Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Connie Egan on 2 June 2026.

MLA

Ms Connie Egan

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

2 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5584447

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I welcome the opportunity to make some comments at the Justice Bill's Consideration Stage. I joined the Committee for Justice in November 2024, shortly after the Bill's introduction. Following an 18-month Committee Stage, I am pleased that we are finally debating its content. As we know, the Bill is incredibly varied and mixed in what it covers, tied together with the aim of building a more effective, efficient and modern justice system from which all across Northern Ireland can benefit. It follows judgements in the European Court of Human Rights, including S and Marper v the UK and Gaughran v the UK. Part 1 of the Bill clearly aims to put human rights at the centre by providing a balanced and proportionate framework for the retention and destruction of DNA and fingerprints for Northern Ireland. I will start with the amendments standing in the Minister of Justice's name, all of which Alliance plans to support. As other Members have recognised, Part 1 is an incredibly complex area of law. It is clear that the Minister and her officials have considered its components in detail. I will draw Members' attention to the content of some specific clauses and schedules. Amendment No 1 will amend clause 1 to allow the PSNI a more workable grace period of 28 days in which either to delete an individual's material that was held as part of an investigation or to apply to the biometrics commissioner for a continued retention period. Such practical changes are welcome and highlight the stress-testing that has taken place with the PSNI to ensure that the legislation will be as fit for purpose as possible. I welcome the Department's recognition that more tweaks can be made to ensure that the legislation matches the reality of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE) on the ground. We will also support amendment No 108 and others that make changes to schedule 2. Amendment No 108 updates the terminology in the PACE Order from:

"‘a person being informed that the person will be reported"

to:

"‘a complaint being laid against the person".

That change will mitigate confusion over interpretations of the term "reported" in legislation and clarifies the timing of operational procedures across biometric provisions. Alliance will also support amendment No 8, which provides further clarity on procedure across biometric provisions, highlighting the fact that the DNA and fingerprints of an individual who is arrested but not charged can be retained by the PSNI until the outcome of an application made to the biometrics commissioner is known. Amendment Nos 66 and 67 will insert new clauses into the Bill, putting in place powers to photograph a person at a police station and the power to specify a date for a person's attendance at a police station. Alliance supports closing the gap in provision, as no power is provided in current legislation for the PSNI to require a person to attend a police station, including at a later stage, for a photograph to be taken, even when a photograph is considered unclear or incomplete. The provisions will allow not just for that but for the PSNI to direct officers to take fingerprints, DNA samples and photographs on a specific date and time. Those interventions will be useful in allowing the PSNI to maximise the time frames for the detection and prevention of crime. I will move on to the amendments that the Committee for Justice has tabled, both of which will be supported by my party. Amendment No 40 would put in place a welcome enabling power regarding the retention, use and destruction of photographs. During Committee Stage, there was much discussion on whether photographs or images should be included as biometric material in the Bill. If there is one thing that all of us in the Chamber can agree on, it is that there is still much more that can be looked into in that space. The use of technology to prevent crime and to evade detection is evolving. The heightened use or, at least, consideration of facial recognition technology is inevitable in years to come. The evidence that we received from local authorities and more widely across these islands, including from the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, all pointed to that. Alliance believes that an enabling power strikes the right balance in ensuring that we can address the use of photographs in the future, once more specific policy development has occurred. The amendment requires the delivery of draft regulations within five years, which feels suitable. Alliance will also support amendment No 104 from the Committee, which specifies that:

"The Department must by order appoint a day for the coming into operation of Part 1 ... within ... 5 years"

of the Act's receiving Royal Assent. Alliance will agree with the Minister and oppose the amendments in the group that have been tabled by Sinn Féin. I will raise a few particular points of concern about them, but the issue stems primarily from the fact that much of this will be resolved in regulations and updated PACE codes. Those will both receive more time and scrutiny than can be afforded today. Amendment Nos 11, 12 and 13 relate to rewriting the biometric retention schedule for those under 18. Amendment No 11 would remove under-18s from the scope of the provisions on qualifying offences, which are some of the most serious crimes that a person can commit. We do not find that to be proportionate and believe that the amendments would weaken the well-constructed retention and destruction regime, which has been designed with the interests and rights of under-18s in mind. Amendment No 35 would insert guidelines for guidance provided by the biometrics commissioner, including requirements for what information custody officers should provide. The biometrics commissioner is intended to be independent, and Alliance is of the belief that those directions could risk the independence of the commissioner. Amendment No 28 would remove the two-year retention period for penalty notices issued to adults. Alliance believes that the current provisions are appropriate, particularly as they include behaviour such as criminal damage. I was also concerned to read about proposals that would diminish and take away the role of the PSNI in the appeal process regarding biometric material. Under current proposals, decisions could be reviewed by a different and more senior officer with no prior involvement. It is the belief of my party that disqualifying the PSNI from carrying out the appeal process is not workable or appropriate. Lastly, I will address amendment No 38 under Gerry Carroll's name on the duty to provide information to persons whose biometric data is taken. It is my understanding that, as with some of the suggested provisions from Sinn Féin, that is to be addressed via PACE codes, subject to public consultation and Assembly scrutiny. I think it pertinent to emphasise that the new biometric retention framework will not be commenced until regulations are in place, which will still take some time. Those regulations will be subject to further public consultation and Assembly scrutiny processes. The conversation is not one that will disappear after the Bill; instead, it will probably be discussed more and more frequently across our justice system. With that in mind, Alliance is proud to support the provisions that Minister Long has proposed today. They will ensure that we have a proportionate and balanced human rights approach to biometric data retention and destruction across Northern Ireland.

1,239 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:45 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification