Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 2 June 2026.

MLA: Mrs Naomi Long
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 2 June 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Executive Committee Business
Heading: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5584512

Text

First, it is tied to the seriousness of the offence because the 75 years is for serious and adult offending. Secondly, it is proportionate because there are opportunities for people to seek a review of whether their data should continue to be held. They have the opportunity to go to the biometrics commissioner and request that the data be reviewed, and that gives the proportionality. It is not the Department’s interpretation of the Bill, and it is certainly not its advice. "Indefinite retention" means that the period of retention is not defined, and it means that people cannot challenge whether the data can continue to be held. That definition is supported by the European Court of Human Rights in the Gaughran judgement because the UK argued that its indefinite retention was similar to other member states that had long retention periods, and the ECHR ruled otherwise.
Will the Member give way?
As I said, a case-by-case basis is neither practical nor does it give people sight of how long the data will be retained at the point when it is taken, whereas this model gives clarity and certainty. It also means that the data will be subject to review after a certain period because there are maximum retention periods, and the review means that, if the material is found to be no longer necessary for a policing purpose, it can be deleted. The model gives maximum retention periods, and it is important to distinguish that from standard periods.
Will the Member give way?
The 50-year retention period is for serious offending and repeat offending. It is not as simple as saying that it is for all offending. Actually, the standard retention periods for young people are shorter, but they are also accompanied by an earlier review point in the system to ensure that young people can move on, as we all hope they do and as the Youth Justice Agency very effectively ensures that the majority of our young people who offend are able to, and have that data removed from the database. This is about checks and balances. There is no one right system. That was made clear by the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, who said that there are a number of models that fit with the rules of the ECHR — not a single model — and that there is no gold standard anywhere. There are a variety of models, and this is one. It is also geared towards ensuring that children are given special dispensation, as is right.

420 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.93).
No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.

This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.

Jev’s structured answers

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.04	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.02	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.01	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.03	No
Controversy escalation	0.03	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.93	Yes
Overall judgement	0.04	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	1.00
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.00
Adopts it	0.00

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.61
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups	0.34
Another identity-related subject	0.04
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues	0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

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