologies that the state will use to detect people of interest. At that point, we should worry about what data the state holds and what it does not hold and about how images should be retained and destroyed. Photographs are an important consideration. The Committee thinks so, as does my party.

I ask the House to approve the Committee's amendments and ask the Minister to take them to her heart and commence them as soon as possible.

Mr McGlone: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire agus le baill an Choiste.

The passage of the Bill to Consideration Stage represents an important milestone in a lengthy process of scrutiny, engagement and development. It has, in truth, been a long time coming, and the Chairperson has outlined the long and windy path to get the Bill to this point. The Committee for Justice spent a considerable period examining its provisions and taking evidence from a wide range of stakeholders: experts, representative bodies and rights organisations. That scrutiny will undoubtedly strengthen the legislation, and I thank all those who put the effort into providing us with amendments.

It is also fair to say that the Committee expressed concerns about the scale of the package of amendments that the Minister has tabled for Consideration Stage. While Members will no doubt recognise the reasons that amendments sometimes become necessary, that is not generally the most effective way to develop legislation. Significant policy proposals are best brought forward at the earliest opportunity to allow sufficient time for detailed scrutiny, stakeholder engagement, public consultation and consideration, and that is particularly true in the case of a Bill as substantial as this. The Justice Bill touches on a wide range of issues across our justice system. It seeks to modernise aspects of policing and criminal justice; update legislative frameworks that have become outdated; strengthen protections for victims; and improve the operation of the law in a number of important areas.

The group 1 amendments deal with one of the most significant and sensitive elements of the Bill: the retention, use and oversight of biometric material. As technology continues to evolve, biometric information plays an increasingly important role in modern policing. DNA profiles, fingerprints and photographs can be an invaluable tool in preventing and detecting crime, identifying offenders and protecting the public. Few would dispute the importance of ensuring that law enforcement agencies have access to effective tools to keep communities safe. However, the retention of biometric information also raises important questions about privacy, proportionality and individual rights. Decisions about how it is collected, how long it is retained and who can access it engage fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual and the state.

The challenge before us, therefore, is not whether there should be a biometric retention regime; it is how we create a regime that is effective in supporting law enforcement while remaining proportionate, accountable and rights-compliant. That challenge featured prominently throughout the Committee's scrutiny. The Committee received extensive evidence from policing bodies, children's organisations, rights groups, legal representatives and regulatory bodies. While there was, in fact, broad support for placing the biometric retention framework on a modern statutory footing and for the establishment of a dedicated biometrics commissioner, a number of concerns were consistently raised regarding proportionality, oversight, transparency and review mechanisms.

Particular concerns were expressed regarding the treatment of children and young people under the proposed framework. Organisations including the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) and others questioned whether sufficient distinction had been drawn between adults and young people. Concerns were raised about privacy, the presumption of innocence and the potential for stigmatisation where biometric information may continue to be retained despite an individual not being charged or convicted. Questions were also raised about the retention of biometric material following cautions, diversionary disposals and restorative justice processes, with stakeholders highlighting the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration in the youth justice system.

The Committee also heard differing views regarding the powers and scope of the proposed biometrics commissioner. While there was broad support for the establishment of such an office, questions were raised regarding the extent of the commissioner's powers, the operation of review mechanisms — I hope to hear a wee bit more about that — and the importance of ensuring meaningful independent oversight. Those themes are reflected in the amendments before us today.

During scrutiny, Committee members also heard and benefited from evidence from the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, whose contribution helped inform much of the discussion on the ministerial and non-ministerial amendments before us today. A recurring theme of that evidence was that an effective biometrics regime is not simply about determining what information may be retained but about ensuring that any framework is built on principles of necessity, proportionality, transparency, independent oversight and public confidence. Those are key elements of any biometrics commissioner's role. The commissioner emphasised the importance of creating systems that are capable of evolving alongside technology, which, as we know, is ever evolving, and ensuring that individuals understand their rights and have meaningful avenues through which decisions can be reviewed and challenged. Those principles can be seen in many of the amendments before us today; indeed, many of those principles are reflected in the amendments tabled by the Committee.

Throughout its scrutiny, the Committee repeatedly returned to questions of independent oversight, effective review mechanisms, transparency, public confidence and ensuring that individuals are able to understand and exercise their rights. The SDLP stands solidly behind those key principles. The Committee's amendments on custody photographs and commencement reflect those concerns directly, while a number of the wider, non-ministerial amendments would give legislative effect to many of the issues identified through Committee sessions.

While Members may focus on the differences between the Minister's amendments and those proposed by my colleague Emma Sheerin, it is important to acknowledge that both approaches are basically attempting to achieve the same overarching objective. Both seek to establish a modern, fit-for-purpose biometric framework that is capable of supporting law enforcement and public protection while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards for individuals whose biometric information is collected and retained. Indeed, many of the amendments are mutually exclusive precisely because they seek to answer the same policy questions in different ways. The Minister, in tabling those amendments, has clearly taken on board a significant number of the issues that have been raised. They strengthen oversight arrangements, establish the role of the biometrics commissioner and place the framework on a clearer statutory footing than was originally proposed.

The non-ministerial amendments seek to go further in a number of areas that stakeholders repeatedly highlighted during evidence sessions; in particular, they place greater emphasis on independent review mechanisms, rights of appeal, access to information, the treatment of children and young people and the circumstances in which biometric information should continue to be retained following diversionary or restorative justice outcomes. Many of those proposals also reflect concerns that were repeatedly identified by the Committee during its scrutiny. Questions of accountability, transparency and the ability of individuals to challenge decisions relating to the retention of their biometric information feature prominently. The SDLP stands by those priorities. The argument being advanced by those amendments is not that biometrics have no role in modern policing; rather, it is that public confidence is, in fact, strengthened where individuals have clear rights, decisions are subject to effective challenge and review and particular care is taken in relation to children and young people. Those are important considerations for the SDLP. I am sure that Members share those concerns.

The balance is most clearly illustrated in the debate around children and young people. A number of the amendments would create a more differentiated approach to the retention of biometric material where people who are under 18 are concerned. They reflect the concerns raised by members during the Committee scrutiny that children should not simply be treated as adults in the justice system and that particular weight should be attached to rehabilitation and reintegration. Several stakeholders questioned whether biometric material should continue to be retained following cautions, diversionary youth conferences and restorative justice processes. The arguments were that, where the justice system has deliberately chosen a diversionary route, consideration must be given to whether the continued retention of biometric information is consistent with the objectives of that approach.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I, too, understand that importance. He will be aware that I am committed to ensuring that, as far as possible, we remove young people from the criminal justice system at a young age in order that we can provide alternative ways to hold them accountable for their conduct and behaviour and ways that are more effective when it comes to outcomes in later life.

The difficulty — I will, no doubt, get the opportunity to set it out when Sinn Féin comes to discuss its proposals — is that, for example, the proposed new article 63JA in amendment No 12 introduces a three-year retention period for individuals under 18 who are convicted of a qualifying offence and a three-year retention period for a non-qualifying offence. It does not differentiate between the two. That has not been developed or tested. Furthermore, amendment No 13 would remove new articles 63L, 63M and 63O. That would take away the less stringent regime that we have put in place specifically to deal with people who are under 18. Therefore, while it may be well intentioned, I am concerned that it would dismantle some of the protections that the Department has drafted into the Bill with regard to biometrics for young people.

Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister. You pre-empted what I was going to say next. I look forward to hearing those matters being teased out in more detail when Emma Sheerin presents those amendments. In fact, the amendments that Emma has tabled would address those concerns by creating a more distinct regime for children.

Rather than removing retention powers in those circumstances, the Minister's amendments — this is my view at the moment, Minister, and we will hear it all teased out — will retain the ability to hold biometric information where it is considered necessary while introducing greater oversight through the biometrics commissioner and a more structured statutory framework. Alongside the debate around —.

Mrs Long: My apologies for intervening again. You mentioned more oversight of the commissioner: the purpose of the commissioner is to be entirely independent in the judgements that they make, so we need to create the office of commissioner and allow it to bring forward the guard rails around this but to be independent of government. It would be inappropriate for us to try to control the commissioner or limit or fetter their independence and discretion, because that would, effectively, mean our taking decisions on individual outcomes rather than leaving it for the commissioner, who will be appropriately skilled to do that. Certainly, that is how it has been done in Scotland and other places.

Mr McGlone: I understand that. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would suggest for one second that the commissioner should be fettered in any way in his or her role. It is the function and role of that commissioner to let them get on with their job, basically, and to make sure that those key principles of transparency, oversight and justice are adhered to within the functionary role that the commissioner will have. I thank the Minister for that intervention.

During Committee scrutiny, concerns were raised not simply about what information could be retained but about whether individuals would understand their rights, have access to clear information and be able to challenge decisions made about their biometric material. That is reflected in amendments dealing with review mechanisms, appeals, the provision of information and guidance and the independence of decision-making. The amendments recognise the important principle that rights are meaningful only if people are aware of them and are able to exercise them in principle. A framework that allows people to understand why their information is being retained, to seek a review of that decision and to challenge it through an independent process is likely to command greater public confidence than one that does not.

There is one further area where scrutiny has been particularly important, namely the treatment of photographs in the new framework. The Department has made it clear that its intention is largely to bring Northern Ireland into line with existing legislative arrangements elsewhere. However, throughout scrutiny, a number of members questioned whether that approach risks missing an opportunity to address an emerging issue now, rather than waiting for developments in other jurisdictions. The Committee repeatedly sought clarification from the Department and the PSNI regarding the treatment of photographs and images. Concerns were raised that, in the era of facial recognition technology, increasingly sophisticated image analysis and rapidly developing artificial intelligence systems, photographs can no longer be simply viewed as ordinary images. The ability to extract biometric information from photographs is growing rapidly, and the law must keep pace with that reality.

Ultimately, Committee members were sufficiently concerned to table a Committee amendment creating a statutory framework governing the retention, use and destruction of custody photographs. That amendment reflects a view expressed by stakeholders during scrutiny that the advances that I have outlined in facial recognition technology and AI mean that photographs can no longer be treated as wholly and solely separate from the wider biometrics debate. We in the SDLP certainly believe that there is merit in that approach. If we legislate for the retention of biometric material, it is reasonable to ask whether photographs and images should sit outside the framework altogether.

Similarly, we welcome the Committee's amendment requiring commencement of the new framework within a specified period. The Committee was right to highlight the fact that legislative reform alone is not enough. Public confidence will ultimately depend on the provisions being implemented in practice and within a reasonable time frame. There is little value in undertaking substantial reform only for the implementation of it to remain uncertain. If the Assembly concludes that the changes are necessary, there should also be a clear, time-based pathway to their delivery.

Reasonable people may disagree on where the balance should be struck. There is a legitimate public interest in making sure that law enforcement agencies retain the tools necessary to investigate crime and protect the public. Equally, there is a legitimate concern that children should not carry the consequences of contact with the justice system further than is necessary and proportionate. It is our view that the most important test is whether the framework that emerges properly reflects the distinct position of children, provides meaningful oversight and review mechanisms and commands public confidence that the powers will be exercised fairly, proportionately and only where justified.

For the SDLP, there are important principles that should guide the consideration of this group of amendments. First, any biometric regime must command public confidence. That confidence depends not only on the effectiveness of the system but on the public's trust that powers are being exercised fairly and proportionately. Secondly, independent oversight is essential. Where the state collects and retains highly personal information, there must be meaningful safeguards, transparency and accountability. Thirdly, individuals must be able to understand and challenge decisions that affect them. Rights are meaningful only if people are able to exercise them in practice. Clear information, accessible review mechanisms and effective routes of appeal are therefore vital components of any system. Finally, we must recognise that the particular position of children and young people must be assessed and evaluated properly. Rehabilitation and public protection are not mutually exclusive objectives; indeed, in many cases, successful rehabilitation is one of the strongest forms of public protection.

The task before the House is to ensure that the framework that will emerge from the Bill strikes the correct balance between public safety and individual rights, between effective law enforcement and proportionality and between accountability and operational effectiveness. The SDLP will vote according to those principles on successive amendments.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Maith thú, a Phatsy.

Thank you.

Emma Sheerin is next, but I will have to suspend the sitting for the Business Committee to meet at 1.00 pm. Emma, I might have to interrupt your speech.

Ms Sheerin: Hopefully not.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Hopefully not.

Ms Sheerin: Hopefully, I will be finished. Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. I welcome the Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill. I commend the work of the Minister, the Department and the Committee, including my party colleagues who were on the Committee before me. I thank Deirdre Hargey, who was in the Chamber earlier. She served as the Deputy Chair before me and did a brilliant job. She has been a great support to me since I came to the Committee in explaining the context of a lot of the issues. I also thank the Bill Office and everybody there: they have been helpful with getting our amendments before the House.

We are discussing the group 1 amendments, which relate to biometric data retention and police photographs. Sinn Féin has tabled a number of amendments — amendment Nos 5, 11, 12, 13, 23, 24, 28, 29, 32, 34 and 35 — which I will speak to in the first instance. It is important to set out the context of those amendments.

A new legislative framework to handle biometric data retention is necessary because of two legal challenges that resulted in judgements by the European Court of Human Rights. The court found that our existing data retention framework infringed on people's rights. The indefinite retention periods and the absence of a meaningful review process were identified as key problems, and that is what has led to it. I welcome the fact that the Minister has sought to remedy those human rights infringements under the new framework. Human rights were at the forefront of our minds as we sought to amend the Bill. I thank our comrades in the policy team and those in the human rights fraternity who gave us assistance in identifying gaps and ways that we could improve things.

We need to strike the correct balance. On one hand, we want to ensure that our criminal justice system has access to modern tools that can help to keep people safe and bring offenders to justice, but we also must recognise that biometric data is highly personal. It belongs to people, not the state. Its collection, use and retention must be subject to appropriate safeguards. We need to have trust from the public in a biometric framework that not only works but has proper checks and balances to prevent overreach. I welcome the proposals for a new biometrics commissioner, but I question, as we have done throughout the Committee Stage, whether that commissioner has the necessary independence and powers to adjudicate on disputes about police decisions to retain data. We also carefully examined how biometric retention frameworks were developed and rolled out in other jurisdictions, and we learned some valuable lessons from that.

When it comes to people who have been arrested or charged but not convicted, a defendant's human rights have to be balanced with society's right to be safe and free from crime. That is a complicated but important task. It was of concern to us when, during the Committee's scrutiny, issues were raised by the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission and the Policing Board's human rights adviser about the proportionality of some elements of the Bill and when they questioned whether some of those elements were compatible with article 8 of the ECHR.

We identified issues around retention periods for individuals who had been acquitted or where an allegation is not prosecuted, as well as proportionality issues regarding the proposed frameworks for under-18s. I can accept that there are cases where an individual has been assessed as posing a threat or further risk of reoffending, but that is a hypothetical position: the starting point must be the presumption of innocence. We require, in human rights law, more than a speculative possibility that retained data might one day prove useful. Interferences with privacy must be necessary and proportionate, and the state must provide a compelling justification for retaining information about people who, in the eyes of the law, are innocent.

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasised that principle, including in the Marper judgement, which the Bill seeks to remedy. In that case, the Court was particularly concerned about the retention of biometric material belonging to people who had not been convicted of any offence. Amendment No 5, therefore, would remedy that by restricting the right to retain an individual's data when someone is arrested or charged with a qualifying offence but has been acquitted or has not been prosecuted. My colleague Ciara Ferguson will touch more heavily on the retention framework for under-18s, but we are seriously concerned that the Bill goes beyond what is necessary. We know and the evidence tells us that, when young people and children are systemised, they are more likely to remain in the system. We know about the problems that we have, and we know about the societal influences that lead to crime and the problems we have in the North.

Mrs Long: I thank the Member for giving way. I do not disagree with her about young people being brought into the formal justice system prematurely when there are alternative disposals. That is something that we will debate later on, as part of amendments to the Bill. However, the retention of DNA does not institutionalise or retain a young person in the justice system; the DNA is simply kept on record. If a young person goes on not to offend again, that data will never be relevant and will eventually be expunged, in most cases, after five years. It is only when the young person continues to offend that the data becomes relevant. While I agree that contact with the formal justice system such as incarceration or other forms of custody are detrimental to young people's rehabilitation, the retention of DNA and fingerprint data has no meaningful impact on young people's ability to be rehabilitated after having committed offences. Indeed, I believe that it is helpful to young people who could be potentially eliminated from police enquiries who might otherwise, because of previous offending behaviour, be the focus of police enquiries when certain offences occur.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Emma, I suspected that the Minister was going to intervene, as she has done with every contributor thus far.

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. This debate will continue after Question Time, and Emma will be the first to be called.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1 and 4 together.

The Department undertook an information-gathering exercise in mid 2025 to inform the Executive's consideration of a multi-year Budget for financial year 2026-27 and the subsequent three financial years. In recognition of the importance of progressing the new emergency department (ED) facility at Altnagelvin as quickly as possible, the Western Health and Social Care Trust submitted proposals in July of last year to re-phase an original project plan. The budget cost for the initial phase is £73 million. The information provided by the trust to the Department was included in the capital budget bid submitted to the Department of Finance. My ability to commit funding will depend on the Department's capital allocation from the Budget process and the identification of sufficient recurrent funding to meet any additional resource costs associated with the facility. If sufficient capital and revenue funding is available, the trust will have to update and submit its outline business case to the Department for approval.

Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for his answer and for the interim steps that he has taken to resolve the issue in Altnagelvin. Altnagelvin's emergency department is built for 40,000 people, but it currently sees 80,000 people a year. What can we do collectively in the Assembly to push things forward and ensure that there is an adequately sized and adequately resourced emergency department in Derry?

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware that the numbers are way beyond what the capacity and the build were intended to meet. We are trying to create alternative pathways, such as urgent care, and to make sure that only people who really need the emergency department present there. I am aware that Altnagelvin is the oldest of the big emergency departments in the region. I have visited it when it has been extremely busy. It is nowhere near where we want it to be, not just for the patients but for the staff. I say again that they make decisions that are not the best decisions that they have been trained to provide but the least worst ones, because that is the environment in which they operate.

Mr Delargy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: No points of order are taken during Question Time. You can make one afterwards.

Mrs Middleton: Thank you, Minister, for your time in answering today's question as well as for the work that you have undertaken on the Altnagelvin project thus far.

Patients who are facing a mental health crisis have to walk through the emergency room. It is often — more than often — incredibly busy. For example, last night, a pregnant lady had to sleep on the floor, which is not ideal and certainly not what any of us wants. If and when funding is sourced, will that situation be mitigated?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member makes a pertinent point. There was a tragedy in the ED at the Royal just a few weeks ago. If I needed convincing, that convinced me that, often, an emergency department is the last place that a patient with mental health issues should go to and wait in.

I visited the Mater Hospital a few days ago. It has PATH, a psychiatric assessment and treatment hub, which is a separate room on the first floor that is designed to be an alternative place for mental health patients to go to avoid the ED. The hospital wants to expand that provision, and I would love to see it expanded around all the acute hospitals. I cannot give you the detail on that, but, in my mind, that is the ideal direction of travel.

Mr Durkan: There is recognition that the improvements at Altnagelvin need to happen, but we must emphasise that they need to happen now. The outdated physical state of the emergency department is one thing; hopefully, the business case will be accepted and the funding will be acquired to complete that. However, we all know that the reasons for delays and long waits rest at the hospital's back door rather than the front. Does the Minister have, or is he aware of, any plans to increase the capacity of care home beds in the north-west area?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of specific plans. The Member is right, however. When I took up post, everybody was focusing on the issues at the front door, such as delayed handovers for ambulances and overcrowding in the ED, but the Member is right: the problem is the flow out of the back door. We have to build community capacity. Otherwise, we will not get the flow right. Where are the resources in order to do that, however? The Department currently sits without a budget, but, based on the draft Budget, we have a shortfall of £760 million. That is unprecedented and unmanageable. It means that we cannot do what the Member and I know needs to be done.

Mr Nesbitt: Encompass is now fully live across all five geographical health and social care trusts. It provides a single digital health and care record that supports safer, more joined-up care for people right across Northern Ireland. It is a major, once-in-a-generation modernisation. It is also an essential foundation of service reform. Independent assurance has been used as part of our oversight toolkit at key milestones. A recent review described the regional solution as being robust and assessed delivery as being feasible, while also being explicit about the issues that continue to require active management attention.

The benefits are increasingly becoming tangible. Staff now have far better access to timely information. Encompass reduces duplication and supports faster decision-making, with improvements expected to grow as optimisation continues. Patients and service users are also benefiting from increased transparency and digital access through the My Care portal. Over 300,000 people have already signed up to the My Care app.

Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. Since the Encompass go-live in May 2025 without GP data integration, at a projected cost of almost £2 billion to the Department of Health and the Executive, healthcare professionals have noted a reduction in patient throughput because of overburdensome and clunky data-entry requirements from a system that was not built for use in healthcare. Notwithstanding the merits of Encompass that you outlined, do you not think that it is beyond credible that a system that was designed to increase efficiency is impeding the work of healthcare professionals? Has a post-project evaluation review been conducted?

Mr Nesbitt: As I understand it, although it was always accepted that the roll-out of Encompass would slow down procedures while people transferred from paper, its long-term benefits very much outweighed any short-term hiccup from that.

As yet, there has not, to my knowledge, been a review, because Encompass is still being rolled out. As I have said before — I have expressed it as a form of frustration — it can apparently take up to two years after Encompass has been installed for it to become fully operational. As the Member will know, it was rolled out across the final one of the five trusts in only May of last year.

Mrs Dodds: I know that many healthcare professionals value Encompass for how they can access patient records much more easily. Is there a central policy document to protect healthcare professionals in scenarios in which they access Encompass, or is that something for which individual trusts are responsible?

Mr Nesbitt: If I understand the Member correctly, she is talking about adding a layer of protection and security to a system whose essence is that everybody in Health and Social Care can access it. That is part of the beauty of Encompass. If a patient is being transferred from one hospital to another in an ambulance, the receiving consultant and their team do not have to wait to receive the paper file that comes with the patient. Instead, they can go on Encompass and prepare themselves. The difficulty is with whether people who have access to Encompass will use it in a prurient or voyeuristic way. I have been in discussions with our digital team, and we have come up with a warning that will appear on a person's home screen every time that they log into Encompass to tell them that inappropriate accessing of information could result in disciplinary action or even criminal prosecution.

Mr Dickson: Minister, you have been talking about the excellent work that Encompass does. However, the regional Encompass team recently wrote to GPs expressing concerns that some 12,000 red-flag letters and other pieces of correspondence seem to have gone missing from the system. GPs are very rightly concerned that they are not getting the appropriate feedback from Encompass about their patients. That is a matter of serious concern. I have a letter from a GP complaining about 12,000 letters, some of which are red-flagged and some of which are downgrades, and they simply have not got them.

Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of that, and, again, I have discussed it with the digital team. Apparently, there were two fail-safes that failed, so, by definition, they are not fail-safes. The only assurance that I can give people is that, while it is unacceptable that that happened, those were referrals that were rejected by consultants. So, no physical harm was done. Obviously, if you are waiting for the result of your referral, and it is assumed that your GP has that information, that is not an acceptable situation. Work is ongoing to investigate the matter, but there were failures in the process. I accept that and apologise for it.

Mr Speaker: Dr Aiken is not in his place.

Mr Nesbitt: Aligned with the regional dementia care pathway, my Department remains firmly committed to strengthening and enhancing dementia training, and I very much accept the Member's long-term interest in that area. The regional dementia project board plays a central role in that work, with a dedicated work stream focusing on education, training and research specifically. Through the work stream, significant progress continues to be made developing and expanding high-quality dementia training. That includes building on existing programmes and introducing more specialised learning opportunities such as the development of Dementia Relationships, which is a rights-based approach to training, alongside Queen's University. That is available online through LearnHSCNI. The initiative has been supported through funding from the Department of Health. It is aimed at improving staff understanding and delivery of person-centred care.

In addition, the Department has endorsed the regional roll-out of online dementia-related pain management training known as DOTS. It has been developed and researched by Ulster University. That evidence-based programme supports staff to better recognise and manage pain in people who are living with dementia, thereby contributing to improved outcomes. The work stream is also updating the dementia learning and development framework from 2016. That sets out the core knowledge and skills required by health and social care staff to enable them to interact appropriately and respond sensitively to the needs of people living with dementia, as well as their families and their carers. There will be an online version of that, and it will be accessible to all stakeholders and easily navigated, with signposting to relevant training and resources.

Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the work undertaken by the representatives on the regional dementia project board and the review into care standards. Research from the Alzheimer's Society indicates that around half of all training programmes provide only one or two hours' instruction. That suggests that baristas often receive more training than care workers who support people with dementia. Therefore, will the Department consider introducing a statutory requirement for all social care providers to ensure that direct-care staff complete best practice dementia training?

Mr Nesbitt: At present, there is no statutory requirement, as the Member knows, to mandate dementia awareness training across the system. I strongly endorse the importance of such training as a key element of workforce development, but — the Member will not like this — it is not proposed to introduce a compulsory requirement at this time.

The Department operates within an enabling framework where employers retain responsibility under existing employment and professional regulatory arrangements to ensure that their staff are appropriately trained and competent to carry out their roles. That approach allows for proportionate implementation while supporting organisations to embed dementia awareness within their broader training and their governance structures.

Ms Ferguson: On that same issue, Minister, training is critical, given the increasing prevalence of dementia. On a personal note, I care for my mum, who has dementia, and we have caregivers coming into the house twice a day, seven days a week. I reiterate how important it is that staff across care homes, domiciliary care and community services get good training.

What can the Department do to ensure that all staff who are at the coalface in supporting the most vulnerable in their homes have access to good training? How can that training be monitored and tracked to ensure that we know that it is having a positive impact on the lives of individuals and their families?

Mr Nesbitt: The best thing that the Department can do is to ensure that dementia training remains current and aligned with best practice. We do that through collaboration, not least with academia but with clinical experts, and alongside established governance structures. The prevalence of dementia is so high, however, that I would be very surprised if anybody in the health and social care workforce who comes into contact with people with the condition is not keen to keep themselves trained and aware of and up to date with developments in how best to look after those people. It is a massive problem, but there are many areas where the workforce has to be trained up. That is why it is impossible to say that it has to be statutory. However, it is important for many people that staff keep themselves up to speed.

Miss McAllister: Of course, training is important even before diagnosis, but there is currently an issue around that. I wrote to you, Minister, regarding GPs' concern about referrals to psychiatry, including those relating to possible dementia, and how a lot of those are bouncing back because there is no workforce capacity there. Do you have an update on where we are with the psychiatry workforce, including reassurance for anyone who may need a dementia diagnosis?

Mr Nesbitt: I am afraid that I do not have an update to hand on the psychiatry workforce. I am more than happy to write to the Member. As the Member knows, in the Department of Health and in Health and Social Care, we live in a world of statistics, and it is very hard to retain the numbers that I would need to retain to be able to answer all the questions that Members legitimately ask at Question Time.

Ms D Armstrong: An important and valuable training programme was referenced in the question. I welcome the collaborative approach with universities. Minister, how does the Department monitor the uptake of dementia training across different sectors?

Mr Nesbitt: My Department monitors uptake across different sectors through a combination of established governance, reporting and workforce oversight arrangements. Trusts are required to track and report on staff participation and completion rates as part of their existing training and performance management processes. In the independent and voluntary sectors, the Department works with relevant commissioning, regulatory and partnership mechanisms to promote uptake and gather assurance on training activity. That includes engagement with providers to ensure alignment of agreed standards and expectations. Regional oversight is provided through the regional dementia project board, which reviews progress, identifies gaps and supports continuous improvement. That approach enables proportionate monitoring while ensuring that dementia training is being embedded consistently across the system.

Mr Speaker: Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Mr Nesbitt: I fully acknowledge the essential role played by domiciliary and home care staff in supporting people to remain safely in their own homes and thus alleviating pressure on our acute services. Home care workers provide far more than just practical or personal care and support; they provide reassurance, continuity and human connection at moments of vulnerability. I remain fully committed to implementation of the real living wage for home care workers in recognition of the vital front-line role that they play in supporting vulnerable individuals to live independently at home. I am not in a position at this stage, however, to confirm a definitive timeline for implementation. That is due to my Department not yet having a confirmed budget settlement. We continue to face significant financial pressures, as I have already alluded to. Notwithstanding those constraints, I have made clear repeatedly that the real living wage remains a priority. It will be implemented at the earliest point that it becomes affordable. Importantly, once introduced, the uplift will be backdated to 1 April 2026, reflecting my commitment to that workforce.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Domiciliary care workers are highly skilled individuals. You referred to the fact that they are at the back door of the hospital in order to support A&Es. However, Minister, an awful lot of money is spent on agency workers. It is a colossal spend. Is there any way that you could get to grips with that and move towards giving people proper pay for doing a really highly skilled job?

Mr Nesbitt: The Member is right to talk about the money that is spent on agency workers. Agency workers are used to make sure that we deliver safe services. We use agency nurses, for example, only if the pool of bank nurses has been exhausted. We have had, I believe, 100% success in no longer using agency social care workers. We are now looking at nursing and at locums. There is an acceptable and necessary level of agency and locum work to keep delivering safe services, but we are way beyond that, and we need to crunch it down.

Mrs Dillon: As has already been outlined, our domiciliary care workers are a skilled workforce; nobody can deny that. Last week, the Health Committee heard from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine that the real issue in emergency medicine is flow. We are not getting people out the other end, and that is because we do not have enough social care staff. We are spending millions and millions of pounds on keeping people in hospital when we could be investing that money in giving our domiciliary care workers the real living wage and a sufficient mileage allowance. I am thinking in particular of those who work in my area, which is a large rural constituency. They have real challenges in delivering services to people —

Mr Speaker: Good preamble. Can we get to the question, Mrs Dillon?

Mrs Dillon: — whom they care about and want to serve.

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member that the problem is community capacity in domiciliary care workers and packages and care homes and care home beds. Where is the money to do that? Yes, we spend a lot of money on bank and agency staff, but, if we divert that flow of money to create more community capacity, hospitals become unsafe. If the health service is a train, we are running it on a track that we do not want it to run on; we want to build a different track and run it on that. We can barely afford to run it on the track that we are on, never mind creating the track that we all know that we need to create. I do not have the solution, because I do not have the money. We know what to do and how to do it; the frustration is that we do not have the cash to make it happen.

Mr McMurray: The issue of domiciliary care has been well rehearsed, and we all know what a contribution it makes to society. Only this week, I was discussing with a domiciliary care worker in my constituency the challenges that she faces in trying to manage the issue. What evidence has the Department gathered on the impact of living wage implementation on recruitment and retention of domiciliary care workers and on the vital service that they provide?

Mr Nesbitt: I am sure that it is very bad for morale. I understand the disappointment, and I have acknowledged that my decision was counter-strategic, but, given the financial constraints that I face, it was unavoidable. Social care staff make an essential contribution — absolutely — and, if we had more of them, they could do more. I share the ambition to establish the sector as a real living wage sector as soon as finances allow. That is a very important step towards improving the flow out of the back door, but there is more to be done, and mileage allowance, terms and conditions and work-life balance are all in the mix.

Mr Chambers: Can the Minister confirm that he is committed to implementing the real living wage for statutory and independent-sector care workers?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes. I have been clear about my commitment to implement the real living wage across the social care workforce, and I have set that out directly to the key stakeholders. I wrote to trade unions to confirm the pathway to delivering the real living wage through Agenda for Change arrangements from 2026-27. I then wrote to members of the social care fair work forum to reaffirm my commitment to implementing the real living wage for independent-sector adult social care staff from, again, 2026-27, with any uplift to be backdated to 1 April. Taken together, those actions demonstrate a clear intention to deliver the real living wage across the statutory and independent sectors, subject, of course, to the availability of funding and final budget decisions.

Mr Nesbitt: Formal guidance issued by the British Society of Gastroenterology in 2014 specified that a robust diagnosis of coeliac disease should involve an endoscopy procedure and an accompanying biopsy. That was followed by interim guidance in 2020 on a no-biopsy protocol that was intended to support timely diagnosis during the COVID-19 pandemic when our endoscopy capacity was significantly reduced. The pathway allowed diagnosis based on blood tests alone under specific conditions. To date, the guidance issued in 2014 remains the formal guidance. It limits the scope to adopt no-biopsy pathways at scale. Broad adoption would require updated formal guidance from the British Society of Gastroenterology, followed by the issue of clear referral guidelines, based on that guidance, to primary care.

Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer and for outlining where we are with the early diagnosis of coeliac disease. I thank him for his commitment on the issue to try to ensure that we have the best and most expeditious diagnostic pathways.

Will the Minister commit to meeting some representatives of Coeliac UK to discuss how the issue affects sufferers in Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I am always happy to meet advocates for particular conditions.

Mr Martin: That is great. Thank you.

Mrs Guy: Given that around one in four people with coeliac disease has been previously treated for IBS, how will the Department ensure that patients with persistent gastrointestinal symptoms are appropriately screened for coeliac disease?

Mr Nesbitt: Sorry, I am not sure whether I understood the Member correctly. Did she ask how the independent sector will do that?

Mrs Guy: No, the Department. Do you want me to ask the question again?

Mr Nesbitt: Is that OK?

Mr Speaker: Maybe just to confirm which it is.

Mrs Guy: How will the Department ensure that patients with persistent gastrointestinal symptoms are appropriately screened for coeliac disease?

Mr Nesbitt: There are always robust governance arrangements in place, whether we do it in the health and social care system or use the independent sector. That applies to all the work that we do.

Mr Nesbitt: I fully recognise that receiving a recall letter about a cardiac therapy device can give rise to understandable anxiety and distress not only for patients but for their families and friends. It is therefore essential that appropriate support, reassurance and timely clinical assessment be in place throughout the process. The Belfast Trust is treating the matter with the utmost seriousness, as am I. A structured and carefully managed phased approach is being undertaken, with affected patients being contacted and reviewed. The trust is working to ensure that individuals who receive a recall letter are offered an appointment that is aimed at minimising any prolonged period of uncertainty and ensuring that patients receive appropriate clinical advice and, where necessary, timely intervention.

In addition, a dedicated patient advice line has been established. It provides patients with a direct and accessible point of contact. I should stress that that support is not limited solely to those who have received a recall notification. Any patient who has concerns about their device, whether or not they have received correspondence, is encouraged to contact the advice line for clarification and support.

Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his response. Despite staff raising concerns in 2020, it appears that action was not taken until three years later. What changes will now be introduced across Health and Social Care to ensure that concerns raised by staff or patients about such procedures are acted on more quickly in future?

Mr Nesbitt: The issue has been under active review since concerns first emerged. The trust has been progressing a careful, clinically led look-back process, in line with established guidance. During that time, the priority has been to ensure that the information is validated and that patients are contacted in a structured and supportive way rather than causing unnecessary alarm. I make this broader point to the Member: any time that something goes wrong, as the Minister, I expect an early alert. In other words, I expect to be alerted in real time about a problem or potential problem. Such, arguably, lengthy delays in problems coming into the public domain are not acceptable to me.

Mr Nesbitt: Responsibility for ensuring equitable access to domiciliary care rests with each trust. At a regional level, the Department works closely with the trusts through the social care collaborative reform board and its implementation groups. My Department has developed a 10-year strategic plan together with a three-year delivery plan to implement a reform agenda. Domiciliary care is an important element of that, and one of the social care collaborative reform board subgroups has been tasked with developing a sustainable adult social care system that can meet the future needs of people who require care and support.

The work includes establishing a new regional model for domiciliary care, including an updated domiciliary care contract. My Department has held a series of round-table meetings with key stakeholders from across the sector. The purpose was to explore and learn from good practice in each of the trusts and to review any additional measures that could be taken.

Mr Speaker: We have to move on to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I have not had any direct contact with the Fire and Rescue Service on those two specific fires. Today, however, I signed off on the responses to three questions for written answer from you on that issue: the numbers for waste-management sites and other areas.

Mr McGrath: I look forward with interest to receiving those responses. Our main priority should be fire prevention and waste operators' compliance with fire prevention plans. To that end, will the Minister give me his assessment of the AERA Minister's response to me, in which he stated that, from the NI Environment Agency's perspective:

What message does that send to our dedicated firefighters?

Mr Nesbitt: I have no vires over the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, but I would ask that people respect the role of firefighters in the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and accept that, at times, they put themselves in harm's way physically and mentally to keep the public safe. I would therefore ask that everybody who is in a position of responsibility or authority make sure that they do all that they can to keep our firefighters safe, and, when those firefighters have to put themselves in harm's way, that everything is done to make sure that the environment is as amenable as possible.

Mr Nesbitt: I take a rather practical view of the use of banned or illegal substances: they have been with us for a long time and will be with us for a long time to come. I know that some people, including those in the Member's party, say that the only acceptable message is, "Do not take illegal drugs". That position is perfectly valid, and I acknowledge it, but I do not think that it is practical. People take those drugs, and a concert is one of the occasions when they are probably most likely to take them. I am into mitigating the damage. For example, I was at a four-nations meeting on drug use last year in Scotland, where they are so concerned about people injecting a certain class A drug that, in one 12-month period, they gave out 400,000 pieces of foil to encourage people to smoke the drug rather than inject it in oder to avoid blood-borne disease. I support that as a practical step, rather than saying that it is possible to stop the illegal use of drugs.

Mr Harvey: Who signed off on that post?

Mr Nesbitt: I will check. I am not sure that I signed off on it; it is not striking a bell with me. The arm's-length bodies have certain autonomy. As the Member said, it was the Public Health Agency that posted it. I will certainly check and write to the member.

Mr Nesbitt: I do not carry that level of detail or set of statistics in my head, and I do not have them on file. I am more than happy to get back to the Member on it. The Executive or, more likely, the next Executive will need to do a lot of work in that area and legislate to make life better for those who need those services.

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answer. I look forward to receiving the information. Given that the Oakridge Social Education Centre in Dungannon has been identified as a priority for a new build for over 20 years, will the Minister tell me when families can expect to see progress on that long-standing commitment? Will the project be included in forthcoming investment plans for services for adults with complex needs in the south Tyrone and Southern Trust area?

Mr Nesbitt: What I will not do is encourage the Member to speak to his colleague, because I know that the Minister of Finance wants to bring forward budgets for resource and capital spending. I cannot make a commitment without a capital budget, however. I need to know what my budget will be, after which I will have to look at the priorities. I am not particularly optimistic that that venue will be high up the list, because there are a lot of demands on my budget. In an ideal world, of course, I would give that commitment here and now, but I am not in a position to do so. I regret that.

Mr Nesbitt: The funding is absolutely transformational, and it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to switch how we intervene for families with young people who have real issues. It is an opportunity to keep them out of care and get away from reactive, statutory interventions to early, community-based support. That is entirely consistent with my desire for the health and social care system to shift left to the neighbourhood model. I am very grateful to the transformation fund for the funding, which is just shy of £30 million, and I promise that it will be well used.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. How will the money that the National Lottery has pledged reflect the confidence that it has in the ability of a project such as Together for Families to turn around the lives of young people who desperately need such intervention and the value that it places on that?

Mr Nesbitt: It says two things to me. First, it speaks to the confidence that the National Lottery has in the Together for Families project, because that £30 million is an unprecedented investment in a project of that scale in Northern Ireland. Even if the funding had been only £1 million, I am convinced that the National Lottery would still have done its due diligence and sweated the proposals in order to be assured that the plan was solid and robust.

Secondly, it tells us about the value of partnerships. As we try to shift left, we will look to others to come in and help us with funding and other resources. The Member will be aware of our cancer charities fund, which is relatively new. We put in £1 million, and Macmillan Cancer Support matched it with another £1 million, so we got £2 million. That is how we must work in these constrained financial times. We must gather up pots of money to enable the shift left to the neighbourhood model.

Mr Nesbitt: The focus that I inherited was entirely on the Southern Trust, so that is why we pursued that to its conclusion. Well, it may not be the conclusion; obviously, the Ladies with Letters and others are considering potential next steps, and that is, of course, their right. I am aware that there are women in the Western Trust area who also had issues. I will refresh myself on those situations, because I believe that there is no direct read-across to what happened in the Southern Trust. Sinéad McLaughlin wrote to me to ask whether I will meet some of those women, and I signed off on that today, so we will find a diary date to make that happen.

Mr T Buchanan: Thank you for that, Minister. That is welcome. Do you accept that the women in the Western Trust were denied the same level of scrutiny and potential redress as those in the Southern Trust? On the back of that question, is the real reason that the Western Trust was excluded because, if it had been included, it would have revealed a much larger systemic failure that would have made the case for a statutory public inquiry unavoidable?

Mr Nesbitt: I do not accept that. I am trying to remember. As we know, the Southern Trust did not follow the standard procedure of one full review and one quick review. It went for two full reviews. Of course, the trust did that with the best of intentions, but it meant that we could not benchmark against other services, and that was one of the big problems for the trust. From memory, when it comes to the Western Trust, the level at which it pressed the warning light was different. I will refresh myself on that and meet the people whom Sinéad McLaughlin wants to bring to me. We will see where that takes us.

Mr Nesbitt: GP federations are not health and social care bodies. Pharmacists in the GP federations are employed by the GP federations, so it is up to the federations to determine their pay and conditions. We have no locus there, but we did provide an uplift for staff costs to federations in respect of their pharmacists on the basis of the pay award agreed by the Review Body on Doctors’ and Dentists’ Remuneration. We have done that for last year and are committed to doing it for this year, if and when we get a Budget.

Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. My understanding is that pharmacist representatives and GP federations both support alignment with Agenda for Change. Do you expect a decision to be made on pay parity?

Mr Nesbitt: If the federations support pay parity with Agenda for Change, they should just do it.

Mr Nesbitt: If I am asked to issue guidance, I certainly shall. I was not aware that there was any uncertainty until the Member spoke just then. Perhaps he could elaborate on that, and that will inform a decision on whether we go with renewed or fresh guidance.

Mr Gaston: If a pastor preaching John chapter three, verse 16 outside the hospital in Coleraine can result in a successful prosecution, it is not irrational to think that there could be ramifications for reading that same Bible verse inside the hospital. Does the Minister share my concerns that the very fact that the issue is concerning Christians is testament to how badly drafted that law is?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not sure that I agree, but I will certainly look into that. Common sense should apply, and I am not sure that we are comparing like with like when it comes to reading a biblical passage, one to one, to a patient in hospital and what happened out on the streets.

Mr Speaker: Doug Beattie is not in his place.

Mr Nesbitt: I had to reduce those delays. As the Member knows, the protocol was implemented on 27 April. She has identified the downside of it. As we have discussed already in Question Time, it is not just about what happens at the front door but about the whole flow through the hospital and out the back door and into the community, where we need more health and social care capacity. I had a couple of meetings with clinicians, hospital administrators and trade unions. I felt that it was going to take a long time to implement. However, initial responses about ambulance handover times at hospitals since 27 April are really good. I commend everybody involved because it is not just the ambulance crews but the intake staff, the nurses, the clinicians and the administrators. Release to rescue is only part of the solution to a bigger problem.

Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister. By the way, congratulations, Minister. You got to question 10 twice today. That is considerably better than normal, so well done on getting through so many questions and allowing so many Members to have their opportunity to question you.

Mr Speaker: Before we return to the Justice Bill, I want to make a few remarks on the Consideration Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill, as a number of Members raised points of order in relation to the selection of amendments. A number of those points of order were made in a tone that was out of order. I do not intend to return to that on this occasion, and neither do I intend to breach the long-standing conventions here and elsewhere that the Speaker does not give reasons for his or her decisions. However, I fully recognise the sensitivity of the issues. I appreciate that victims and survivors of abuse are more interested in the details of the Bill. Therefore, I wish to make some limited comments that will, hopefully, assist the House.

Under Standing Order 15(5), it is for the Speaker to decide which of the amendments that are proposed to a Bill, if any, will be debated. Often, that involves complex issues and requires the Speaker to make balanced judgements. I fully acknowledge that I approach these matters both from the perspective of my experience as a Minister and from legislative developments in recent years. Previously, I told the House that I take a rigorous and cautious approach to my decisions. Members will be aware that the Marshalled List of amendments for the Consideration Stage of the Bill did not issue until the Saturday, which is unusual. That was because I went through the amendments in detail, over and over again, before I reached a decision.

It is not, however, the Speaker who determines the contents of a Bill that is presented to the House or proposes the amendments to it. The Bill was introduced by the Executive Office. Clearly, many victims and survivors were disappointed with certain provisions in it. In accordance with section 13(1)(a) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the general principles of the Bill were agreed by the Assembly on 24 June 2025. The Committee then engaged further with victims and survivors and proposed a number of amendments. I want to be clear to the House that the fact that the Committee amendment to remove clause 31 was not selected at Consideration Stage should not be interpreted as meaning that a different amendment, proposing an alternative date or approach, cannot be tabled or selected at Further Consideration Stage.

Before Consideration Stage, there was positive and constructive engagement between the Committee and the Executive Office. That included Ministers bringing forward amendments in response to the Committee's views and the Committee's agreeing to withdraw its amendments in support of those that were proposed by Ministers. Members will be aware that Further Consideration Stage is the final opportunity to bring forward amendments to a Bill. It is normal that Ministers table amendments at that stage to tidy up changes to a Bill, in order to ensure that the changes are practical and effective, as well as to ensure that the statute book is coherent. It would therefore be preferable for any attempt to address the concerns of victims and survivors in relation to the posthumous date to be taken forward in a ministerial amendment from the Executive Office. That is a matter for Ministers to consider. I am sure that the Committee will be active in encouraging them to do so. It is also right that the Committee, and indeed any other Members, should continue to engage with the Department on the details and technicalities of any further amendments.

I make these remarks to emphasise that the passage of the Bill is not yet complete. Therefore, there remains the ability to amend it, in line with the principles agreed at Second Stage. I have gone further than a Speaker normally would before a Bill returns to the House, and I do not intend to take points of order on the matter. However, I hope that this helps clarify and manage expectations around what is possible from my perspective at Further Consideration Stage. What is possible from a policy perspective is for the Executive Office to advise on and for the Assembly to ultimately determine.

Mr Delargy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I had intended to raise this earlier. During Question Time with the Health Minister, I raised a significant issue around Altnagelvin Hospital. I could not hear what was being said. Other Members could not hear. The Health Minister could not hear. It is deeply disrespectful to people in Derry that the SDLP health spokesperson continued to have a loud conversation during that time and continues to have loud conversations during many debates. I find it deeply disrespectful to the people of Derry, and an apology should be issued.

Mr Speaker: I thank you, Mr Delargy. You have raised the issue privately with me before. I did not hear Mr Durkan's conversation, but I do not dispute what you have said. It is for Members to seek to ensure that they are heard and that Members can also hear what is being said in the Chamber. That is important. It was not because of heckling; it was because of conversation in this instance. Members should reflect upon having conversations in the House, and, if they want to do so, they should do it in whispered tones as opposed to loud tones. Thank you for raising that, Mr Delargy. I ask Members to take note.

Ms Sheerin: I am here to eat my words after being over-ambitious about being finished before lunchtime, having preached to Paul all week about the length of time that we take to speak. That is a bit of a lesson for me. I will return to what we were talking about prior to Question Time and the break for lunch: the Minister's response on the retention of biometric data for under-18s.

I refer to what we heard in the wake of the Marper judgement from the Human Rights Commission, which stated clearly:

That goes to the heart of what our amendments to the Bill try to do. We want to have a compassionate approach, particularly to children and young people. In other parts of the Bill and in a number of proposed amendments, children and young people are treated differently to adults. Our youth justice system should be based on principles of rehabilitation rather than punitive punishment. That is what our amendments seek to do. The threshold for retaining a child's biometric data should be markedly higher than that applied to adults and that the Assembly should be cautious about creating a system in which children who have committed minor offences, or who have not been convicted at all, can have biometric data retained by the state. We do not want to criminalise our young people and entrench them into that justice system that then, as the evidence tells us, leads to higher likelihood of reoffending.

I refer briefly to our neighbours in Scotland, who have considered the issue and adopted a different model from the one that we are on the path to adopting here in the North, as set out in the code of practice for the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner. In Scotland, biometric data for under-18s is only captured and retained for those arrested for violent or sexual offences, or otherwise by exception. Since that model was adopted in 2024, there has been a significant decrease in the number of children who have had their biometric data retained. The Scottish Biometrics Commissioner has stated that the outcome of that policy change:

Again, that goes to the heart of what we are trying to do here, which is to prioritise human rights, particularly the human rights of children. The Bill as drafted includes shorter retention periods for under-18s than for adults, and we welcome that to some extent, but we support the Scottish approach whereby a child's data can be retained for only three years unless the police apply for and are granted an extension of two years by the court. In answer to Mr Frew's request for clarification, there is no limit on the number of applications for extension that can be granted, so the retention period is not capped at seven years.

I know that, in introducing the Bill, the Minister has a commitment to strengthening legislative provisions for children. Our proposals better reflect the provisions contained in the Justice Act 2002 that mean that the best interests of children must be the primary consideration for all public bodies, and I hope to see support for them across the House. Those specific proposals are reflected in our amendments, and I ask people to support amendment Nos 11, 12, 13, 23 and 24.

I turn to the independence of the biometrics commissioner, which we touched on earlier. A focus of the Marper judgement was the absence of a robust process to review the need to continue to retain DNA and fingerprints. I do not think that the concerns that were outlined in that judgement have been addressed yet. At Second Stage, Members raised the point in the Chamber that they were greatly concerned about the volume of proposed amendments that related to provisions that were not in the Bill from the beginning. We require clarity on exactly how the new proposals for a biometrics commissioner will work. You will understand my concern that the Bill sets out a skeleton framework for appeals and oversight mechanisms, with the Department stating that the regulations on the review, including the statutory review dates, will be subject to public consultation and then considered by the Assembly.

Under the framework in the Bill, an individual has the right to ask the PSNI to conduct a review, which would then be conducted by a designated PSNI review team. Where an individual is unhappy with its decision, they have the right to appeal it and can ask the PSNI to reconsider their request. That appeal would be carried out by a more senior PSNI officer. We have concerns that that looks like the PSNI marking its own homework, so to speak. Law enforcement agencies would want to hold on to that data for as long as possible, but it is up to us as legislators to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect individuals' rights.

I thank the Minister's team for being so open to conversations with us when we sought clarity on those proposals. In our engagements with the Department, we were told that the PSNI is the data owner and that it is for the PSNI to determine whether there is a policing need to continue to retain a person's material, which, again, reflects our earlier conversations about the PSNI requiring that data for future investigations. We have serious concerns that that misses the point. The PSNI does not own the data. Biometric data is highly personal, and it belongs to the individual in question. That right must be protected.

We agree with the Department that the biometrics commissioner should be the ultimate authority in deciding the outcome of an appeal and that that should be out of the hands of the PSNI. We argue that it should not be via a complaints mechanism, as the Minister proposed, but via a direct case-handling function. We ask Members to support amendment Nos 29 and 32, which achieve that aim by removing the PSNI as the ultimate decision-making authority so that it does not mark its own homework and by ensuring that there is an individual with the necessary independence to carry out reviews on the basis of proportionality, fairness and rights. Again, we can look to the Scottish model to see how the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner is answerable to the whole Scottish Parliament, not to one political advocate as such.

Moving on to my next point —.

Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way on that point?

Ms Sheerin: Yes. Lean ar aghaidh.

Mrs Long: To be clear, when it comes to the independence of the biometrics commissioner, there is no question of their being answerable to anyone in a political sense. Indeed, we have stressed that we do not wish to constrain how the office would operate, in the same way that we respect the independence of the Policing Board, the Chief Constable and the Police Ombudsman. That is perhaps a flawed analysis. Whatever the checks and balances in the Scottish Parliament, it is a different construct from the Northern Ireland Assembly. We need to be careful about simply importing something from the Scottish Parliament when its operability here has not been stress-tested.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for her intervention. In my earlier remarks, I said that our key concern was around the fact that the biometrics commissioner — we teased it out in Committee sessions — is, ultimately, answerable to the PSNI. The Law Society's advice was that it would be helpful to refer to the Scottish model and how the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner handles the data.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Sheerin: Yes.

Mrs Long: The biometrics commissioner will not be answerable to the PSNI; in fact, the commissioner's decisions create a requirement on the PSNI to take action. Rather than the PSNI being able to direct a commissioner, the commissioner can direct the Chief Constable to remove stuff, and the Chief Constable would be obliged to do so. That is a flawed understanding of how the biometrics commissioner would operate.

It is important that the commissioner is completely independent and free to exercise their powers. As I said, that will come back by way of regulation and consultation, so that the Committee and others will be able to influence the shaping of those powers and responsibilities. There is no suggestion that the commissioner is answerable to the PSNI. The PSNI does a first-stage review and, if a complaint continues, it goes to the biometrics commissioner to adjudicate, and that decision is final.

Ms Sheerin: Thank you for that, Minister. We had extensive conversations and engaged with your team on the topic at Committee Stage, because the guaranteed independence of the biometrics commissioner has been a concern for Sinn Féin from the start. Having asked DOJ officials, we did not get clarification that the PSNI ultimately would not be the ultimate arbiter of how the biometrics commissioner carried out their functions or that they would not have to take direction from the PSNI. We are yet to receive anything to dispute that.

Mrs Long: I can do that now if the Member wishes to give way. It is absolutely clear that the commissioner will be independent of Ministers and independent of the PSNI and that their role is to provide independent oversight. If they instruct the PSNI to take an action, it will be a requirement that they do so.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Minister for that, but the legal briefing that we received from the Department in March 2025 highlighted the importance of the reviewer. The Chief Constable is not independent of the policymaker or those who will carry out the policy, which is the PSNI. The commissioner will be appointed by the Department and must report to the Department. The Scottish commissioner talked about the importance of independence, free from political influence. The Scottish commissioner is appointed by and answerable only to Parliament. There are two concerns there. I am not saying that everything in Scotland is perfect, but we were not able to achieve any clarity around the complete independence of the biometrics commissioner, as you have set out in your proposals thus far. As I have outlined, we have concerns about how the commissioner would carry out their function and how we can ensure their ultimate independence.

I will move on to my next point. We feel that the PSNI needs to provide appropriate information to individuals who are having their biometric data taken and retained. When people have been arrested and are going through the biometrics process, information about the process and their rights is unlikely to be at the forefront of their thinking. Therefore, we believe that the PSNI should have a duty to inform those individuals of their rights. Where someone is in that stressful situation, they might not be considering all of those requirements. That is of particular importance, given the recent revelations of illegal surveillance of journalists by the PSNI and its failure to delete material on the back of a court order.

Our amendment No 35 would place a duty on the biometrics commissioner to issue guidance that sets out the information that a custody officer should provide in writing to an individual or their solicitor, parent, guardian or appropriate adult before biometric material is obtained. That should include the maximum period for which the material may be retained and the circumstances in which an individual has a right to appeal against a determination to retain data, as well as the procedure for such appeals. That is an important safeguard, and we encourage all Members to support amendment no 35.

Finally, I want to touch briefly on the issue of photographs, which my colleague Aoife Finnegan will talk about in greater detail. Along with other Committee colleagues, we are clear that the legislation needs to be future-proofed. Technology moves fast, and existing PSNI practices should be accounted for in the biometrics framework, given that the PSNI already regards as biometric information photographs that have gone through that process. It is a pity that photographs were not included in the Bill, but we welcome the fact that other Members have suggested that they will support the Committee's amendment No 40 on the future addition of photographs as biometric material. I thank them for that.

Ms Egan: I welcome the opportunity to make some comments at the Justice Bill's Consideration Stage. I joined the Committee for Justice in November 2024, shortly after the Bill's introduction. Following an 18-month Committee Stage, I am pleased that we are finally debating its content.

As we know, the Bill is incredibly varied and mixed in what it covers, tied together with the aim of building a more effective, efficient and modern justice system from which all across Northern Ireland can benefit. It follows judgements in the European Court of Human Rights, including S and Marper v the UK and Gaughran v the UK. Part 1 of the Bill clearly aims to put human rights at the centre by providing a balanced and proportionate framework for the retention and destruction of DNA and fingerprints for Northern Ireland. I will start with the amendments standing in the Minister of Justice's name, all of which Alliance plans to support.

As other Members have recognised, Part 1 is an incredibly complex area of law. It is clear that the Minister and her officials have considered its components in detail. I will draw Members' attention to the content of some specific clauses and schedules.

Amendment No 1 will amend clause 1 to allow the PSNI a more workable grace period of 28 days in which either to delete an individual's material that was held as part of an investigation or to apply to the biometrics commissioner for a continued retention period. Such practical changes are welcome and highlight the stress-testing that has taken place with the PSNI to ensure that the legislation will be as fit for purpose as possible. I welcome the Department's recognition that more tweaks can be made to ensure that the legislation matches the reality of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE) on the ground. We will also support amendment No 108 and others that make changes to schedule 2. Amendment No 108 updates the terminology in the PACE Order from:

to:

That change will mitigate confusion over interpretations of the term "reported" in legislation and clarifies the timing of operational procedures across biometric provisions.

Alliance will also support amendment No 8, which provides further clarity on procedure across biometric provisions, highlighting the fact that the DNA and fingerprints of an individual who is arrested but not charged can be retained by the PSNI until the outcome of an application made to the biometrics commissioner is known.

Amendment Nos 66 and 67 will insert new clauses into the Bill, putting in place powers to photograph a person at a police station and the power to specify a date for a person's attendance at a police station. Alliance supports closing the gap in provision, as no power is provided in current legislation for the PSNI to require a person to attend a police station, including at a later stage, for a photograph to be taken, even when a photograph is considered unclear or incomplete. The provisions will allow not just for that but for the PSNI to direct officers to take fingerprints, DNA samples and photographs on a specific date and time. Those interventions will be useful in allowing the PSNI to maximise the time frames for the detection and prevention of crime.

I will move on to the amendments that the Committee for Justice has tabled, both of which will be supported by my party. Amendment No 40 would put in place a welcome enabling power regarding the retention, use and destruction of photographs. During Committee Stage, there was much discussion on whether photographs or images should be included as biometric material in the Bill. If there is one thing that all of us in the Chamber can agree on, it is that there is still much more that can be looked into in that space.

The use of technology to prevent crime and to evade detection is evolving. The heightened use or, at least, consideration of facial recognition technology is inevitable in years to come. The evidence that we received from local authorities and more widely across these islands, including from the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, all pointed to that. Alliance believes that an enabling power strikes the right balance in ensuring that we can address the use of photographs in the future, once more specific policy development has occurred. The amendment requires the delivery of draft regulations within five years, which feels suitable. Alliance will also support amendment No 104 from the Committee, which specifies that:

of the Act's receiving Royal Assent.

Alliance will agree with the Minister and oppose the amendments in the group that have been tabled by Sinn Féin. I will raise a few particular points of concern about them, but the issue stems primarily from the fact that much of this will be resolved in regulations and updated PACE codes. Those will both receive more time and scrutiny than can be afforded today.

Amendment Nos 11, 12 and 13 relate to rewriting the biometric retention schedule for those under 18. Amendment No 11 would remove under-18s from the scope of the provisions on qualifying offences, which are some of the most serious crimes that a person can commit. We do not find that to be proportionate and believe that the amendments would weaken the well-constructed retention and destruction regime, which has been designed with the interests and rights of under-18s in mind.

Amendment No 35 would insert guidelines for guidance provided by the biometrics commissioner, including requirements for what information custody officers should provide. The biometrics commissioner is intended to be independent, and Alliance is of the belief that those directions could risk the independence of the commissioner.

Amendment No 28 would remove the two-year retention period for penalty notices issued to adults. Alliance believes that the current provisions are appropriate, particularly as they include behaviour such as criminal damage. I was also concerned to read about proposals that would diminish and take away the role of the PSNI in the appeal process regarding biometric material. Under current proposals, decisions could be reviewed by a different and more senior officer with no prior involvement. It is the belief of my party that disqualifying the PSNI from carrying out the appeal process is not workable or appropriate.

Lastly, I will address amendment No 38 under Gerry Carroll's name on the duty to provide information to persons whose biometric data is taken. It is my understanding that, as with some of the suggested provisions from Sinn Féin, that is to be addressed via PACE codes, subject to public consultation and Assembly scrutiny. I think it pertinent to emphasise that the new biometric retention framework will not be commenced until regulations are in place, which will still take some time. Those regulations will be subject to further public consultation and Assembly scrutiny processes. The conversation is not one that will disappear after the Bill; instead, it will probably be discussed more and more frequently across our justice system.

With that in mind, Alliance is proud to support the provisions that Minister Long has proposed today. They will ensure that we have a proportionate and balanced human rights approach to biometric data retention and destruction across Northern Ireland.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Consideration Stage of this important Bill as a member of the Justice Committee.

I acknowledge and deeply thank the wide range of organisations, legal professionals and Assembly staff for the extensive work that they have undertaken to support the scrutiny of the proposed legislation during the prolonged Committee Stage. I also thank the young people who engaged with us during a round-table event on the Bill.

It is important to acknowledge that young people and children's rights organisations, including the Children's Law Centre, the Commissioner for Children and Young People, Include Youth, the Voice of Young People in Care (VOYPIC), Barnardo's, the Youth Assembly and others, highlighted significant concerns about the existing systems that deal with children and young people in the justice system, the negative impacts of the perpetuation of social stigma, which undermine rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending, alongside the ongoing lack of suitable bail accommodation for children and young people here.

We all have a duty, in the context of prison population pressures and the overall higher youth reoffending rate here, to assess the structural barriers to reintegration following both criminalisation and custody, including the ways in which economic disparity and social alienation are driving reoffending due to unmet need and systematic exclusion, alongside how proposals will contribute to strengthening early intervention, diversion and community alternatives to detention.

I therefore want to focus on a few important amendments tabled by Sinn Féin in relation to restricting the right to retain the biometric data of children and young people under 18. As my party colleague has mentioned today, the Marper ruling in the European Court of Human Rights sets an important precedent in relation to how any blanket or indiscriminate retention must be considered in the context of proportionality and balancing the right to privacy. When it comes to the retention framework of those under 18, Sinn Féin, like many organisations with which the Committee engaged throughout its deliberations on the Bill, remains seriously concerned that the Bill as drafted goes beyond what is necessary. Whilst I note that the Bill as drafted includes shorter retention periods for under-18s than for adults, that was carried over from schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act (NI) 2013. It was approved 13 years ago, but it has never been commenced. It is now 2026. Sinn Féin supports a stronger differentiation for the special position of children and young people than that which has been proposed. Many of the children's rights organisations also noted their support for that in our Committee meetings.

Whilst the Minister suggests a breadth of different retention periods from five years to 25 years for those convicted of a minor offence with a custodial sentence of less than five years but with a previous conviction, we want to see a similar model to that adopted by Scotland, which is set out in a code of practice. That is a statutory code of practice from 2022, not something from 2013. We want to see it reflected in the terms of reference for the biometrics commissioner for its phase 1 thematic review of biometric data relating to children. In 2020, Scotland took a whole-system approach to youth justice, focusing on keeping children out of the formal justice system as far as possible and with recognition of the principles of proportionality, necessity and presumption of innocence. Due consideration and acknowledgement must be given to the specific risks of stigmatisation of children and young people. Minister, I know that you do not believe that the proposals would cause stigmatisation. However, proposals must marry with our duty to protect and uphold the best interests of a child. The Children's Law Centre clearly set out its serious belief that this will significantly undermine the presumption of innocence and due process. The retention of records casts suspicion on young people who have been, for instance, acquitted, thus implying that they are not wholly innocent.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mrs Long: We have already established via a number of interventions that, if somebody is acquitted, it is only in extreme circumstances — where the biometrics commissioner judges that it is necessary — that their data will be held. Otherwise, that would be in breach of human rights law. I am not sure why we are still repeating the myth that people who are acquitted of serious offences, or any offences, will continue to have their biometrics held. That is not the case.

Ms Ferguson: Clause 1 introduces a new article 63G(3) on persons arrested for or charged with a qualifying offence, which states:

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mrs Long: That three-year period is to allow for where somebody has not been charged because the investigation may be ongoing. The police need a grace period during which they can hold and retain that data, and it may become pertinent at another point in their investigation. When someone is acquitted of a crime, it is a requirement of the law that their data will be removed from the database. Only by exception, where the biometrics commissioner agrees that it is necessary, will the police be allowed to retain it for longer. This is simply to ensure that, if someone is a person of interest regarding a criminal offence that is under investigation and is not immediately charged, but the investigation then moves forward, their data is not having to be asked for again. It is simply retained for a short period of three years and not for an extensive period.

Mr Speaker: Ms Ferguson, whenever you give way to someone, you resume your seat.

Ms Ferguson: Oh, sorry. Apologies.

Mr Speaker: No, it is OK. Do not worry. I am just advising. There is only ever one person standing in the Chamber. Thank you. Continue, Ms Ferguson.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Ms Ferguson: Yes.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. What might be helpful for the debate is if the Minister could give examples of extreme or exceptional circumstances in which the data would be held after the person is deemed to be innocent.

Ms Ferguson: I am happy to allow the Minister to respond.

Mrs Long: I am happy to do so. The purpose of the next stage of this, which is to consult on the powers of the biometrics commissioner, will be the decision point of what those thresholds will be. If you read what is in the Bill and the proposed amendments, the purpose is to ensure that those who are found innocent can have their data removed quickly and effectively from the database. Those who are found guilty will have it retained in a way that they can understand, and they can also understand how they can appeal that decision. Where a case remains open, the PSNI retains the data but has to check it every five years to make sure that the case is indeed under investigation so that data is not retained unnecessarily. It is a balance of rights, but it will ultimately come down to the biometrics commissioner deciding that a case is so exceptional that it requires a deviation from what is set out.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her intervention, but I am not going to rest the case. This is not Sinn Féin saying this regarding the stigma for young people and the negative impact that it will have on them. This is all the children's rights organisations that came to the Committee and spoke quite clearly of the impact that it will have on our young people.

In Scotland, biometric data for those under the age of 18 is captured and retained only for those arrested for violent or sexual offences or otherwise by exception. Since the adoption of that model in 2024, there has been a significant decrease in the number of children who have had their biometric data retained. The Assembly should, in the strong view of my party, apply equal caution to the creation of any system in which children who have committed minor offences or, indeed, who have not been convicted at all, risk having their biometric data retained by the state. We would support a similar approach to Scotland whereby a child's data can be retained for three years for qualifying offences that are considered to be the most serious recordable offences and represent the greatest harm to society unless the police apply for, and are granted by a court, an extension of two further years. As my colleague noted in relation to Paul and his question earlier, those extensions can be granted repeatedly. There is no maximum. Importantly, there should be strong justification for any prolonged retention of children's biometric data, and the risks associated with its processing must be recognised, assessed and managed. For less serious offences and where grounds are not established, there should be no retention of children's data.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the justice system, so arguing for data retention on the basis of investigating future crime is a highly contested human rights issue. We support a position that mandates children's rights to be actively evaluated during all ongoing biometric storage assessments and provides for children to be adequately informed in a manner understandable to them and for suitable opportunities to be provided to children to verify the deletion of their personal data.

Given a wealth of evidence that demonstrates the criminogenic stigma and negative impact on children's life chances arising from contact with the criminal justice system, Sinn Féin believes that we must seriously consider the extent to which any measures proposed may result in undue stigmatisation or reduced opportunity for genuine reintegration. Significant reform is needed across our justice system to make it more efficient, transparent and worthy of public confidence. Whilst it must be victim-centred and capable of delivering community safety and public confidence, it must, in all its undertakings, also be rooted in respect for human rights.

Our proposals are reflected in amendments Nos 11 to 13 and 23 and 24. I therefore encourage all Members to support those amendments.

Mr Kingston: I will speak as a DUP member of the Committee for Justice, which I joined last September. This Justice Bill is certainly wide-ranging. My colleague Paul Frew reminded us that he had called it "half a Bill", because of the number of clauses and topics that were not ready to be included when the Justice Minister introduced it. Paul also pointed out that the pack with the text of the amendments is thicker than the original Bill, but he agreed that he was responsible for some of those amendments.

The many additions to the Bill made it challenging for the Committee to ensure that there was proper scrutiny and evidence-gathering during Committee Stage. We were notified of some topics without their proposed wording, some of which did not ultimately proceed.

The amendments in group 1 relate to Part 1, on rules for the retention of biometric data, including fingerprints and DNA profiles. The group contains Committee amendments relating to the retention of photographs, provision for which the Committee agreed should be included.

The time limit on the retention of biometric data can, in various circumstances, be two, three, five, 25, 50 or 75 years. We can all accept the need for a range of retention periods: a shorter period in the case of those who are arrested but not yet charged or convicted, and, at the top end of the scale, a longer period for those convicted of recordable offences, including the most serious offences, that carry a potential prison sentence. Clearly, there is a range of views in the Chamber on the amendments on the detail of that.

We have amendments from the Minister and from individual MLAs, and the full Committee agreed to the tabling of some amendments. Some amendments are from Sinn Féin. I note that its new-found interest in the retention of biometric data contrasts with its position on 23 September 1992, when the IRA exploded a 3,000 lb van bomb outside the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory at Belvoir in Belfast in an attempt to destroy evidence in terrorism cases. I was at football training at Olympia leisure centre on the Boucher Road that evening, and I well recall the sound of that massive explosion echoing around the city. Over 1,000 homes in Newtownbreda were damaged by that bomb, and many people were injured. No doubt Sinn Féin will tell us that there was no alternative to that, but there certainly was an alternative, and, nearly 34 years later, here we are in the Northern Ireland Assembly discussing amendments from Sinn Féin and other parties to ensure the retention of biometric matter in order to help convict those who are responsible for crimes such as the terrorism that occurred on that night in 1992.

The Committee for Justice identified the need for a clause on the retention, use and destruction of photographs, and we reached agreement on that: it is amendment No 40.

I note the various amendments to the PACE codes in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, most of which have been tabled by the Minister and relate to:

and:

I welcome the fact that the Bill has finally reached Consideration Stage so that we can determine the Assembly's position on the 132 amendments that have been tabled to the Bill.

Ms Finnegan: I reference the fact that, in 1992, I was four.

Sinn Féin supports the introduction of a new biometric data framework, because we believe that the retention of biometric data must always be based on the clear principles of necessity, proportionality and justification.

I want to take a moment to focus on the issue of photographs. The absence of a framework for the retention, use and deletion of photographs is a glaring omission and needs to be rectified urgently. I am therefore pleased to support amendment No 40, which provides the Department with a time-limited, regulation-making power to introduce a new framework for photographs.

While the Bill is primarily intended to remedy issues arising from judgements in the European Court of Human Rights, it is vital that we future-proof the legislation in a way that takes account of emerging technologies. The roll-out of AI and facial recognition technologies in the South, in Britain and across Europe is a development that all of us must keep a close eye on, due to the risk of misuse and miscarriages of justice from unproven technology. We know that AI in particular is only as good as the data that it is trained on. If historical police data reflects bias, AI can reinforce those patterns rather than correct them. There is a real risk that AI can be extended to facial recognition technology that, when processed, becomes biometric material for police services. It is not sustainable not to have a legal framework for dealing with that material.

Photographs are no longer just photographs. In an increasingly digital world, with increasing surveillance, photographs are a key biometric identifier that can be shared across borders and international law-enforcement agencies. It is vital that proportionate safeguards are put in place to curtail potential abuses of that data. I welcome the Committee's scrutiny of the matter, and I am pleased to support the Committee's amendment. I welcome the Minister's earlier comments to Mr Frew. While the Committee amendment states that the regulations must be introduced within five years, I encourage the Minister to act with urgency and to introduce a new photographs framework as quickly as she can. I know that she has agreed to that today. If it can be done more quickly than that, I am sure that all MLAs would welcome the opportunity to scrutinise and implement the regulations as soon as possible.

I will quickly touch on some of Sinn Fein's amendments on biometrics. There is a concern that the data of children and young people should be retained because of the potential risk of reoffending, and my colleague outlined that. However, our position is clear: we have learned from other jurisdictions that positive outcomes can be achieved without unnecessarily stigmatising young people. Our amendment still allows for the retention of biometric data where an individual has been convicted of a qualifying offence or an expected offence. What we oppose is the automatic retention of sensitive personal data without sufficient justification. The Minister has pointed to a reduced retention period for under-18s. While that is welcome, it does not go far enough. We support a model similar to that operating in Scotland, where retention beyond the initial period must be justified and approved in exceptional circumstances.

We have also heard arguments that data should be retained where a person has not been convicted but concerns remain about their behaviour. We must be careful here. The starting point of any democratic justice system is the presumption of innocence. If an individual has not been convicted, any interference with their privacy rights must be demonstrably necessary and proportionate. Biometric information is deeply personal and sensitive data, and it must be treated accordingly.

While the Bill proposes review and appeal mechanisms, those arrangements have yet to be fully developed or scrutinised. Sinn Féin believes that there must be genuinely independent oversight of retention decisions. The biometrics commissioner should have a stronger case-handling role and sufficient powers to ensure public confidence in the system.

At its core, the debate is about striking the right balance between public safety and individual rights. We believe that the amendments achieve that balance, and, for those reasons, Sinn Féin will support them.

Mr Bradley: The more Members who spoke, the more pages I folded up and put into my wee book. Thank you very much.

As a member of the Justice Committee, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this group of amendments, which relate to biometric data, police photographs and the wider framework governing the retention of personal information by law enforcement agencies. I recognise the input that the Minister and her Department have had through the amendments to the Bill that they have tabled.

The issues before us today engage some of the most important principles in our justice system. On the one hand, there is a legitimate expectation that police and prosecuting authorities should have access to the tools necessary to prevent crime, protect the public and bring offenders to justice, but, on the other hand, there is an equally important obligation to ensure that the collection, retention and use of personal information is proportionate, transparent and consistent with individual rights and freedoms. Evidence taken throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill repeatedly highlighted the need to strike the correct balance between those competing interests. Public confidence depends not only on effective policing but on the existence of clear safeguards, independent oversight and public accountability.

Many of the amendments in the group are technical and consequential and are designed to improve the operation of the legislative framework. Others raise more substantive questions about the retention of biometric material relating to children and young people, the role of independent oversight, the treatment of restorative justice outcomes, rights of notification and appeal and the future regulation of police photographs.

As we consider the amendments, several key questions should guide our deliberations. Does the framework support effective policing and public protection? Does it provide appropriate safeguards against unnecessary retention? Does it recognise the interests of victims as well as the rights of individuals? Ultimately, will it command the confidence of the public, whom we are here to serve? Those are not straightforward issues, nor should they be approached simplistically.

The House must seek a balanced and workable framework that protects public safety and fundamental rights. At a time when policing faces increasing challenges from serious organised crime, paramilitary activity and emerging technological threats, it is essential that we do not inadvertently weaken the legitimate investigative tools available to the PSNI. Equally, where the state retains highly sensitive personal information, there must be a clear safeguards, robust oversight and public accountability. The challenge before the House is to ensure that both those objectives are achieved.

With those considerations in mind, I will address amendment No 40, which is important. I must confess that I have a digital archive that goes back to 2005, a digital negative archive that goes back to 1972 and a personal archive that goes back to the late 1800s, so I am aware of how archives work. Amendment No 40 addresses an issue that has attracted increasing attention over recent years, namely the retention, use and destruction of photographs held by enforcement agencies. Given developments in technology and the growing public concerns surrounding privacy and data protection, it is reasonable that a clear statutory framework be developed. I welcome the Department's consultation with key bodies, including the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the Human Rights Commission and the Justice Committee. Any future framework must strike the correct balance between protecting privacy rights and ensuring that law enforcement agencies retain the tools necessary to investigate crime and protect the public. It is particularly important that any regulations are workable in practice and do not unintentionally hinder legitimate policing activity.

Overall, the amendments engage with important questions of transparency, oversight, public protection and confidence in the justice system. As with all amendments, the challenge before the House is to ensure that the appropriate safeguards exist while preserving the PSNI's operational effectiveness and maintaining a strong focus on victims and public safety. While I support the principle of greater clarity on the retention and use of photographs, we must ensure that any future regulatory framework does not become so restrictive that it limits the ability of the PSNI to investigate crime properly. The public expect robust safeguards, but they also expect the police to have the tools necessary to identify offenders, protect victims and keep communities safe.

I look forward to the continuing debate on the Justice Bill and the amendments.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech on the group 1 amendments. Apologies. Not quite yet. I call Mr Carroll.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I knew you would not forget about me. [Laughter.]

There are a lot of technical amendments in the group but also a lot of important issues that Members have addressed. I am not on the Committee, but it is my right, as it is the right of any Member, to table amendments. I am sure that Committee members will keep me right if I go astray.

This part of the Bill contains some of the most important and fundamental justice questions. How much data will the state keep and for how long, particularly if you have done nothing wrong? As other Members have said, we are debating ending the indefinite retention of DNA and fingerprints because the state was dragged into doing something not once but twice by the European Court of Human Rights. For the best part of two decades, rights have been breached here because holding biometric data indefinitely breaches article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts have plainly said that, and successive Ministers have sat on their hands. We should welcome the move away from a blanket, indefinite retention of biometric data, but that is only the bare minimum required to stop the state breaking the law.

As Members have stated, the Bill replaces a keep-it-for-ever model with a 70/50/25-year model. For most people, 75 years is their entire adult life, and that is indefinite retention by another name for a huge number of people. I believe that the experts who came to Committee said that we should move towards a genuine proportionality model. I am happy to give way to the Minister if she can tell us where the proportionality is in the Bill? Why is it 75 years and not a model tied to the seriousness of the offence and the evidence of reoffending on a case-by-case basis? I will give way.

Mrs Long: First, it is tied to the seriousness of the offence because the 75 years is for serious and adult offending. Secondly, it is proportionate because there are opportunities for people to seek a review of whether their data should continue to be held. They have the opportunity to go to the biometrics commissioner and request that the data be reviewed, and that gives the proportionality. It is not the Department’s interpretation of the Bill, and it is certainly not its advice.

"Indefinite retention" means that the period of retention is not defined, and it means that people cannot challenge whether the data can continue to be held. That definition is supported by the European Court of Human Rights in the Gaughran judgement because the UK argued that its indefinite retention was similar to other member states that had long retention periods, and the ECHR ruled otherwise.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for her intervention. I suggest that a case-by-case basis is a better format than 75 years, which is indefinite retention by another name.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mrs Long: As I said, a case-by-case basis is neither practical nor does it give people sight of how long the data will be retained at the point when it is taken, whereas this model gives clarity and certainty. It also means that the data will be subject to review after a certain period because there are maximum retention periods, and the review means that, if the material is found to be no longer necessary for a policing purpose, it can be deleted. The model gives maximum retention periods, and it is important to distinguish that from standard periods.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that, Minister. I do not understand why it is not practical, but I will move on.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way because it is a very important issue. The Member states clearly that 75 years is a long time: so it is. However, if he does not like the 75/50/25 model and wants a case-by-case basis, how would that stand up to a challenge? How could a framework be put in place on a case-by-case basis?

Mr Carroll: That is a fair enough question.

Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will come to the Member in a second.

I asked the Minister about it because she drafted the Bill and has the resources to put it in place. She has taken a different perspective, which she is entitled to do, and that is why I posed the question.

I will give way to the Member for East Derry.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. It is important to note that the Human Rights Commission’s advice was that the 75/50/25 model is too broadly constituted, disproportionate and not compatible with article 8. That should be the standard that we set for ourselves.

Mr Carroll: I thank Members for intervening. I agree with the Member.

I will move on slightly. As we have heard, excessive data retention periods have a particularly harmful effect on young people.

They do stigmatise young people, despite what the Minister said earlier. If the Minister is serious about strengthening children's rights, the state should not be empowered and enabled to build a database that holds on to information, not exclusively but primarily, relating to working-class teenagers' DNA for 50 years because of a mistake or a non-serious or less serious crime. I thank the Sinn Féin Members for raising those points and for their amendments.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will give way in a second.

Those amendments replace the original long, fixed and stigmatising data retention periods for children with a short review-gated model, which is the right approach and one that is rooted in children's rights and protection. Those are not only my words; that is the view of many human rights organisations and children's rights organisations that addressed the Committee.

I will give way to the Minister.

Mrs Long: The 50-year retention period is for serious offending and repeat offending. It is not as simple as saying that it is for all offending. Actually, the standard retention periods for young people are shorter, but they are also accompanied by an earlier review point in the system to ensure that young people can move on, as we all hope they do and as the Youth Justice Agency very effectively ensures that the majority of our young people who offend are able to, and have that data removed from the database. This is about checks and balances. There is no one right system. That was made clear by the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, who said that there are a number of models that fit with the rules of the ECHR — not a single model — and that there is no gold standard anywhere. There are a variety of models, and this is one. It is also geared towards ensuring that children are given special dispensation, as is right.

Mr Carroll: OK.

There are also serious concerns about the provisions related to police photographs, and I hope that either the Minister or the Chair will come in as I raise issues. The Minister's amendments — the new clause and the new schedule — give the police a power to take photographs and compel people to return to a station at a specified date and time in order to be photographed, fingerprinted and sampled. That is being presented as an operational fix, putting photographs on the same footing as DNA and fingerprints. However, far more significant is the Committee's amendment that creates an enabling power: a power for the Department to bring in, by regulation, a whole framework for the retention and use of police photographs within five years. The Committee acknowledged that that is being done because the policy work and public consultation have not been undertaken.

I have concerns about that, regardless of who the Minister is now or may be in the future. What does a framework for the retention and use of photographs mean in 2026? It means a facial image database. Facial images are the raw material of facial recognition and biometric surveillance. It seems that, on a matter that goes to the heart of everyone's privacy, we are being asked to hand the Department a blank cheque, by regulation, with a fraction of the scrutiny that primary legislation gets.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the reason that the Minister is bringing a Bill to put a structure in place for biometrics is the same reason that we, in the Committee, feel that it would be right to have a framework in place so that we can all judge, look at, see and understand issues related to photographs, too. If you like, the Committee is trying to include photographs in that biometrics framework so that you and everyone else, including the public, will know exactly how long images will be in the system before they are destroyed. That is really important, especially in the context, as the Member spoke about, of technical and digital advancement when it comes to photographs and images.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Chair for that intervention.

Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member giving way. He has been very generous with his time, as Members generally have been, which is good, because it is better that we have these open exchanges.

The reason that the Department did not put it in the Bill is because the work had not been done to bottom that out. Work was to be done by the Home Office and others, so the Department felt that it was not the right time to do it. The Committee, however — correctly, on this occasion — felt that creating an enabling power that would allow the Department to do it would, given the pace of change, allow us to go forward. To be clear, there will be public consultation as part of that. It will be done by regulation, but it will come to the House and will be subject to affirmative procedure. We are not stifling people's ability to scrutinise that, because I recognise that that is important. The issue is around the use of those photographs, which is a separate issue from their retention and how they are handled. There is no doubt that that will also have to be dealt with in short order around, for example, AI usage, facial recognition software and so on. However, that is a separate issue to the retention, which is what this deals with. If the Member is concerned about those issues, there will be other opportunities to deal with them.

Mr Carroll: OK. I thank the Minister and the Chair for that.

On the position of the commissioner for the retention of biometric material, I think that one of the Members opposite raised the question of independence from the Department and PSNI. If I heard correctly, the Minister has the power to appoint the commissioner. Did I pick that up correctly?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Yes.

Mrs Long: First of all, the commissioner has to be appointed. The commissioner will also have to provide a report to the Department. That report will be a purely factual one on the operations of the commissioner during the previous year. It will be laid in the Assembly. There will be no opportunity for the Minister to interfere with the operations of the commissioner, but it will give the accountability that the Members opposite said that they wanted in that the report will be laid in the Assembly, and they will then be free to take up any concerns or issues that they have with the commissioner.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving us that information. While I think that the concern about independence remains, I appreciate that information.

I also ask whether the commissioner will be given the remit to keep the whole retention regime, including looking at a future photographs and facial recognition framework, under meaningful review. The Committee was right to be alarmed that Part 1 has no commencement time frame. It wants to insert a five-year backstop. Every day that the old indefinite regime stays in force is another day that the state is doing to people exactly what the courts told it to stop doing. I press the Minister to move this at speed.

In summary, my party and I will support moving away from indefinite retention because the current law is an ongoing breach of people's rights, and that has to end. However, we have serious concerns that the photographs power is a surveillance framework that is being smuggled in through the back door, with the promise to fill in the detail later.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Before he stops, can he clarify whether, when he talks about a case-by-case basis, he means certain crimes, such as murder compared with manslaughter, or, say, two people have been murdered as opposed to one person? How many culprits are involved? Can he explain what he would use as a measuring tool when designing a case-by-case model for the retention of biometrics?

Mr Carroll: A case-by-case model is the preferred model. The current one is too blanket. The Minister should look at a case-by-case model to explore what the best options are. That would be a better preferred model in a general sense, rather than any prescriptive model that I could give on my feet here.

I will move on to my own amendment No 38. It is based on quite a simple idea, which is that, if the state is to take a person's DNA or fingerprints and hold them on a police database for years or decades, the least that it can do is tell that person the truth about what it is doing. The amendment simply says that, when your biometric material is taken, you are handed, in writing, five plain facts. There is nothing groundbreaking here. Those facts are: the legal basis on which your data is taken, how long it can be kept, when it must be destroyed, what your rights are and how you can find out more about it. It also says that, if any of that changes later — say, if the clock is reset on the retention period because you are charged or convicted, or because a national security determination is made — you are told in writing as soon as possible.

We are rightly debating amendments to give people the right to review their retained material and the right to ask for confirmation that their data has been destroyed. Those are obviously welcome and important amendments. However, I say to Members that a right that you have never been told about is not really a right in anybody's definition. You cannot appeal a decision that you do not know was taken. You cannot ask for your DNA to be deleted if you do not know that it is still being held. Amendment No 38 makes all those other protections actually work, because it puts the information in the citizen's hands rather than leaving it locked inside a PSNI computer or database somewhere. The presumption of innocence should, at the very least, mean that an innocent person is told that the state is holding their DNA and why. Working-class communities that have lived under the eye of the state for generations know exactly what it is like to be watched, stopped, photographed and recorded. For people whom I represent in West Belfast, the principle that you have the right to know what the state holds on you is extremely important indeed. That is the bare minimum that a person is owed when the state takes parts of their body and keeps that. For that reason, I ask all Members to support the amendment.

To return to the Minister's questions earlier about my amendment, from my understanding of her intervention, the Minister said that that would be covered in the PACE code. If she and other Members have no issue with the principle of and intent behind the amendment, there should be no issue with putting it through and putting it in the Bill.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: I will.

Mrs Long: What I said was that the second part of the amendment would be dealt with through PACE codes. The first part of the amendment does not fall within the competence of the Assembly, because it relates to terrorism offences and other reserved measures. You cannot pass one part of the amendment without passing both parts. That is why I suggest that Members resist that amendment, but I offer you the reassurance that we are not actually opposed to what you are trying to achieve in the PACE codes being taken up.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate that, Minister, but I say, respectfully, that it is not the Minister's role to say whether amendments are legislatively competent or not. I think that this one is, and I would —. [Inaudible.]

Mr Carroll: That is your opinion. That is fair enough, but there is a [Inaudible.]

There is an opportunity to put data transparency and accountability in the Bill rather than wait years — that is my concern — for the PACE codes of practice to be updated, if they eventually are at all. People who agree with and stand by those principles should vote for the amendment.

Regarding the possibility of legislative incompetence, I dispute the Minister's assertion that it is not competent. The amendment is about the responsible officer providing written notice when a national security determination status changes. It is not about changing that status or interfering with reserved matters. It is about responding to changes in status with relevant written information. That is what is stated in the amendment, and I urge Members to back that amendment.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I now call the Minister of Justice to make a winding-up speech on this group of amendments.

Mrs Long: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am encouraged by the engagement that we have had today. It was a good debate with a good exchange of views, and I thank everyone who contributed to it. It was very helpful.

At the outset, as comment was passed on the extent to which the Bill has been amended, I say that that was well rehearsed at Second Reading, and we had the conversation about it. I say it again: there are reasons for the many amendments. Two and a half years of a suspension and our limited mandate on coming back meant that we needed to get the Bill introduced. We had a year and a half in Committee Stage, and many unexpected things emerged during that period. Therefore, it is important that we are able to respond, because this will be the only wide vehicle that will be available in this mandate to make changes to justice matters, with the Bills that deal with sentencing and victims and witnesses of crime being much more constrained in scope.

Biometrics, however, which is the group that we are debating, were contained in the Bill at introduction. The amendments that are being made are to make them operate as intended after the stress-testing that we did. Of course, under normal circumstances, that stress-testing would be done before we introduced the provisions. However, I caution Members against voting for individual amendments to that regime that have not been stress-tested with operational partners, given that, even though the Department had developed those over a number of years, stress-tested them with partners and then had to come forward with further amendments, to change the Bill at this stage, without having done that due diligence, endangers what we are trying to achieve, however well-intentioned those amendments may be.

With respect to the background to —.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister raises an important point that alludes to what I said earlier. The Department and the Minister have adopted that model and plumped for it, rightly or wrongly. She and I have said that there are no gold standards and no system perfect. She is right in what she says about Members starting to cherry-pick that structure. I looked at it and struggled to see where I could make changes to convince myself that that would improve the balance between human rights and the enforcement of law.

Mrs Long: I appreciate that. That is the point that I wish to make.

On the background to Part 1 of the Bill on biometrics, a number of Members mentioned the Gaughran and Marper judgements. In S and Marper v UK, the court held that holding biometric material of a non-convicted individual is a violation of their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the convention. That is what the provisions are designed to address. In Gaughran, the court held that the indefinite retention of biometric material of persons convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment without reference to the seriousness of the offence and in the absence of any real possibility of a review was a breach of a person's right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the convention. That judgement was also helpful, as it gave guidance on how a compliant retention framework in the UK might be structured. On the basis of that, it appears that the way to do that is to ensure that any new retention framework takes account of the seriousness of the offence, any continuing need to retain the biometric material for policing and criminal reasons and that a review process is in place to allow individuals to request the deletion of their material, which would include taking into account possible changes in their personality and, presumably, their likelihood of further offending. It should also take into account the age of the person when he or she was convicted and the length of time between the offence and the end of the retention period. The new 75/50/25-year retention framework, along with the new review process, addresses those findings in full.

I am not saying that it is the only available model. Other models are available. Members have referred to, for example, the Scottish model. However, I caution Members that the Scottish legal system is different from ours. For example, cases can be determined not only by finding someone innocent or guilty but by reaching a verdict of "not proven". We do not have that verdict here. The Scottish system takes a different approach in the retention of data in those circumstances. Simply lifting and transposing arrangements is not necessarily best.

The 75/50/25-year model was developed following consideration of Sunita Mason's review of the criminal records regime in Northern Ireland, which recommended that criminal record information should be kept until the subject reaches the age of 100. Limited information is available on retention regimes across Europe, but there is certainly no standout country that sets the standard for good practice. As part of policy development, in 2020, the Department considered the 2014 report by Kristiina Reed and Denise Syndercombe-Court, entitled 'A Comparative Audit of Legislative Frameworks within the European Union for the Collection, Retention and Use of Forensic DNA Profiles'. That report sets out that Estonia, Finland and Luxembourg hold biometric data until the offender dies, and they factor in various timelines for retention after death. Slovakia and Latvia hold material for at least 75 years. Denmark holds material until the offender reaches the age of 80. The Netherlands retains DNA profiles of convicted individuals for 20, 30, 50 or 80 years, depending on the seriousness of the offence and the conviction.

While all those were possible models for us to consider, it was the 75/50/25-year retention period model, which included a review mechanism, that we considered, human rights-proofed, took legal advice on and stress-tested with our operational partners. That reflects the guidance that we have from the court and takes into account good practice from the frameworks across Europe without being slavish in following them. It also removes indefinite retention. It has different retention periods for minor recordable offences and more serious qualifying offences, and it means a reduction in retention periods for those convicted of less serious crimes and for children. I think that we are agreed that all of that is good practice. The proposals strike an appropriate balance between the article 2 and article 8 convention rights that engage with DNA profiles and fingerprinting and balance properly the protection of the public, the ability to investigate crime and the human rights of individuals.

I have no doubt that Members have come to the Chamber with other amendments in good faith and with good intent. While I understand the intention behind the amendments, I cannot support them. I suggest that, given that the Committee was unable to agree a series of amendments collectively over the past 18 months that could have been tested more fully in cooperation with the Department, it would be unwise to make those changes at this stage, as they could change or make unworkable or indefensible the regime that we have put before you today, which has carefully balanced those rights.

I want to be clear about the independence of the biometrics commissioner. They will be absolutely independent in discharging their duties. I am often criticised and scorned when I stand here and say that something is an operational matter for whichever body it may be. It is important that, when people are there to provide public confidence and have an independent role, we do not meddle politically in their independence, and so it must be with the biometrics commissioner. Nor will they be answerable to the PSNI, quite the contrary. The only reporting that is required is as for any sponsorship arrangement between a Department and a commissioner. The biometrics commissioner will submit an annual factual report to DOJ on the exercise of their functions, and that will be laid before the Assembly for Members' information and scrutiny. That does not compromise their independence in any way. The biometrics commissioner will not be accountable to the police, nor could they be so.

Much has been said about the issue of age, and much will be said about it in the days to come, as we look at, for example, the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) statistics show, however, that a greater proportion of youths than adults go on to reoffend. Since 2010-11, the rate of reoffending has also generally been higher for those who committed their first recorded offence in their early teenage years, while that rate steadily declines as age increases. Those are the statistics that we need to look at. There is therefore a need to retain material from under-18s for a period to assist with solving future crime and to act as a deterrent against future offending. Part of the reason that we desperately try to do early intervention with young people is to keep them away from the justice system. Once they enter the formal justice system, there are long-term consequences, of which this is a necessary one.

I will now speak about the specific special arrangements for under-18s, which are set lower than those for adults. The retention period for an under-18 who is convicted of a first minor offence and receives a sentence other than a custodial one is set at five years. The vast majority of young people under the age of 18 are not held in custody. The vast majority, particularly those under 14, are dispensed with by way of alternatives; indeed, there is an increase in the use of non-custodial disposals for those aged between 14 and 18. If the sentence is other than a custodial one, the period is five years.

The period for an under-18 who is convicted of a first minor offence and receives a custodial sentence of less than five years is five years plus the length of their custody. It is therefore five years, which is the same as if it were not a custodial sentence, plus the length of the sentence. The period for an under-18 who is convicted of a minor offence with a custodial sentence of less than five years but who has a previous conviction moves to 25 years, because they are a repeat offender. It is logical and proportionate to do that, because, if somebody has reoffended, their data and DNA may be more useful in future cases, should they have a propensity to reoffend. Where it is their first offence, there is no presumption that they will go on to reoffend. The period for under-18 cautions, including a restorative caution or an informed warning, is five years. The period for an under-18 diversionary youth conference is five years.

It is also important to note that special considerations are given to under-18s by way of the review mechanism, which, again, will be subject to consultation, so that we can look at how we ensure that under-18s, including, in some cases, those who have committed quite serious offences, are not unnecessarily criminalised. That is something that I believe in, and I have defended the work of the Youth Justice Agency at the Dispatch Box many times over the years. The work that it does to divert young people from offending, from interaction with the police and the justice system and from negative engagement in their own communities is vital and excellent work. None of us wants to unpick that, but, equally, if someone is offending repeatedly as an under-18, that has to be taken into account in how long their DNA profile can be held at the maximum. That does not mean that, if that young person grows up and applies for a review of the decision because they have settled and are now a different person, that will be refused.

I will move on to the issues around photographs, about which much has been said. Part 1 focuses solely on DNA and fingerprints because the Department's immediate priority is to address the compliance issues arising from the amendments to the PACE (NI) Order made in the Criminal Justice Act 2013 that were never commenced and related solely to DNA and fingerprints. The retention and use of photographs is a more complex issue, and it is important that sufficient time is given for proper stakeholder engagement and full public consultation; I agree with the Member for West Belfast in that regard. I am, however, content with the proposed Committee amendment, which will enable officials to take forward essential work in that area, informed by developments elsewhere, including emerging legislation and technological advances. The Department will work to have the regulations in place for commencement at the same time as the legislation covering the retention of fingerprints and DNA.

It is important to recognise that work is ongoing in the Home Office on images and how they will be held. It is useful for us to be consistent, because people may be arrested for different offences, some of which fall within the devolved legislative framework and some of which do not. It is important that people understand clearly and can draw on comparators for how their photographs may be used and how long they may be retained.

I am also content with the proposed Committee amendment on commencement arrangements. The Committee has suggested five years. To be clear, part of the issue with commencement is that considerable work needs to be done. We need a qualifying offences amendment order; prescribed circumstances regulations; review mechanism regulations; a PACE (Northern Ireland) code D revision order with a revised PACE code D; and a PACE (NI) application order. We need sufficient time to consult on those measures, draft legislation and progress each instrument through the Justice Committee and the Assembly's affirmative resolution procedure, and it will be an affirmative resolution procedure.

In parallel, the Home Office is required to legislate on excepted matters, including arrangements for national security determinations (NSDs). The excepted legislation to which the Member refers in his amendment is something that we cannot legislate on in the House. He has taken issue with my saying that it is not within our legislative competence, but it is not, and we have not sought the Home Secretary's permission to legislate on it today. We cannot legislate on reserved or excepted matters; that is recognised. We will need to work with the Home Office, coordinate and commence it alongside our new retention framework. The PSNI also requires time to develop, test and implement software systems to support the new framework. That will include testing with other criminal justice organisations, such as Causeway and Forensic Science NI. We believe that the Committee's proposed commencement arrangements would work and that we would be able to meet them. If we can move more quickly, we will do so, but much of the work is substantial and lies outwith my Department's responsibility. We intend to commence the new framework as soon as is practical.

I will clarify issues with Gerry Carroll's amendment. As I said at the outset, amendment No 38 includes a provision for individuals to receive written notification of when their retention period changes as a result of the making, removal or expiry of a national security determination. NSDs are not within our competence. They lie in the reserved space, and the UK Biometrics Commissioner has responsibility for their oversight. It is not possible for us to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which is an Act of the UK Government. Paragraph 2(c) of amendment No 38 is therefore outside the Assembly's competence.

Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Does she agree that the amendment is not about changing the national security determination but about notifying an individual when it changes, and that, if doing so is not within the Assembly's competence and we cannot make a simple amendment in that regard, it raises massive questions about how far policing and justice are devolved?

Mrs Long: We know how far justice is devolved, and it does not include terrorism. It does not; we know that. That was the case at devolution and has been ever since. That is recognised. We would not have the oversight. Our biometrics commissioner would not have the oversight of NSDs. How would we inform people about changes to their NSD, if we were not in charge of that and our biometrics commissioner had no oversight of it? The UK Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner has responsibility for that. They would have to do what you suggest around notifying anyone of a change. I cannot impose a duty on the UK Government. We are talking at cross purposes.

The amendment also contains some issues that are within the competence of the Assembly and to which I do not primarily object, but they would be more appropriately addressed through updates to PACE code D. That would be subject to public consultation, and the revised code would then be introduced alongside the new retention framework. While I have some sympathy with what the Member is trying to do, I cannot support his amendment today.

I hope that I have been able to offer the reassurances that Members have sought. A question was asked about reporting and scrutiny regarding the biometrics commissioner. In terms of awareness raising, this is key. People have said, "Well, how can you exercise a right that you don't know you have?" Part of the role of the biometrics commissioner will be to raise awareness of the biometrics structures that we are placing in statute. I was also asked directly whether the biometrics commissioner would be able to make recommendations and suggestions and to report on the operability and effectiveness of what we pass today, should we do so: the answer is, "Yes, they would". It would then be incumbent on the Department to consider those recommendations and the feedback, which would form part of the annual report. That report would be laid in the House, which would give Members around the Chamber the opportunity, if they so wish, to seek further changes in future in primary legislation to what we are proposing today.

With that said, I draw my remarks to a close.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Fasten your seat belts: there are quite a lot of votes to get through.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 2 is a paving amendment for amendment Nos 3 and 4.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 5 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 6.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 6 is a paving amendment for amendment Nos 8 and 10.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 13 is mutually exclusive to amendment Nos 14 to 17.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 14 is a paving amendment for amendment No 111.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 17 is a paving amendment for amendment No 111.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will not call amendment No 18, as it is consequential to amendment No 13, which was not made.

I will not call amendment Nos 14 to 17, and I will not call amendment No 19, as it is also consequential to amendment No 12, which was not made. Are you confused?

Mrs Long: Amendment Nos 14 to 17 have been taken.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, I know.

I will be guided by these-uns, Minister, if you do not mind.

I will not call amendment No 19, as it is consequential to amendment No 12, which was not made. I will not call amendment Nos 20 and 21, as they are consequential to amendment No 13, which was not made. If all that is clear, we will proceed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 24 is mutually exclusive with amendment Nos 25 to 27.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Amendment No 25 is a paving amendment for amendment No 26.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will not call amendment No 30, as it is consequential to amendment Nos 12 and 13, neither of which were made.

I am conscious that there will be more votes but that a suspension is scheduled in the Order Paper from 6.00 pm to 6.30 pm. I will suspend the sitting now, and we will return at 6.30 pm.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will not call amendment No 31, as it is consequential to amendment Nos 13, 23, 24 and 28, at least one of which has not been made.

Dr Aiken: Ladies and gentlemen, I will not call amendment No 33, as it is consequential to amendment Nos 13, 23, 24, and 28, at least one of which has not been made. Therefore, we move on to amendment No 34, which has already been debated.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Amendment No 36 is consequential to amendment No 8, which was made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will not call amendment No 37 as it is consequential to amendment No 12, which was not made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Carroll, your no has been duly noted.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We now come to the second group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 41, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 42 to 44, 49 to 65, 121, 124 and 125. Any links between the amendments in the group will be indicated at the appropriate point.

I call on the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice to move amendment No 41 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I beg to move amendment No 41:

Mr Frew: I welcome the chance to introduce this group of amendments. I will begin to speak as Chair of the Committee, and then I will speak to my amendments and make some remarks on the group in a personal capacity.

I turn to Committee amendments Nos 41, 42 and 43. During consideration of Part 2 of the Bill, the Committee heard from several organisations about the need to strengthen the considerations that the police and courts must have regard to when making decisions about a child's bail or remand. Clauses 4, 5 and 6 require the police and the courts to have regard to the juvenile's age, maturity and needs when making a determination about the release of a child on bail, the imposition of conditions for bail or whether the young person should be remanded in custody. In oral and written evidence to the Committee, respondents suggested that the matters that the police and courts must have regard to should include reference to the vulnerabilities of the child or young person.

The Committee explored the proposal further during oral evidence with Include Youth, and members heard that youth organisations see increased complexity of need from young people that could include mental health issues, drug and alcohol issues or a history of abuse, trauma or neglect. Therefore, whilst acknowledging that age, maturity and needs are required to be considered, Include Youth felt that looking at a young person's vulnerabilities could be important in capturing some of those things.

In our deliberations on the evidence received, we wrote to the Department requesting views on adding vulnerabilities to the matters to which the police and the courts must have regard when making decisions on bail and custody for young people.

The Committee asked whether the Minister would be prepared to table amendments to that effect to the relevant clauses in Part 2. In response, the Department stated:

Although the Minister did not intend to table amendments herself, she advised that she would not be opposed to the Committee's amendments. The Committee therefore tabled amendments Nos 41, 42 and 43 to insert ", vulnerabilities" after "maturity" in clauses 4, 5 and 6. I hope that the House will support those small but important amendments.

I will now speak to the Committee's amendment No 52, which is on the review of the use of live links. The measures in the Bill provide for the use of remote video interviewing by police and for the extension of the period of pre-charge detention. The Committee considers that there are benefits to be gained by the use of live links for those purposes, such as access to justice and improved efficiency in the justice system. The Committee therefore supports the placing of those measures on the statute book.

That does not mean, however, that concerns or issues were not raised about the live links provisions in the Bill and the planned ministerial amendments. The Committee heard that live links must not disadvantage victims, witnesses or defendants and must not result in rights being diminished. We repeatedly cautioned against the need to ensure that the use of remote videoconferencing did not become "live links by default". The need was highlighted for appropriate protections and safeguards in the use of live links, particularly for children and vulnerable people, to ensure that those involved can fully understand, consent to and participate in proceedings.

Children's groups advised that a balance must be struck between children's rights and the access to justice test. Children must be supported to make informed choices and to participate meaningfully in proceedings by the most appropriate method.

The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) advised that the use of a video link may cause additional barriers for some. Active consideration must therefore be given to providing the necessary accommodations for those with speech, language and communication needs. The need to ensure remote participants' access to information, guidance and other relevant documentation was also highlighted as being essential to ensuring that equal access to justice is maintained.

Evidence that the Committee received suggested that monitoring should be put in place to ensure that use of live links does not become the default approach and that live links are not used inappropriately. Such monitoring is also needed to ensure that the rights of all those involved are safeguarded and that live links are operated in the best interests of justice. In response to those concerns, the Department stated that it did not expect the situation to become one of "live links by default" and that the provisions would not serve as a replacement for in-person attendance.

The Department also pointed to proposed new article 46ZB, which includes a mandatory requirement to ensure that the use of the live link interview is not contrary to the interests of justice, the test for which, the Department stated:

In response to the assertion that monitoring will be required, the Department stated that it did not have a mechanism to monitor the use of live links and that their use in police custody settings would be a matter for the PSNI and would be subject to the normal monitoring arrangements of the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB), Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) and His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS).

During our deliberations on the Bill, Committee members indicated that they were content with the live links provisions but believed that their use should be monitored and evaluated in order to ensure that the concerns raised in the evidence that we had received did not materialise. We therefore asked whether the Minister would be content to bring forward such an amendment, providing her with a draft that had been prepared for the Committee by the Bill Clerk. In response, the Department advised that the Minister recognised that there may be benefits in having such a review mechanism but that the police have their own internal governance and monitoring arrangements. It also advised that the Minister would not bring forward an amendment but asked that, if the Committee were to bring forward such an amendment, it would include a requirement for the Department to appoint a suitable person to carry out a review rather than tasking the Department to carry out the review itself.

The Committee agreed on 12 March to introduce a review clause after clause 21 to report on whether and to what extent the use of live links in police custody has been effective. As suggested, the amendment allows the Department to appoint a suitable person or body to carry out the review. The review period is three years after the provisions come into operation, which should be sufficient time to see how live links are operating. The review will include quantitative data on the number of directions for participation in proceedings by different courts and tribunals and will also require an assessment of the extent to which the rights of persons participating in proceedings have been safeguarded. As I have said, throughout its taking evidence, the Committee heard of the need to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place, so that aspect of the review is essential.

The amendment also specifies the bodies that must be consulted during the review. Those are the Courts and Tribunals Service, the PSNI, the Human Rights Commission, the Children's Commissioner, the Law Society and any other body or person that the Department considers appropriate. The report on the review must be laid before the Assembly. We will therefore be able to scrutinise it to make sure that live links are operating effectively or to see where things need to be improved. I therefore trust that Members will support amendment No 65.

Amendment Nos 53 to 64, which propose new clauses, and amendment No 125, which proposes a new schedule, are ministerial amendments to the provisions on live links for courts and tribunals. As I said in the debate on the first group of amendments, before the introduction of the Bill, the Committee was advised of the Minister's intention to make primary legislative provision for the use of live links in courts and tribunals by way of amendment at Consideration Stage. Throughout the past few years, the Committee has considered a series of sequential statutory rules that extended the use of live links in courts and tribunals using coronavirus legislation. As the House will, no doubt, be aware, to date, there have been nine such extensions for six months at a time. The Committee recommended that those extensions be approved by the Assembly in the knowledge that the provisions would be permanently addressed through primary legislation in the Justice Bill.

The Committee discussed the use of live links with the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ). During an oral evidence session on delays in the criminal justice system, members heard that the LCJ is supportive of the use of live links because they can streamline the system and save costs. In her written submission, the Lady Chief Justice commented that they:

with safeguards

Similar concerns were raised about the ministerial amendments to the live links provisions in the Bill. It was reiterated that it is important to ensure that all those involved in the process understand their rights and that they have access to the same information remotely that they have access to when they are being seen face to face. The Committee received assurances from the Department that there are protections in place. The Lady Chief Justice has issued guidance on the use of video technology that protects the rights of defendants, victims and witnesses.

The Committee held round-table engagement events with community groups and young people with lived experience of the justice system. The participants felt that there were pros and cons to the use of live links in courts and that, while it would be good to have that option, it should not be the default position. Although the young people welcomed live links, they challenged an assumption that many of us are likely to have, which is that young people are more comfortable with the use of technology, including live links. That is not necessarily the case. Some of the participating young people felt that proceedings were harder to follow via live links, or that they may not be treated as fairly, and some said that it can be a dehumanising experience. The Department advised the Committee that it is satisfied that robust safeguards are built into the new provisions, as well as there being safeguards in other supporting legislation and guidance relating to young people, and that that is sufficient for the courts to be able to address those concerns. It also advised that the few children who are defendants in a criminal trial will attend remotely only for interlocutory hearings, rather than for the trial.

Having weighed up the evidence that it received, the Committee concluded that it was content with the Minister's amendments to make primary legislative provision for live links in courts and tribunals. As with the provisions in the Bill, the Committee discussed a potential amendment to monitor and evaluate the use of live links in courts and tribunals. However, the Department advised that, as the provisions have been in operation for some time, the use of live links is monitored, and provided details of work that has already been undertaken on that. The Committee discussed that further at its meeting on 16 April, and Committee members indicated that they were content not to proceed with the Committee amendment, given the existing reporting processes. However, the Committee advised the Department of its view that those reporting processes and mechanisms must be made more robust and that they should be expanded to include qualitative data, including evaluation of the operation of live links from an end-user perspective.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now speak as an individual MLA and DUP spokesperson on justice. First, I will speak to the Committee amendments that add the word "vulnerabilities". I have absolutely no doubt that it is scary for a child or a young person who is involved in the criminal justice system. At least, it should be scary for any young person who is involved in the justice system, because, if they are there, it is because of a very serious matter. A custody sergeant should, therefore, take vulnerabilities into consideration. I do not think that the wording in the Bill is sufficient, and neither does the Committee. The Bill states that, in a custody setting:

need to be taken into consideration. That wording is sprinkled in three places in the Bill. We can all ascertain somebody's age and, to a certain degree, we can measure somebody's needs, but how do we measure maturity? It is a really hard task to measure somebody's maturity compared with their age. That is why the Committee has gone down the road of trying to put in the word "vulnerabilities", and I support that. That would strengthen that provision in that a custody sergeant would have to have regard to "the juvenile's age, maturity, vulnerabilities and needs", which is important.

I have been brought face to face with the criminal justice system, as I am sure that many Members have, when a parent of a young person who has been caught up in something bad has contacted me, as an MLA, to see what I can do to help. There is very limited scope for what we can do, say or advise that parent. Of course, we would always advise them to seek legal advice.

However, there have been times when I have visited a police station where a young person was being held to speak to the custody sergeant or, at least, somebody at the counter to try to get reassurance for that mother and father. That is why this is so important. I have seen young people leave a police station in absolute bits because of something that they have been caught up in and because they have been in a police station. Their parents have also been in absolute bits. Therefore, it is really important that we measure this in some way and leave no doubt about what a custody sergeant should be looking out for with regard to young people.

I will speak to my amendment, amendment No 44, which is about youth custody and supervision orders (YCSOs). The court should be able to use those tools for everyone over the age of criminal responsibility. When it comes to everyone who has matured to the age of criminal responsibility, I believe that the court should be able to use youth custody and supervision orders. Why do I say that? It is clear. When the Lady Chief Justice gave evidence to the Committee, she said:

In other words, to be coerced. The Lady Chief Justice ended by saying:

That is really clear. Here we have a scenario in which a 14-year-old and a 13-year-old are in front of a Youth Court, and you are taking away the discretion of the court to use a youth custody and supervision order. That is really important. We all talk about the independence of courts and judges, and that is right, but we need to give those judges the tools to use at their discretion. My amendment fixes that by stating that anyone over the age of criminal responsibility can get a youth custody and supervision order.

It is absolutely true that we do not send 10-year-olds, 11-year-olds, 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds to prison. We rarely have had to do that throughout history. We have measures in place such as diversion and youth courts, and there are measures that we can deploy to ensure that children do not go to prison. However, if a youth custody and supervision order is good enough for a 14-year-old, it is good enough for a 13-year-old. My amendment lays that down so that it simplifies when those measures can be deployed in order for the court to have a full gamut of tools at its disposal to assist it in delivering justice. That is so important, and the Lady Chief Justice states that. However, the Lady Chief Justice also states something else. It is borne out in a recent case. It could be older children, but it could also be criminal gangs or terrorist outfits —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, sure. I will.

Mrs Long: The Member is actually making a really strong case for why it should not apply to under-14s. If over-14s are coercing young people to get involved in criminal activity, it protects them from being criminalised and, instead, treats them as they ought to be treated: as the victims of trafficking.

Mr Frew: I get the Minister's point about trafficking. However, the situation in the real world is this: if there is a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old up in front of the court, they will have to be treated differently. You are, if you like, tying the hands of the court, which should be independent and have the wide-ranging gamut of tools at its disposal to dispense justice in the way in which it sees fit. The Lady Chief Justice is correct. I get what the Minister says about people being trafficked and coerced into criminality. However, there is a reality out there. If people know that there is a differential, whether it be through the deployment of a youth custody and supervision order or the age of criminal responsibility, which we will come to in another group, there is real potential that, if that differential is known to older people or criminal gangs, they will make an effort to ensure that the people whom they coerce and deploy, whether it be to run drugs, move arms or be involved in all sorts of criminality, will be children who are below the threshold for a youth custody and supervision order or to be liable for that offence. The Assembly must take that really seriously. We could —.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. I listened intently as you set out your case initially, because I was confused about what you were advocating, to be honest with you, when talking about the change. In the first instance, I would say that what you have set out could be solved, perhaps, by raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. I know that we will get on to that. You prefaced those remarks by talking about the cases that you have dealt with and the anxiety of the parents and young people whom you have helped as an MLA. Would that not lead you to want to take a compassionate approach to those young people and, rather than risk punishing people who have been the victims of crime, deal with everyone more compassionately? Would that not make more sense?

Mr Frew: I get the point that the Member makes, but why are we bringing in and deploying youth custody and supervision orders then? Why are we setting them at age 14? To use your argument, will you not be compassionate to a 14-year-old, a 15-year-old or a 16-year-old? If we are going to deploy —.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: I will give way, yes.

Mrs Long: The fundamental point here is that they were designed for people who are 14 and above in recognition that children, as they grow up, are more competent to understand the consequences of their actions. The evidence and advice is that, below the age of 14, they are not competent to do so, which is why we avoid custody, insofar as that is possible, for all but the most serious offences. Similarly, children who are over the age of 14 are able to be held more accountable for their actions in exactly the same way in which, with respect, we recognise that even young people who are above the age of criminal responsibility and, indeed, over 18 may not be fully mature in how they process information. That is why we have not just a juvenile justice system but a youth justice system. We know much more about brain development now that we used to know. It is important that we take that evidence on board, which is why 14 was the starting point for a custodial order.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister and Emma Sheerin for their contributions. It is a good debate. However, we will debate raising the age of criminal responsibility in another group. Therefore, it could well be that the age of criminal responsibility lands at 14 anyway. In effect, you could vote for something that makes what I am trying to achieve a reality. If that is the case — that is why the amendment simplifies it — treating it, capping it or keeping it at the age of criminal responsibility means that those youth custody and supervision orders can be used. If it were at the minute, it would be 10, but, if it changes and it is the will of the Assembly that it changes, it could be 12, 14 or 16. I am simplifying the use of youth custody and supervision orders by my amendment. That does away with the concern that the Lady Chief Justice has, first, with regard to the coercion of younger people and, secondly, the fact that there can be no differential when you are faced in a court with two children aged 13 and 14. My amendment simplifies that completely, so I plead with the House to consider the amendment seriously and to consider supporting it.

I go on to Sinn Féin's amendment Nos 49, 50 and 51. On the face of it, a lot of that stuff is sensible and good, and I like to think that it would be common practice. The question that I have, which I put tentatively, as with the last group of amendments, is whether it is needed in the Bill or whether it can be done though PACE codes, which are operational for the police or the courts. I do not know the answer to that, but I know that the custody stuff will be done under PACE codes, so those can be covered without putting them in the Bill. Again, I am sure that the Minister might cover that in her contribution.

I wholeheartedly support the Committee's amendment No 52. We need a review of live links in the custody suite, because it is a new thing. It is brand new, to the point that it has not been used before in a really stressful scenario and situation. We will have somebody in a custody suite, no matter what age they are, to be fair, and they are being interviewed remotely: well, we all know what it is like when we have to use Zoom, even to have a meeting, as opposed to being in the room with the person. It is much more complicated through Zoom. Think about how much more complicated it is in the stressful setting of a custody suite. Think of the jeopardy and how much more pressurised that is if the person who is being interviewed, be it a defendant, a person of interest or a witness, is talking through a screen to somebody who is miles away, so we need the review mechanisms.

While I am at it, I will speak to my review of the use of live links, which is amendment No 65, a new clause. We really need to review how live links are used in the court setting. I will say one thing: when we got the Justice Bill, all the live links stuff to do with custody was in there. However, there was nothing in the Bill at Second Reading about court. Live links had been operational since the Coronavirus Act 2020, and, for the life of me, I do not know why that could not be contained in the Bill and how it came after the custody stuff, which, I thought, would have been more complicated. However, with the amendments that the Minister has proposed, we can see just how complicated it is.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mrs Long: Part of the reason is that what was designed in this, both for custody and for use in the courts, does not simply replicate the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act, although it does that. It brings together a lot of provisions, some dating back some time, about the use of live links in courts and for remote hearings and so on, so it was much more complicated than simply transposing the live links from the Coronavirus Act into the Bill. That was explored at length with the Committee during Committee Stage.

Mr Frew: I get that from the Minister. I understand that explanation. It just shows how complicated it is and how scant the Coronavirus Act was with regard to the pressurised system at that time, as we rushed through legislation to create something that created the live links in courts.

We need a review.

I have always supported the use of live links in court. I have always commended that element of the Coronavirus Act, even though I detest that Act and everything — the damage and the harm — that it did to our people. I am therefore a big supporter of live links in our courts and, now, their extension to custody suites. As a big supporter, however, I believe that we need a review, because I have heard stories and seen scenarios in which people have appeared in court via a live link and something awful has happened, but they did not realise that it had. They might not have heard something appropriately or correctly, and, as a result, they might not have got proper representation. In one case, someone was charged with contempt of court. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure that a case was reported on in which there was a contempt of court charge because someone did not feel that they had got their day in court, and, when they objected, they were held in contempt. I could be wrong, but I am almost sure that that has been reported. I am almost sure that I know of the case and the people involved.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mrs Long: The question of whether a judge finds someone in contempt is to do with their conduct in the trial. It has nothing to do with live links. People are regularly held in contempt of court when they are there in person. What is key to note is that, to date, there has been no example of a case that has been overturned on appeal or on any other basis because of the fact that it used live links. I ask that the Member bear in mind that the success that we have seen in, for example, remote evidence centres, particularly with vulnerable witnesses and child witnesses, has hinged entirely on their being able to appear via a live link. It creates a much better environment for them than court does, because it is an environment that is less intimidating and less frightening.

We therefore need not to be doomsayers when it comes to live links. It is important that they be used in the interests of justice, and that caveat is already in the Bill, but it is also important that we recognise how beneficial live links have been, particularly in speeding up court processes. For example, they have allowed more expert witnesses to give evidence remotely, which is beneficial, and facilitated our ability to run the remote evidence centres for the most vulnerable people in the justice system.

Mr Frew: I agree with the Minister about the benefits that live links have brought. I absolutely have supported those benefits as they have come forward. I really do think that the use of live links has been a very good exercise. I have been a cheerleader for them. I say again that they are one of the only positives that I have seen come out of the Coronavirus Act, especially where they have involved vulnerable witnesses giving evidence or vulnerable people appearing in court. It is therefore really important that we get live links right. The Minister talks about the virtues and benefits of live links. Why, then, is she frightened of a review of their operation?

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: I am not sure from where the Member got the impression that I am frightened of any review. I think that it is slightly unnecessary to review the efficacy of the process. As a result of the Coronavirus Act, the live link provisions have been in operation successfully for six years now. More than that, many of the other things to which the Member refers that have been corralled in the Bill to provide clarity and streamline legislation have been in operation for years. Some of them have been in operation from as early as 2003. That therefore is the issue. It is not about fear. Rather, it is about the unnecessary work associated with doing a further review when we got to this stage with live links.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that contribution. She says that the live links that came out of the Coronavirus Act have been working successfully for six years, but how does she know that? Does the Minister not agree that a review could iron out any problems, fault lines or errors in the system in order to make it even better than it is? I will leave that point there. I hope that Members will consider voting for the amendment.

I will not go through all the Minister's amendments to do with live links in courts, but I will speak to amendment No 124. I find it interesting.

We have said countless times that there should not be a default position on live links for courts, and I agree with that. We do not want to get to the point where live links are the default position, albeit they speed up justice, help vulnerable witnesses or help children, all of which we support.

Amendment No 124 inserts into a new schedule 5 the presumption of giving evidence by live links in certain cases, which includes the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers; a district council; the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland; a constable; the Police Service of Northern Ireland; any body of constables; any body of special constables; the Attorney General for Northern Ireland; the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Police Ombudsman; the Probation Board; the director of the Serious Fraud Office; His Majesty's Revenue and Customs; the National Crime Agency; and even health trusts. That also includes the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), the regional agency for public health and social well-being, the regional Business Services Organisation — really? — the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Northern Ireland transport holding company and Northern Ireland Water Ltd, which should probably be up in court more often than it is. Why would you need to give those particular bodies the presumption of using live links? Would that lead to more effective government, less time wasted and less transport? It might be because of security.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes, I will.

Mrs Long: I am grateful that the Member has read out that list. It is a list of organisations or individuals that are expert witnesses. They are on that list because an expert witness will often have to give evidence at multiple trials in many places many times. The idea is to give that presumption because they are expert witnesses. Such a presumption would not apply, for example, in the case of someone who is appearing in court for the first time. It may not be the right environment for them to be in, and that is why the remainder refers to the needs of the court. It is ultimately at the judge's discretion. We are simply saying that the presumption is in favour where it is an expert witness.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that clarification. It does not feel right to me that those organisations may get preferential treatment over the ordinary man in the street who could end up in court. There is a massive stigma when someone has to attend court, even when they are innocent. You usually end up having to run the gauntlet outside the court setting. You are walking, not running, but it makes it look as though you are running from the cameras. You are jumping into a car while the cameras are all over you. The car speeds off, and you look really guilty; it looks really bad.

There are reasons why we have to have our day in court, and justice has to be served. We have to make sure that live links do not become a default position or that people get special privileges just because of the office that they hold.

Mrs Long: Will the Member give way?

Mr Frew: Yes.

Mrs Long: This is a very technical point. As I said, those are expert witnesses. This is an efficient way to do business, in that it allows them to be more available to the court without having to cancel days of their normal work environment in order to make themselves available. They are able to attend court remotely, and they have the capability to do so. They are often being cross-examined on very technical issues. It is not about creating a two-tier system. If the judge believes that the person needs to be present in the court, they still have the flexibility to request that where it is in the interests of justice, as they do with anyone else.

There should not be shame in people having to attend court. That is a presumption of guilt on the part of those who arrive at court. If there is shame, that is part of the reason why we reorganised the Courts and Tribunals Service, because people who are going into the building may be attending court or a tribunal or other court business such as, for example, where they are going through probate because someone is deceased. We need to be careful about making pejorative judgements about people who have to attend court. That is not the issue of substance here. This is about efficiency, effectiveness and ensuring that expert witnesses can be available at the discretion of the court.

Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that contribution and clarification. I will end it there. We have had a good debate, including the to-and-fro with the Minister and other Members, and I thank everyone for their contributions. I will be taking notes, because I will be making a winding-up speech on this group of amendments.

Mr Durkan: I will try to keep my remarks focused on the two principal themes in this group of amendments: first, bail and custody decisions involving children and young people; and secondly, the expansion of live link arrangements across police custody, courts and tribunals. The themes are linked by a common principle. Whether we are dealing with children who come into contact with the justice system or —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mark, will you move the microphone towards you? It is pointing in the other direction. Thank you very much indeed. I love hearing your dulcet tones, and so does Hansard.

Mr Durkan: Do you want me to start again?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): No. [Laughter.]

Mr Durkan: I did not quite catch what Paul Frew said. [Laughter.]

The two themes are linked by a common principle. Whether we are dealing with children who come into contact with the justice system or introducing new technology into legal proceedings, our objective must be to ensure that the justice system remains fair, accessible and centred on the needs of those who engage with it.

I will begin with the amendments relating to children and young people. The Committee amendments that require consideration of a child's vulnerabilities alongside their age and maturity are, in our view, sensible and proportionate additions to the Bill. Children and young people are not a homogenous group. Age alone does not determine how a child engages with the justice system, or with anything, for that matter. Vulnerability can arise from a wide range of circumstances — Mr Frew mentioned some of them — including disability, neurodiversity, mental ill health, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, family circumstances or, indeed, previous interactions with the care system. When decisions are being taken on bail, custody arrangements or participation through live links, it is entirely appropriate that those vulnerabilities are considered explicitly rather than being assumed to fall within broader considerations. The amendments will help ensure that decision-makers are required to look beyond chronology and consider the individual circumstances of the child who is before them. More broadly, they reflect an important principle that runs throughout modern youth justice policy: the welfare of the child must remain at the centre of decision-making.

Turning to the second and larger part of this group of amendments, the SDLP welcomes the provisions and proposals relating to live links. Over past years, the Assembly has repeatedly approved extensions to temporary live link arrangements. Those measures proved their value during exceptional circumstances and demonstrated that technology can help to improve the efficiency and accessibility of our justice system. It is therefore right that we now move from temporary arrangements to a comprehensive statutory framework. The amendments that the Minister has tabled establish that framework. They create powers for courts and tribunals to permit participation by live link; establish the factors that should be considered when directions are made; provide safeguards around public access and open justice; and create the necessary offences to protect the integrity of proceedings. Taken together, the provisions represent a significant modernisation of how courts and tribunals operate.

However, it is my understanding that, throughout scrutiny, the Committee was clear that the introduction of technology should not be viewed as an end in itself. The key question is not whether proceedings can be conducted remotely but whether participation through a live link allows justice to be delivered fairly and effectively. That is why a number of amendments in this group seek to strengthen safeguards around the use of live links, particularly in police custody settings. Several of the amendments focus on issues such as ensuring that participants understand the process; that legal representatives can participate effectively; that the interests of justice remain paramount when decisions are made; and that appropriate records are maintained where and when difficulties arise, as they inevitably do.

While Members may differ on the detail of some of the provisions — I look forward to engaging further in that debate — the underlying principle is an important one. Access to justice means much more than simply being present when justice is being deliberated on and dispensed. Individuals must be able to understand proceedings, communicate effectively with their legal representatives and participate in a meaningful way. Technology should remove barriers to participation, not create new ones.

We also welcome the Committee amendment that would require a review of the operation of live links in police custody. I understand that the Committee heard a range of views on the potential benefits of those arrangements. The amendment also recognises that police custody presents a different environment from a courtroom or tribunal setting. Given that those powers would be new, it is entirely appropriate that the Assembly build a mechanism for review into the legislation from the outset. A formal review would allow us to assess whether the arrangements were operating as intended, whether safeguards were sufficient, and whether any unintended consequences had emerged. That is good legislative practice.

Taken together, this group of amendments seeks to achieve two worthwhile objectives. The first is to ensure that decisions affecting children and young people properly reflect their individual circumstances, vulnerabilities and welfare, and the second is to modernise our justice system through the use of technology while ensuring that fairness, effective participation and access to justice remain at the heart of proceedings. Those are objectives that the SDLP supports.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, we will continue with the debate until all Members who wish to speak have done so, and we will postpone the votes on this group of amendments until we return next week. That is the most efficient use of the time. I do not want anybody hanging around thinking that there will be a whole series of votes tonight, but it is important that we continue the debate and get to that point.

Ms Sheerin: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the group 2 amendments relating to child bail, custody arrangements and live links. I also welcome the tone in which the debate has been carried out so far. I put on record again my thanks to everyone involved on the staff side from the Department, the Committee and the Bill Office in getting us to where we are. I welcome the focus from the Minister in the Bill on youth justice and children's rights as a priority. That represents progressive and positive legislation that better implements the principles of public authorities in representing the best interests of children in their decision-making as a priority, as we are mandated to do in the Justice Act 2002. That is positive and should be welcomed.

I will speak specifically about amendment No 44, which gives me grave concern. I note that the Member for North Antrim has left his seat, but I found his contribution kind of concerning and confusing, if I am honest. The amendment aims to begin youth custody orders at the minimum age of criminal responsibility, as opposed to at 14 as proposed by the Minister. That is something that we in Sinn Féin will not support. I cannot get my head around the rationale for it. The amendment stands in stark contrast to the positive principles of the Bill, which I referred to. It seeks to change the age at which a child may be subject to a youth custody and supervision order from 14 to the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is currently 10. I know that we are going to have further debate about changing the minimum age of criminal responsibility, so I do not want to stray into that. I am kind of confused because the Member in his earlier remarks seemed to suggest that that would almost be motivation for Members to increase the age of criminal responsibility to match it at 14. That is Sinn Féin party policy, and we have an amendment, with other parties, to reflect that. I would like to see the DUP support that, but I am confused because I know that the Member has tabled a petition of concern. He is not here to answer through an intervention, and I do not know whether any of his party colleagues want to come in to give some explanation. [Inaudible.]

Ms Sheerin: Oh right. OK.

I cannot understand that position. The evidence tells us, as we touched on in the earlier debate, that children who are in the system and criminalised from a young age have much greater rates of reoffending and that a compassionate approach to children and young people leads to less crime. Apart from anything else, diversionary measures and restorative justice practices are better for everyone involved. We know that custody should not be used for under-14s as it currently stands, unless for very serious offences. That is in line with the consultees who responded to us on that matter. To move away from existing practices and norms in such a dramatic fashion without consulting either publicly or with the Youth Justice Agency, the Probation Board, the PSNI, the Courts and Tribunals Service or any other criminal justice agency would be a dereliction of our duties as MLAs.

I am somewhat confused, and, as I said, the news of the petition of concern submitted in the name of the Member who tabled amendment No 44 is, in my view, a stunt and an abuse of that power as it was written in the Good Friday Agreement. His contribution today further suggested that, because it sounds like it was a disingenuous attempt and that he does not want to change the minimum age of criminal responsibility at all. I would appreciate clarity on that. We should all be working together here to stop stigmatising children and young people who find themselves in situations that none of us wants them to be in. We should be supporting young people in those scenarios and providing them with compassion and empathy as opposed to criminalising young people and setting them on a negative path for the rest of their life.

Ms Egan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the group 2 debate, which focuses on Part 2 and Part 3 of the Justice Bill. It is vital that our justice system works for everyone, and that includes the children who enter into it.

First, I will address the Democratic Unionist Party amendment No 44 regarding aligning the age range for new youth custody and supervision orders with the age of responsibility in Part 2 of the Bill. I and my party feel uncomfortable with the idea of potentially leaving children aged 13 and under within the scope of that new order as we do not wish custody to be used for that younger age group for anything other than very serious offences. There are other sentencing options available to the judiciary when significant custodial time may be needed, and that was reflected in strong public and stakeholder support for the threshold that the Department proposes. With that in mind, we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Committee for Justice has tabled three amendments, amendment Nos 41, 42 and 43, that introduce vulnerabilities as a relevant consideration alongside age, maturity and needs when a decision to impose bail conditions is being taken by the police and courts. Alliance welcomes that and supports the intention of the Committee to ensure that the needs of young people are met when bail is being considered.

I will now address the Minister of Justice's amendments regarding the use of live links and broadcast in court settings, which the Alliance Party will be supporting. Live links, otherwise known as audio and videoconferencing technology, have now been established in courts for years as a result of the pandemic, and I welcome the opportunity for us to put that into primary legislation instead of regularly revisiting the regulations via the Coronavirus Act 2020. That is not practical or sustainable governance for tools that are now so embedded in the infrastructure of our courtrooms. They provide access to justice in a number of senses, including where cases are deemed to be in the public interest and could be deemed appropriate for broadcast. Those benefits are reflected in the support given for retaining the facility of remote hearings through using live links in responses to the Department of Justice's public consultation on the matter. The amendments will allow a live link direction to be given for any person's participation in proceedings. Importantly, the proposals include protection for the solemnity and integrity of proceedings no matter how a person is participating in court.

I welcome the addition of amendment No 60, which give courts and tribunals powers to vary or rescind a direction if it appears to be against the interests of justice. It is an incredibly important clause that ensures that the legislation is workable in all courts and tribunals scenarios.

I turn to amendment Nos 49 to 51 from Sinn Féin. From our understanding, those are all matters relating to the operation of the provisions that will be addressed in updates to PACE codes, and in that vehicle would be subject to consultation with bodies such as the Human Rights Commission and the Commissioner for Children and Young People. For that reason, we will not be supporting the amendments.

Amendment No 65, from the DUP, suggests a review within three years of section 21A coming into operation. That is not necessary when so much of the legislation has been in use for six years. What Alliance will support, however, is amendment No 52 from the Committee, which brings in a new clause to place a requirement on the Department of Justice to nominate a body to carry out a review of the use of live links by the police.

Ms Ferguson: I welcome the fact that the Justice Bill includes a provision to finally place the temporary measures under the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No.2) Order 2025 on a permanent footing. That relates to the use of videoconferencing technology or live links in courts, tribunals and police custody functions relating to criminal and civil proceedings where the judiciary decide that a person's participation in proceedings remotely would be in the interest of justice as per schedule 27 to the 2020 Act, assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The Human Rights Commission emphasised that due regard must be given to the protection of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The commission acknowledged that it can assist vulnerable witnesses, those who cannot travel for bail applications or if difficulties arise in producing someone in person due to serious illness but, importantly, should not be used for efficiency in order to save resources. Importantly, the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime identified that utilising videoconferencing technology has a range of benefits, including reducing the impact on vulnerable people; allowing children and victims of domestic violence, for example, to give evidence in child friendly or neutral, safe environments; and reducing risks of unplanned encounters with defendants.

Sinn Féin has reflected on the EU victims' rights directive and the EU interpretative directive on PACE code C alongside the Victim Charter on the importance of safeguards for the rights of all victims, including persons suspected of a crime. We have given additional consideration to specific challenges for those who do not speak the language of the criminal proceedings or have other intellectual or communication impairments that may affect their ability to communicate effectively via the live links.

Sinn Féin's amendment Nos 49 to 51 reflect the significance of that area in the Bill. That applies to the context of the explanation by a custody officer to a detainee of the nature of the live link arrangement and their rights but also in the context of the custody record relating to the arrested person. We have also reflected the importance of recording any issues or interruptions that arise during the live link arrangement. Whilst we appreciate the well-intentioned amendment from the DUP to review the use of live links in court and tribunal settings, that information is currently monitored and recorded by court staff. It would be more informative to consider how the data already being captured is complying with the non-diminution commitment in the Bill and to hear the Minister's view on whether that technology is fully compatible with the rights of vulnerable people.

Although court administration is handled internally for audit purposes, Criminal Justice Inspection has a role to play in examining, for example, to what extent case progression officers ensure the availability of suitable technology and interpreter facilities. Equally, work by Victim Support is under way to share client feedback to reflect whether remote evidence centres are working in practice.

The Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime indicated that the civilian remote evidence group had assured her in 2022 that it planned to discuss the evaluation report on the Foyle SightLink pilot. Although SightLink has been replaced by the justice video platform, perhaps more work remains to be done to strengthen public debates about internal reviews of technology in practice.

When it comes to police custody settings, Criminal Justice Inspection carries out periodic statutory inspections of police custody suites. That work includes investigating and evaluating how custody procedures and technology are managed in the treatment of detainees. Importantly, CJINI is empowered to publish formal recommendations requiring the PSNI to make operational and systematic improvements to safeguard compliance with human rights and legal standards. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge at this point that CJINI and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority have raised issues about the lack of implementation by the PSNI of its strategic and operational recommendations, such as on the need for a "consistent, quality health service model" across custody suites to ensure that a person has:

I have significant concern that looked-after children — children in the care of the state — are disproportionately represented in custody and are more likely to be detained owing to their inability to access timely social work support, to go back to their children's home or to find suitable alternative accommodation. I note that in the context of the growing population of looked-after children and the increasing complexity of today's society.

Although we did not table amendments for amendments' sake, in recognising that there are systemic accommodation shortages, we could not ignore the fact that, under the Children Order 1995, health and social care trusts have a strict legal duty to safeguard children and to promote adequate accommodation for them. We have, however, heard stories about scores of children, including one about a child with severe learning disabilities who was forced to stay in a juvenile justice facility for three months after having been granted bail and a judge having ordered their release. We have also heard stories about children being placed in hostels, hotels and B&Bs, which are wholly unsuitable to meet their needs or to safeguard them, given their vulnerability.

Sinn Féin believes that the Minister and the Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, have an urgent responsibility to place a major focus on that area. Significant reform is needed to ensure that we do not, inadvertently or otherwise, criminalise or unfairly detain vulnerable young people simply because of a lack of proper care infrastructure. We have a duty to uphold their rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

As I said in my opening remarks, we have examined PACE code C, and I appreciate that it dictates the strict legal requirements that must be followed regarding the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects in custody, including on receiving legal advice remotely and permitting video-based interpretation, subject to specific safeguards. Paul, you are asking for continual review of live links, and we feel that it would be more appropriate to include those safeguards in the Bill. We know the size and scale of the PACE codes, having received 100-plus pages of them, and think that it is critical for any new primary legislation to ensure absolute legal certainty and guarantee robust parliamentary scrutiny. Embedding such protections in statute has the potential to supplement our efforts to prevent any attempt to bypass or dilute fundamental rights through secondary legislation or guidance.

I will finish by reiterating our call for Members to support amendment Nos 49 to 51.

Mr Kingston: The second group of amendments relates to child bail and custody arrangements and the appropriate use of live links. On the arrangements for bail for children, the Bill states that a custody officer must consider the juvenile's characteristics of "age, maturity and needs". As Members have heard, the Justice Committee agreed that the word "vulnerabilities" should be added to that list to ensure that vulnerabilities are considered, rather than being overlooked if they are not captured by the existing terms. That addition is made by the Committee's amendment Nos 41 to 43.

The use of live links came to the fore during COVID-19, although it had existed before that. It is now well established as an option in most statutory services. The Justice Committee agreed that live links can be an aid in our courts and justice system when face-to-face business is not possible. It is therefore right that we make provision for the use of live link technology in a way that is not framed by the context of COVID. As Members have heard, however, we are concerned that online communication reduces the opportunity to read body language and provides less nuance and less opportunity for quiet conversation and can be uncomfortable for those who are not used to it. The Committee has therefore agreed to amendment No 52, which would introduce a review of the use of live links. It states that the Department of Justice must appoint a "person or body" to:

and publish a report on that. The report must include:

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will in a wee second.

The report must also include:

I will give way.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. It is helpful that he has done so, because I wish to correct the record. When I was speaking as Chairperson of the Justice Committee, I inadvertently promoted my amendment No 65, rather than amendment No 52, which is what I should have said.

I also said that the report must include "the number of directions" from courts and tribunals, when I should have said that it must include:

I thank the Member for giving me that opportunity to correct the record.

Mr Kingston: We know of the Member's enthusiasm as a Member and as Chair of the Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank the Chair of the Committee for speaking so clearly so that Hansard will be able to correct that.

Please continue, Mr Kingston.

Mr Kingston: OK. I am nearly finished.

As has been said, the DUP is not minded to support Sinn Féin amendment Nos 49 to 51 on the topic of live links, but we will support the other amendments in the group.

Ms Finnegan: Sinn Féin is pleased to support amendment Nos 41 to 43. We appreciate the extensive work undertaken by the Justice Committee throughout its scrutiny of the Bill. The amendments arose directly from evidence presented to the Committee by organisations that work with children, young people and vulnerable adults. Their message was consistent and compelling: vulnerabilities must be explicitly recognised in the framework of the legislation if we are serious about delivering a fair and effective justice system.

The justice system does not operate in a vacuum. The individuals who come into contact with it often carry experiences such as trauma, poverty, exploitation, addiction, mental ill health, adverse childhood experiences and learning difficulties. Those realities can have a profound impact on behaviour, decision-making and engagement with justice processes. Witnesses repeatedly highlighted that vulnerabilities are not always visible and cannot be assumed to be understood by public authorities; instead, they need to be actively recognised and taken into account. The Committee heard evidence from organisations that work directly with children and young people every day. They spoke about the importance of ensuring that public authorities are equipped to identify vulnerabilities and to respond appropriately. They also highlighted the need for a trauma-informed approach that understands behaviour in the wider context of a person's experiences and circumstances. The amendments help achieve that objective.

Importantly, recognising vulnerabilities does not remove accountability or diminish responsibility; rather, it allows interventions to be tailored in such a way that they are more likely to achieve positive outcomes and reduce the likelihood of future harm. We particularly welcome the amendments because they reinforce the child-centred ethos that runs through the Bill. Children and young people are not just smaller adults: their developmental needs, maturity and life experiences must be considered separately. The Committee carefully examined the evidence before making the recommendations, and we believe that the amendments will improve the legislation considerably. For those reasons, Sinn Féin will support amendment Nos 41 to 43.

Mrs Long: I want to speak to the amendments in group 2 as they relate to the different Parts of the Bill.

I will begin with amendment Nos 41 to 43, which were tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Justice. I am content to support the Committee's amendments, which introduce the inclusion of a child's vulnerabilities as a relevant consideration when the police or courts are taking a decision whether to release a child on bail or to impose bail conditions. Provisions in the Bill already introduce the need to take account of issues such as a child's age, maturity and understanding and their individual needs, but Committee members felt that, on the basis of written and oral evidence that they had received, consideration of vulnerabilities should also be included. I have no objection to that.

I move on to clause 12. While I understand the rationale set out for amendment No 44, tabled by Mr Frew, Mr Bradley and Mr Kingston, which would align the lower age of youth custody and supervision orders with the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Northern Ireland, I cannot agree with it. The starting age for YCSOs was never intended to align with the minimum age of criminal responsibility. Children aged 13 and under are being removed from the scope of the new order deliberately, as we do not wish custody to be used for that younger age group for anything other than very serious offences. That is in line with the intended aims of the new legislative provisions to increase our compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and to make the use of custody for children a measure of last resort.

We know that contact with the justice system generally is detrimental to children's longer-term outcomes and that that becomes progressively worse the further into the system a child goes. Therefore, keeping younger children out of custody and, instead, providing targeted support under community supervision is a better option. Where children under 14 commit serious offences that warrant significant custodial time, there are other sentencing options available to the judiciary without needing to rely on the new YCSO legislation. For example, there are custodial sentences covered under article 45 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (NI) Order 1998 for grave offences or the public protection sentences, such as extended or indeterminate custodial sentences, found in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 for serious sexual or violent offences.

During its development, we set a general expectation that the new order would apply to children aged 14 and above. The issue was publicly consulted on and received strong support. Likewise, the majority of commentators who gave evidence on the Bill either had no concerns about it or were fully supportive. It is clear from my Department's statistics that courts are not using custody as a sentencing option for younger children in any way, which is a positive position that we wish to maintain. To do as the Members have suggested would risk drawing more young people into the custodial justice system when the option of community orders is available for those who are under 14 years old. We are therefore legislating only for what happens in practice. That position has received considerable support. For those reasons, I oppose amendment No 44 and ask others to do so also.

I will now speak to amendment Nos 49 to 51, tabled by Ms Emma Sheerin, Ms Aoife Finnegan and Ms Ciara Ferguson. The amendments relate to clause 21, which deals with the use of live links by police for custody purposes. The proposed amendments all seek to impose conditions on the use of clause 21 that will be addressed by my Department through updates to PACE codes before the provisions are commenced. PACE codes support the exercise of police powers and set out safeguards for individuals. My officials will update the codes, primarily code C, to support the effective operation of the live links provisions and to ensure that they are fully embedded in the other safeguards and protections for those who are in custody. Work on the proposed updates has already commenced, and the Department will engage with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Children's Commissioner on those provisions. The updates will then be published for consultation and brought to the Justice Committee for consideration before they are laid before the Assembly. That work will be taken forward as soon as possible after Royal Assent, and the live links provisions will not be commenced until the PACE code updates are in place.

As the PACE codes are the most appropriate means of addressing the issues, rather than placing them in the Bill, and the most effective means of allowing us to keep up to date with developments in that space, given that they are secondary legislation and therefore allow us more flexibility in updating them, I will not support the amendments. Furthermore, as we will update the PACE codes only for live links, it will be much shorter than updates that the Committee has dealt with in the past.

The next amendment in the group is No 52, tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Justice. It establishes a review mechanism on the operation of the live link provisions by the police. During Committee Stage, my officials advised the Committee that they did not consider the proposal for a review mechanism to report on the use of live links by the police to be strictly necessary, as there were already existing arrangements to monitor and review the use of live links in those circumstances. My officials also cautioned that sample size was likely to be small and any review would have to be conducted in a way that did not impose an undue burden on the PSNI. However, I recognise that there are possible benefits in carrying out a proportionate review to ensure that live links are used appropriately and effectively and to identify areas for improvement. I am therefore content to support the amendment on that basis.

I will now address the amendments tabled in my name, amendment Nos 53 to 64, which allow for the greater use of live links in courts and tribunal settings. A great deal of the justice system currently relies on the live links provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which require regular extension via secondary legislation. New primary legislation is required to retain the wider use of live links in courts and tribunals going forward. However, the proposed amendments do not simply replicate the provisions in the 2020 Act, which were brought forward at speed in response to a public health emergency, but aim to meet our longer-term needs for criminal and civil proceedings by repealing, replacing and updating the provisions in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, among others. They also reflect legislative developments in neighbouring jurisdictions that enable the conduct of more court and tribunal cases remotely using live links in those jurisdictions.

A public consultation indicated almost unanimous support for retaining the facility for remote hearings through using live links, provided that — it is worth stressing — a court or tribunal considers that their use is in the interests of justice. To that end, the proposed new model is broadly similar in approach to the temporary provisions, as it is based on an interests-of-justice test. That will include a statutory duty that the court should have regard to any guidance issued by the Lady Chief Justice when determining the interests of justice; a requirement for the court or tribunal to hear the views of the parties and/or the witnesses on the matter of the use of live links for the hearing or part of a hearing to satisfy itself that live links enable the person giving evidence to see and hear all other persons who are participating in proceedings; provision to ensure that there is no diminution of current entitlements for vulnerable witnesses or defendants to enable their effective participation; a presumption that attendance will be by electronic means unless the court directs physical attendance in civil or criminal proceedings where the only party in a hearing or application is a public official; a power to make secondary legislation on the designation of expert witnesses, as the provisions in section 52 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 are to be replaced by the Bill; a power to vary, as well as rescind, a live link direction; and provision to ensure that the public can be enabled to see or hear proceedings if they are conducted wholly remotely or where there was identified, by a court or tribunal, a need to transmit the proceedings to another identified location in the interests of justice.

The same protection applies for the solemnity and integrity of proceedings whether a person is participating in person or remotely, including the prevention of unauthorised recording or transmitting of a live hearing, as well as unlawful interruption of that hearing. Finally, those attending remotely will be subject to the same requirements that their evidence be truthful, or they will be held to account for perjury, as would occur had they been present in a courtroom.

Live links are a key element of the modernisation of courts and tribunals in Northern Ireland. The provisions will help to achieve digital strategy commitments. I therefore commend them to the House, as I said, on the strong basis that they are applied in the interests of justice.

The last amendment that I wish to speak to as part of this group is amendment No 65, as tabled by Messrs Frew, Bradley and Kingston. It seeks to place a requirement on my Department to appoint a person to conduct a review of the operation of those live link arrangements within three years of the provisions becoming operational.

There were a number of exchanges of correspondence with the Committee in that respect at Committee Stage, in which it was pointed out that the powers in the Coronavirus Act that facilitated the broader use of live links in courts and tribunals have been operational for six years and are now well established. The use of live links in those settings is already monitored and recorded by court staff. That information is available without the need for such a formal reporting requirement.

It was further advised that the permanent legislative underpinning of the temporary live link powers in the Coronavirus Act represented only a small part of the wider provisions in those planned live link amendments. The greater proportion of powers in those amendments are measures to consolidate existing live link provisions that have been in operation since 2003 across several separate pieces of legislation. Given that the figures for the number of audio and visual connections for remote or hybrid hearings are published annually as part of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service annual report and accounts and that those figures can be broken down on request, I wish to avoid any potential duplication of effort and requirements in that respect.

At its meeting on 16 April 2026, the Committee for Justice considered that proposal, and its views were reported as follows:

Given the Committee's lack of support for such an amendment, I remain of the view that an additional requirement to report on the operation of those long-standing and well-established provisions is not beneficial but may prove resource-intensive, given the potential for duplicate reporting. As such, I do not support the amendment tabled by Mr Frew, Mr Bradley and Mr Kingston.

In closing, I thank all Members for the manner in which they have engaged in this Consideration Stage debate. It has been a productive and helpful one on the group 2 amendments. Although we will draw our remarks to a conclusion after the Committee Chair makes his winding-up speech on the debate, hopefully, Members will go home, read Hansard, cogitate on it and remember what we discussed today when it comes to voting next week. I fear that the distance between this debate and the votes on it is not particularly conducive to our remembering everything that has been discussed and the assurances that have been given. However, I trust that Members are so committed, given that they are still here at 8.40 pm, that they will, no doubt, be studying it avidly over the next few days.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, indeed, Minister. Of course they will. We are all MLAs. Of course we will.

Paul — sorry, Chair of the Justice Committee — over to you to make your winding-up speech.

Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I thank all the Members for their contributions to the debate on the group 2 amendments, particularly those who spoke in support of the Committee amendments. The House has heard from other Members who have tabled amendments in the group. The Minister has spoken to her amendments and has, of course, responded to the points and comments made by Members during the debate. I thank the Minister and all the Members who gave way and allowed others to come in with debate and points, because that adds to the debate.

I will focus my remarks on winding on the Committee's amendments before I come to the amendments that were tabled in the name of my party colleagues and me. Before I turn to the key points that were made, I want to acknowledge Ciara Ferguson's comments about the lack of suitable accommodation. We received representations from many who were concerned that clause 8 would not be commenced. We have urged the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice to work together on that matter to ensure that the clause can be commenced as soon as possible.

I turn to the key points that Members made about the Committee's amendment Nos 41, 42 and 43, which relate to the word "vulnerabilities". Mark Durkan stated that the amendments are "sensible and proportionate", as vulnerabilities can arise for many reasons, and we need to ensure that they are considered explicitly rather than letting them fall into broader categories. Emma Sheerin said that the amendments are "positive" and "should be welcomed". Connie Egan stated that Alliance welcomes the Committee amendments. Aoife Finnegan pointed out that vulnerabilities can impact on behaviours and decision-making and that they are often not visible or easily recognised. The inclusion of "vulnerabilities" reinforces a child-centred approach and can reduce the likelihood of future harm. The Minister had no objection to the amendments, and the Committee welcomed that.

Committee amendment No 52 concerns the review of the use of live links. Mark Durkan indicated that the key question is not whether proceedings can be conducted by live links but whether people can participate "effectively". Police custody represents a different environment from courts and tribunals, so a review will allow that to be assessed. That seems sensible. Connie Egan stated that the Alliance Party will support the amendment. Ciara Ferguson noted that the Criminal Justice Inspection already inspects custody suites. She outlined that Sinn Féin believes that protections to safeguard people should be in the Bill. The Minister stated that she did not believe that the Committee's live link amendment was "strictly necessary". She thought that the "sample size" might be "small", but she recognised the benefits that could come from a proportionate review. The Minister is therefore content to support the Committee's amendment on the review of the use of live links.

To conclude my remarks as Chair of the Committee, I reiterate that the amendments that seek to insert the word "vulnerabilities" into clauses 4, 5 and 6 aim to ensure that the increasing complexity of issues facing children and young people is taken into account when decisions on bail and remand are being made. Our amendment No 52 — I have got that right this time — which makes provision to review the use of live links, is important to ensure that they operate effectively and that the rights of those who participate in proceedings are safeguarded. I commend the Committee's amendments to the House and ask that the House support them when we eventually vote on the group 2 amendments.

I want to give a clarification to Emma Sheerin. She had asked me to further clarify amendment No 44, but I was absent because I had run out of the Chamber to get my charger for my device. Amendment No 44 says:

The age of responsibility specified in article 3 is basically the minimum age of criminal responsibility. We are basically trying to stop the division between children who are 14 and those who are under and make it so that a youth custody and supervision order can be used for any child who is over the age of criminal responsibility, bearing in mind that the age of criminal responsibility in the Bill could well change in the coming days, with that change enacted into law.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that he had a reason to be out of the Chamber earlier. That causes us some confusion about where you and your party stand on the minimum age of criminal responsibility. The position that you just outlined makes sense, because it means that the two ages would align, which seems reasonable enough.

There are, however, more reasons than that for why we do not want to see children younger than 14 placed in custody or being liable for youth custody orders. We saw from the evidence that we received from the children's rights organisations the harms and risks that that poses to younger children, which is part of the reason that we support raising the age of criminal responsibility. I am a bit confused, given the fact that your party has tabled a petition of concern. I do not know where that sits.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for her intervention. Just to be clear, we do not want to see the age of criminal responsibility rise. Irrespective, however, of the petition of concern and the number of Members who have signed the notice so far, we also know that the age of criminal responsibility could be raised. Even if it is not, however, we still believe that the courts should have youth custody and supervision orders at their disposal. In her speech or maybe it was in an intervention, the Minister outlined all the serious tools that the court can use to place youngsters and children in custody. We are just saying that they should be applied across the board, so that the court can use them at its discretion. That is why we think that it is neater if we leave that at the age of criminal responsibility, irrespective of whether that is 10, 12, 14 or 16, according to the will of the House. We will know for sure that a youth custody and supervision order can be used for any child over the age of criminal responsibility. Judges and the courts will know that also. It therefore does not create the differential that the Lady Chief Justice was concerned about, as I mentioned. I hope that that clarifies our position.

Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. He has been generous with his time. I can appreciate the neatness argument and the alignment argument. I understand that, and I imagine that most Members do. However, that should be prioritised over young people's well-being. We know, because there is a significant body of evidence, that locking children up does not work. We want to see a youth justice system that supports the rehabilitation of children and young offenders and encourages compassion and empathy. Our position is that that is what should be prioritised.

Mr Frew: I am not a million miles from the Member's position on that. We do not want to see young people being put in custody. That is why we have the Youth Justice Agency and youth justice courts. I therefore agree that our positions are not that far away from each other. I am sure that we will return to the issue when we come to debate the amendments in group 6.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. While today's sitting can continue indefinitely — it will not — the Business Committee agreed that the sitting should end at the most appropriate point and that the Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill will continue on Monday 8 June. This would seem to be a convenient moment at which to adjourn. The debate will continue on Monday, when we will resume by putting the Question on amendment No 41.