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 (ECHR) 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 —.