Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

1 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4562483

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I hear what the Minister says. I will address her point as I come to it. My next paragraph indicates that evidence that was brought to the court was not brought before the Committee. Last Thursday, the Committee received a briefing from departmental officials on the Bill's content and principles. I put on record the Committee's gratitude to the officials for their candour, patience and explanations. They were clearly experts in their respective areas of responsibility and gave us considerable time to ask questions. During the meeting, we were informed that the need for an amendment to the biometric part of the Bill had been identified a mere nine calendar days after its introduction. We were assured that the amendment does not propose a change to the policy, but that did not fill the Committee with confidence that the Bill was ready to be introduced when it was.

I thank the leader of the Opposition for his intervention. I have no doubt that, when the provisions were brought forward, the Minister, the Committee and all concerned were genuine in their intent. However, there were outworkings, and we must take account of the learning and proceed in accordance with it. We must ensure that what emerges from the Bill's stages and our scrutiny is the best that can be done. That is our endeavour, and I will commit to it. I trust that the Minister understands that, when we come at the Bill from that perspective, it is with positive and constructive intent. Bear with me for a second, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to make sure that I do not miss any points that need to be made on the Committee's behalf. As I said, the Committee questioned officials on a number of issues around the Bill during the meeting last week. We asked how the provisions will be delivered primarily within existing resources, as stated in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), given the extremely challenging budget settlement that the Department has received. We raised concerns about the level of consultation that has taken place on some of the provisions and especially about the consultation on DNA and biometric data, which lasted for only eight weeks and was conducted during the initial summer months of the pandemic. We covered human rights compliance; we raised a concern about the Henry VIII powers in clause 31; and we covered a significant number of other issues. I referred to the recent High Court judgement on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That is the key point on which the Minister spoke. One aspect of the judgement that I draw to the House's attention was that Justice Humphreys noted that the rationale given in evidence for certain decisions regarding the provisions in question, while given to the court:

"did not feature in any of the materials presented to the Committee or the Assembly".

That is significant. I mention it now, because, at last Thursday's meeting, the Committee requested that officials provide further information and papers on several matters, including a delegated powers memorandum and a Keeling schedule, given the considerable number of provisions in the Bill that are contextualised via or amend other legislation. It is felt that the latter document in particular will be necessary to enable the Committee to conduct its scrutiny effectively, particularly given the Bill's extensive amending provisions. I trust that the Minister will support the Committee's request for such information. I finish this part of my speech on a positive note. As I stated, the Committee has been proactive in preparing to scrutinise the Bill. In addition to the actions that I outlined, the Committee has commissioned the public finance scrutiny unit of the Research and Information Service (RaISe) to conduct research into the Bill's financial aspects; it has commissioned the Examiner of Statutory Rules to scrutinise the Bill's delegated powers; and it has commissioned the Assembly's Legal Services to provide legal advice to support the Committee's scrutiny particularly in relation to compliance with convention rights. The Committee wants to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department throughout the Bill's passage to ensure that the Bill emerges from the process as an effective, clear and coherent addition to the statute book that improves the administration of justice for all. Therefore, we urge the Department to produce the proposed amendments at the earliest opportunity. I will speak now in my capacity as an MLA. My party shares the Committee's concerns around the extensive provisions to be brought forward at the amending stage. In practice, it makes the Committee's work extremely difficult, particularly in calling for evidence and hearing from witnesses. As you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, an outline of a policy is one thing, but the text can be quite another, and, realistically, scrutiny of the actual wording is the only proper, conscientious and effective way to proceed. To table such amendments at Consideration Stage is an unusual practice at best and is, moreover, risky, on the basis that there are no guarantees that such amendments would be selected for debate. The fact is that it is bad procedurally; it is bad for scrutiny; and it is unnecessary. If other Ministers were to do likewise, I have no doubt that MLAs from the Minister's party would be howling about it, and they would be right. As a Committee, we had implored the Minister to hold the Bill until the amendments were ready and to include them in a full Bill at introduction. At that time, she indicated that they would be ready by the autumn, but now we are told that it will be the end of the calendar year, as I stated. Even now, two weeks later, officials are already amending the original provisions on top of all the additions. We have had these conversations, so I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that predecessor Committees accepted such processes. She will state that this is not unusual and has been custom and practice with Justice Committees. That may well be so, but they were not this Committee, and it was prejudgement. I need not remind the House of the scathing judgement that impacted the Minister, her Department, the Committee and the House. We are determined, as I have said, to learn those lessons. Just because it has been done does not mean that it should be done. Of course, we understand that things arise urgently and that Departments need to address them, but, no matter what way you cut this, six policy areas do not and should not arise like this. We are not unreasonable —

I understand exactly why the Member makes the point. However, the mistake that she makes is that, in the period of hiatus, officials were working on the proposals and had additional time because they did not have other duties to consider.

I will.

Nobody indicated that the two years lost did not have an impact; nobody indicated that. That is not the point. The Member raised an issue, and I addressed it. Frankly, there is still no valid reason why those amendments could not have been brought and the Bill could not have been held. We will do our due diligence. I wish to continue with my remarks.

I am eager to proceed, but carry on.

1,223 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:16 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