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 4562513

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member was being somewhat pejorative when he said that Committee members who have not considered Bills before may be overwhelmed: that is not the case. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill, but our concern is that that should be done in the right way and in the best way. We know that it has happened in predecessor Committees — had the Member been listening, he would know that I have already pointed that out — but just because it has been done before does not mean that it is the right way. To introduce six significant areas of policy at Consideration Stage is not a good way to proceed, and nobody can deny that. Likewise, if it were a different Minister's Bill, I do not think that the Member would be taking the stance that he is taking now, although I appreciate that he has a duty to do so in Committee. In his intervention, the Member also said that we had policy direction: yes, we do, but, again, I have said that text and direction are very different things. We raise the issue because it is a matter for the House. The Member may consider it to be being over-egged, but I was raising one of the issues for the Committee and am now speaking as the lead in the policy area for the Democratic Unionist Party. I would like to proceed, if that is OK. As I said, or as I was trying to say, of course we understand that issues arise urgently and that the Department needs to address them. Nevertheless, no matter which way you cut this, six policy areas do not and should not arise like that. The point that I was coming to is this: we are not unreasonable, and we know that there are issues that must be legislated for as an emergency at Consideration Stage. We are well aware that Departments sometimes may involuntarily find themselves in breach and that loopholes and lacunas must be addressed urgently. That is, however, a far cry from bringing in an additional six policy areas by way of amendment when some of them could have formed stand-alone Bills in and of themselves. A number of said policy areas are technical and, in the Minister's own words, complex, and some involve taking people's liberty for a lengthy period. I do not intend to comment further or in any detail on the policy areas that are yet to come, as their wording will be key and to do so at this stage would be mere speculation. We welcome the commitment from the Minister and officials to bring the amendments as soon as each is ready. They have given us an approximate timeline but have stated that we should not expect to have everything until the end of the year. We will await the text with anticipation. The financial aspects of the explanatory and financial memorandum are notably scant, offering little detail. When we probed at this juncture, we were repeatedly advised that, as work is ongoing, it would be imprudent to outline further details. In some cases, we were advised that business cases would follow. Importantly, the EFM indicates that the provisions will be paid for from existing resources. Given the existing pressures in the Department, however, and noting that the Department has advised the Minister of Finance that it may have to consider cuts in service provision, its ability to absorb further cuts as those issues are implemented remains to be seen. We will wish to examine that area further as the Bill progresses. It would also be helpful to know whether the Minister envisages the additional provisions that are due to follow being paid for from existing resources or, indeed, whether she will commit to publishing a revised EFM. All the issues around costs must be probed further. In previous Bills, finance did not necessarily follow function, and the relevant bodies had to absorb the cost of implementation. Given their present financial state, it is possible, if not likely, that those organisations are at saturation point and can absorb nothing further. Notable additional costs are likely to include those for the proposed Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material and for police software systems for same. It is likely that funding for those will form bids in future. I note, however, that officials have indicated that they have submitted a more detailed financial paper to RaISe for the Committee's perusal, but we have not had sight of that yet. We will give due consideration to the financials as we explore the relevant policy areas. In some areas of the Bill the proposals are extremely broad, with us being asked to legislate with regulations to follow or provisions that will not immediately be commenced. There are references to case-by-case bases that leave questions around consistency. I confess to being slightly ill at ease with some of that until it is explored further. There is also a Henry VIII clause. Departmental officials indicated that that was included for housekeeping purposes going forward. While that might be the intent now, once it is in statute, the reassurances will potentially matter little, should the powers be invoked in the years down the line. On that, we will await comment from the Examiner of Statutory Rules. Let me turn briefly to each of the constituent parts. The biometric aspects of the Bill are somewhat technical, are certainly complex and have significant bearing on law enforcement's ability to detect and convict. They are emotive for many and will require extensive consideration and careful handling. We in the Democratic Unionist Party are extremely conscious of both sides of the coin: fundamental personal freedoms and rights, including the right to privacy, and the need to balance those with public protection, the public interest and the right of victims to seek and secure justice. We are strong advocates of innocence until guilt is proven and of a fair and impartial justice system for defendants. Nevertheless, we also know the lasting impact and damage of crime, so we view proposals through the prism of victims, complainants and their needs. Hence, the timelines involved here, along with the rights and practical outworkings of all the proposals, including the role of the commissioner, will need to be considered further and in great detail. We certainly do not want to get to a situation where unidentified biometric data is deleted, only for it to be later proven that emerging technology was capable of connecting that data and those persons to serious crimes against persons and property. That would be an abdication of the state's obligations to innocent victims. We will want to scope those matters out and ensure that we have a comprehensive understanding, as well as being certain that the proposed way forward is indeed the best way forward. In Part 2 on children's bail and custody, we note the move from the presumption of bail for children to a statutory right. Our criminal justice system already treats children and young people differently from adults in a range of respects, and many of the proposals in Part 2 flow naturally from that. In general, we are conscious that all efforts must be made to afford children the opportunity to change direction and not become trapped in a revolving door to the justice system and custody for the rest of their life. We welcome the introduction of the new youth custody and supervision orders. They are preferable to multiple orders, which can be difficult and arduous to manage for all concerned. We want to probe further the options for 10- to 13-year-olds to gain a holistic picture. Do you need to interrupt me, Mr Deputy Speaker?

I need a couple of minutes, please.

1,301 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:17 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