Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 16 June 2026.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

16 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5625215

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At this very late hour, I thank all Members for their brief but informative contributions. I will try to cover everything that was asked. If I miss anything, forgive me; it is not out of rudeness, and I am happy to come back to Members should they want to make an intervention. I will take restorative justice first. Amendment No 87 rectifies an oversight that occurred when other powers and functions were transferred. It has the approval of the Secretary of State, and I hope that it is agreeable to everyone. Members will remember that it would have been part of what was to be an administration of justice Bill until that was narrowed to become the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill at the end of the previous mandate. Amendment No 87 will enable me to take decisions around the accreditation and registration of suitably qualified restorative justice providers and ensure that the required high standards continue to be met through monitoring, inspection and reporting mechanisms. I take on board the point that the Member made about "may" or "shall". The difficulty is that my imposing those duties outside of regulation would create some challenges if we were to end up in a situation in which resources were, for whatever reason, strained. I am, however, happy to engage with the Member between now and Further Consideration Stage, and we can have a discussion about how we can best provide the reassurance that he seeks. I can give him my assurance that my intention in tabling amendment No 87 is that we do not end up in the situation that we are in now: almost 20 years on from the previous round of accreditation, people still have that accreditation stamp, if you like, without having had any engagement with the Department since. That is what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to ensure that there is support, consistency and a quality standard that is applicable right across the board. That is what we want to ensure through monitoring, inspection and reporting. The amendment will assist in increasing the availability and geographic spread of quality services across Northern Ireland to allow more victims to access restorative justice in line with the adult restorative justice strategy. Members have referred to local groups that provide a very good service in particular localities. The challenge is that there are other localities. In one part of Belfast, a lot of restorative practice could be happening, but, in another part, there could be none. It is about trying to widen that scope so that people have access, particularly in rural constituencies. A number of Members asked questions about the roll-out. The pilot is under way as part of the ARJS vision to expand the use of that practice. The first phase launched at the end of March, and it focuses on diversionary disposals, initially in the policing districts of Ards and North Down and Lisburn and Castlereagh. That will be followed by those in Antrim and Newtownabbey, Mid and East Antrim and Derry/Londonderry. The idea is that, as we go along, we will start to roll it out across the various policing districts. It will require training for the PSNI and PPS on the new restorative justice diversionary disposal. Work continues to reinforce the use of that disposal approach in both organisations. We do not want to put it on the statute book only for it never to be used. We want to ensure that restorative practice becomes part of the formal justice system. Earlier, we talked about what victims want. I meet with many victims every week, many of whom have had a very traumatic experience when going through the formal justice system. However, when they come away from it at the end, they find that they never got what they wanted: answers. Why me? Why was I targeted? Why did it happen? What made you do it? The final episode of Carl Frampton's TV programme about probation was profound. That young woman would still, many years on, love to have those answers. She has been through the justice system, and she got justice for her partner, but she has never found the answers that she seeks to her questions. That is what restorative justice can provide that the formal justice system cannot. It is really important that, where appropriate, people across Northern Ireland get access to that. We also intend to have a virtual restorative hub. We will have around 20 DOJ-accredited restorative justice practitioners operating at levels 2 and 3. They will work together to ensure consistency of practice, co-facilitate referrals and undertake shared training. We are still waiting for more referrals to that body, and the test will be when those referrals start to come through. I hope that the training that is being provided to our partner organisations will start to see that transpire, and, hopefully, that will bring a new service to victims. Under the new practice standards and the accreditation framework, there is a very clear provision on the skills, experience and expertise that organisations and practitioners have to achieve and maintain in order to be and remain accredited. Critical to that are the reporting requirements that will be in place to demonstrate that service provision is being maintained to the necessary standard, and there will be an inherent need to reflect the views and satisfaction of those to whom services are provided. That feedback from victims who have been referred to those services — for example, by the PPS or the courts — will need to come back to us. The protocol lead will also have the ability to undertake unannounced visits to those who are providing restorative justice services, so that they can assess for themselves on a regular basis the work that the organisation is doing regularly. The Department will also require accredited organisations and independent practitioners to report to it on key performance indicators on the provision of services. Those will be quarterly and end-of-year reports. That will provide a good balance. Moving on to rehabilitation periods, the current rehabilitation arrangements allow for the vast majority of convictions to become spent. Of the approximately 25,000 convictions in 2019, which was the last full year of normal figures, over 50% were fines, and 93% of custodial sentences under the existing arrangements could become spent. That said, 96% of respondents to the consultation exercise supported a review of rehabilitation periods here; 97% supported a reduction in existing rehabilitation periods and 94% supported an uplift of the current limit of 30 months. What is being proposed in these amendments is, I think, a balanced approach. It supports effective rehabilitation and, at the same time, has public protection at its heart. It is important that, while seeking to reform existing rehabilitation periods, the scheme should remain simple and workable. As is currently the case, convictions for the most serious offending will never become spent. The changes to rehabilitation periods in Northern Ireland in amendment No 92 directly mirror those in England and Wales and Scotland for all convictions of fewer than four years imprisonment where all offences, regardless of the nature of the offence, can become spent. Where our schemes differ is in how we treat serious offences. The scheme in England and Wales specifies 182 different offences as serious, and convictions for sentences of over four years' imprisonment cannot become spent. That scheme is quite difficult to navigate, nor is it easy to understand, and it can create confusion as to what offences can and cannot become spent. There is no clear rationale either for setting the bright line that separates the same offence as serious and non-serious at four years. Such bright lines have been subject to legal challenge in the past, and I suspect that they will be again. However, by using the existing definition of a serious offence in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and setting the upper limit in Northern Ireland at 10 years, we are offering clarity, certainty and ease of understanding. I understand that some Members may still have concerns about such long sentences being able to become spent. To those Members, I say that convictions that attract sentences of over six years' imprisonment tend to be in the low single figures across all offence types per year. Reoffending rates in Northern Ireland are also lower for those who are released from custodial sentences of over three years than for those who are released from shorter sentences. That is another reason for my constantly saying in the House that we should reserve custodial sentences for those longer sentences that are for the most serious offences. The MOJ study in England and Wales suggested that the highest rates of reoffending occur in burglary, robbery and theft offences, while sexual offences are amongst the lowest. That is, in large part, due to supervisory arrangements, but it is worth noting that that is the lowest level of reoffending. If I may, I also want to reassure Cara Hunter that a review mechanism will be taken forward in the next mandate. There is no intention on our part not to do that, but there is just no resource in the Department of Justice to do it in this mandate.

I regret that I stand here so often and say that we have no resources to do the things that we wish to do, but that will be part of the Department's forward work plan in the next mandate. I reassure Ms Hunter that that is our intent and it will happen.

The final point is about the filtering scheme. The provisions are in there to allow improved ease of use and understanding of which offences can be filtered from standard and enhanced checks. The creation of a detailed list of offences with the new schedule to the Police Act 1997 is of benefit to citizens who want to understand the content of their disclosure certificate so that they will not have to phone AccessNI to ask why things are or are not on it. It will also benefit AccessNI by ensuring that it is accurate and consistent in the treatment of the offences. One of the things that we are trying to do is to simplify the list of offences in order to get consistency and clarity, reduce error and thereby improve safeguarding outcomes in Northern Ireland, which is always the priority in such circumstances. A further benefit is that it will allow for more straightforward and timely maintenance of listed offences and the associated list in the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Exceptions) Order 1979. From our perspective, the important thing about how the offences are filtered is that, at its heart, it is about better public protection, a better understanding of how the system works and more clarity and simplicity. Most people recognise that many parts of the justice system are complex. Even when I read out the legislation that we are going to amend, it is, at times, like a tongue-twister. For the ordinary member of the public to follow all the Parts of the Police Act and all the categories of offences is really complicated. It is better that we simplify the list as far as is possible without losing any of the protections that we have, ensure that people's offences are filtered out only where appropriate and ensure that the protections remain in place, particularly for the excepted employment areas that I mentioned, where the most vulnerable people would be or where people would have access to vulnerable people, such as in policing or justice roles. I commend the amendments to the House. I thank Members for their engagement on them at this late hour. I thank the officials at the Table, who have also endured a lengthy day. Without further ado, I thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

1,987 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:57 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