Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 1 October 2024.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

1 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4563210

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As I mentioned at the beginning of the debate, progressing this legislation to improve the effectiveness and operation of the justice system is a priority for me. I thank all the Members for their mainly constructive, positive and always lively engagements in the Chamber today. As the Bill moves through its stages in the Assembly, I hope that we can continue in that spirit in order to ensure that this important legislation reaches the statute book as soon as possible and starts to deliver for those who enter the justice system across Northern Ireland. I know that many of you support the provisions of the Bill as introduced and those that I intend to bring forward as amendments at Consideration Stage. I want to turn now, however, to some of the issues that were raised during the debate. The Chair of the Justice Committee initially raised an issue in respect of what she perceives to be a rushed introduction and the Committee's preference that we should have deferred introduction of the Bill until all of the drafting was complete. A number of Members echoed those sentiments. This Justice Bill is, however, only one of three Bills that I intend to bring forward during the mandate. In line with the advice of the Executive Office, we have been advised that we should limit legislation to one Bill a year. As I have said in the Chamber before, there are indeed restrictions in terms of capacity in the Office of the Legislative Council. That is not news, and I have said it in the Chamber before when discussing my legislative programme. That is to ensure sufficient time for each Bill to complete its full Assembly journey. Therefore, it was important that the Justice Bill was introduced at the soonest possible opportunity, not least because some of the content is required to address court judgements that the Department remains in default of and therefore remains at risk of court action. If the Justice Bill were the only Bill that I intended to progress, it would make perfect sense to simply delay its introduction until the additional planned content was drafted so that it could be included in the Bill from the outset. It has to be said, however, that, given the scope of the Bill, it is likely that on its passage through the Chamber and Committee, there may be other issues that the Committee and other Members of the House would wish to add to the Bill. It seems that we were never going to know what the fully formed outcome of the Bill would be until it had passed through the Assembly. For those who throw their head in their hands in despair at the idea that Members or, indeed, the Minister might amend the Bill, it is worth remembering that that is the purpose of the Chamber. That is what we are here to do. It is right that people should be able to do that within the scope of the Bill. There is a growing backlog of primary legislation requirements across the justice system that are critical for my Department and for the delivery of justice. Indeed, a great amount of the content of this Bill is a hangover from the previous, truncated mandate, when I had to adjust the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill from being a miscellaneous provisions Bill because some of those were put on pause. It is important that we maximise the use of the time that we have available in this mandate. We cannot always lag behind other jurisdictions. I spent most of the previous mandate doing catch-up on basic issues such as domestic abuse, stalking and other legislation, but I am now in a position where I have to play catch-up around these technical issues. The drafting of all the planned additions to the Bill has commenced, and, while some are at an advanced stage of preparedness, it will take until the end of the year before the final additional provisions are drafted in full. However, the policy intent is clear, and that, therefore, provides no barrier to the Committee's call for evidence, as the legislative drafting will be complete when that concludes, allowing the Committee and witnesses to proceed with full scrutiny of each clause. It is also important to say that I am not waiting until all the additional provisions are fully drafted. I have undertaken with the Committee directly and via my officials that we will share the drafted clauses as soon as they become available. Nothing will be retained in the Department that the Committee does not have sight of once it is completed. Allowing for the time that is necessary to complete all of the pre-introduction clearances for a revised Bill and to secure Executive approval for introduction, had I decided to delay introduction, it would most likely have been February or March 2025 before a Bill could have been introduced in the Assembly. There would then be a corresponding delay in the remaining stages of the Bill, and it would not complete its passage until early 2026 at the earliest. That would, of course, delay the time frame for the implementation of the Bill's provisions and would extend the period during which we would need to continue to rely, for example, on the temporary live links provision in the Coronavirus Act 2020 for considerably longer than any of us would wish. The extended timetable for the completion of the Justice Bill's progress through the Assembly would also have had an impact on Committee scrutiny of the sentencing and victims Bills in this mandate, as it would then be necessary to overlap Bills. That is something that we have sought to minimise throughout, having learned from previous experience. There are significant issues and public commitments to victims who have worked hard with my Department on provisions in the sentencing Bill and have extended the scope of what was to be a stand-alone hate crime Bill, so that we have further provisions and protections for victims of crime, including hate crime, in the latter Bill.

I would not be able to maintain a clear gap between each of the Bills at Committee Stage — something that was actively seeking to deliver — in order to avoid overburdening the Committee and Assembly with overlapping Bills. Whilst a mixed-content Bill is, by definition, broad in scope, this Bill is by no means unusually so. Previous miscellaneous provisions Bills have routinely had in excess of 80 clauses and more than five schedules. On the Committee scrutiny issue that was raised, I reference the Keeling schedule to which the Chair of the Committee drew our attention. That has never been provided by any Department or the OLC as part of the Committee scrutiny process in the House. It is not part of TEO guidance on the legislative process either, and it has no legal standing. In effect, it has no standing because it cannot be verified until the Bill is complete. I consulted with the OLC, and it indicated that it has never produced such a schedule. However, I know that the Committee will seek to engage with first legislative counsel directly on that point. If a Keeling schedule is thought to be of assistance to the Committee, it can commission that from the Bill Office, but that is not a matter for me or the Department to take forward. On why so much additional content is being proposed for Consideration Stage, that is not unusual for the Department of Justice either. It has always been the practice of my Department to bring forward additional policy areas for inclusion at Consideration Stage of mixed-content Bills. They are the only broad-based vehicles for reform. However, that breadth of scope is balanced by the very narrow technical nature of the individual sections. Whilst the provisions are narrow, there are many of them. Therefore, it is broad-based only in the sense that it covers a lot of ground — the provisions are quite narrowly focused. I would prefer to have a series of smaller Bills. However, I have been advised that it would not be good practice for me to bring through, for example, eight or nine Bills with maybe one or two clauses in each. Also, with two shortened Assembly mandates, we have limited time to progress a significant programme of legislation, including reforms that we could not process during the previous mandate. Many of the provisions would not warrant a separate Bill. Others would be delayed until the next mandate were they not in this Bill, and that, as I say, could leave us at risk of legal challenge. The amendments also address court judgements. Somebody said that they should not be brought forward at the convenience of the Department or the Minister. I can assure you that we are not bringing those amendments forward for my convenience. It is because there are court judgements hanging over us that need to be addressed. We aim to have those amendments drafted around the end of the calendar year but some of the content will be ready sooner, and we will share that with the Committee as soon as it is available. It is odd that Members who have criticised my Department and me for not bringing forward enough legislation more quickly now complain that we are moving too quickly. That irony will not be lost on anyone listening to the debate. I want to address the Henry VIII powers now because they relate directly to the breadth and scope of a miscellaneous provisions Bill such as this, and a number of Members raised concerns about them. The provisions of clause 31 may look wide, but the clause needs to be read carefully in legislative terms. It is not a power for me, as Justice Minister, to do whatever I like. I cannot use it to alter policy or to dilute or disturb policy that I may not support. The provisions in clause 31 are not standard, so they need to be seen in context. Not all Bills will need a provision of that nature, but it is an important safeguard in appropriate circumstances. Where a Bill is complex, wide-ranging and amends or repeals other statutes to a large degree, such as this Bill, a provision of that sort is wise and proportionate. Given my own observations on the complexities of drafting needed to give effect to the policy objectives in the Bill, which the Committee has commented on, I am firmly of the view that clause 31 is appropriate on this occasion. As I said, the powers in clause 31 do not allow me to amend the legislation for any purpose. The powers are limited to making supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provisions for the sole purpose of giving full effect to the intended policy provisions of the Bill and nothing more. The clause is necessary to manage a small and particular risk, which arises from the complexities of mixed-content Bills such as this. Although every effort is made by officials, departmental legal advisers, legislative drafters and the Committee to ensure that all legislation is error-free, there is always a possibility that an amendment or a repeal is missed that will render the policy objective impossible to implement or that will create a gap in the law. The provisions in clause 31 enable me to offer the Assembly a fix — I stress the word "fix" — without which it would be necessary to await the next primary vehicle, which may be well over a year away, thus creating an unhelpful lacuna in the law. Those powers are therefore important in mixed-content Bills but are used by exception only. I will now move on to the issue of resources, which, again, a number of Members explored. It is true to say that my Department is undoubtedly facing significant budgetary challenges. Those challenges have been very well rehearsed in the Chamber, so I will not rehearse them again today. Many of the Bill's provisions, however, relate to matters where we are seeking to meet our obligations under the ECHR and international law. As such, we will have to make their implementation a priority so that we can fulfil our statutory duties in a lawful manner. We will continue to manage very carefully the resources that are made available to us and continue to take the difficult decisions that are required to allow us to remain within budget, as we always do. The majority of the provisions in the Bill, unlike with previous Bills that were heavy in policy content, attract no additional cost at all, however. Some, such as live links, have the ability to reduce costs. I think that it was the Committee Chair who said that the financial information was to be passed on to RaISe. That was done by my Department on 18 September and was also copied to the Committee Clerk at the same time. I am therefore not clear as to why the Committee has not had sight of it, but the Department has provided that information. If there are any issues with it, however, I am more than happy to engage with the Chair directly and resolve them. The Chair also raised the issue of cooperation with other Departments, especially on the release of children on bail and the availability of suitable accommodation. First, it is important to note that that is not instituting a change in practice but merely creating a legislative underpinning for existing best practice. That is an important consideration. We all have a duty to keep people safe, but the use of custody when their offending behaviour does not require it is in breach of children's rights and our UN commitments. We cannot continue to hold children, or, indeed, anyone, in custody simply because we do not have the means to secure safe accommodation for them in an alternative location. To do so would be unjust and wrong. The purpose of custody is clearly set out in law. We recognise, however, that, in order to prevent that happening, we need to increase the provision of alternative accommodation in the community. My Department will continue to explore options with the Department of Health and, indeed, the Department for Communities in order to address the issue. Only once that additional community provision is available will my Department commence the relevant provision preventing lack of accommodation from being used as a reason to refuse bail. The new provisions introduce two tests, both of which must be met in order for the court to remand a child in custody. The idea that children can never be remanded in custody is, again, flawed analysis. They can, but there are two tests that must first be met. The first test requires the court to consider whether it is very likely that a custodial sentence will be handed down for the offence for which the child is charged. Where the court concludes that it is not likely, it must grant bail — that is good practice — regardless of any other circumstances of the case. That test must be applied each time that a child appears before the court throughout the remand period to ensure that the remand in custody is still appropriate. Furthermore, the inclusion of the second test means that the court may still release a child on bail despite the strong likelihood that a custodial sentence could be applied if the court believes that remand in custody is not essential. My officials have met representatives from a range of stakeholders, including the PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service, the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and Office of the Lady Chief Justice to discuss any concerns that they have about those new provisions. They have also ensured that relevant colleagues in the Department of Health have been kept apprised of issues that may have an impact on them. That work provided the opportunity to discuss potential issues before the draft provisions were finalised. In addition, the work has been discussed with children's sector organisations. I know that Mr Carroll, who is not in his place, raised that particular issue. Those organisations are keen to see those changes be implemented. Further concerns were raised about the notion of unconditional bail for children. Children can spend long periods on bail while they are waiting for their case to be dealt with, and complying with a raft of complex bail conditions over a prolonged period can be difficult for them. A breach of those conditions can lead to their coming back into court and being drawn further into the justice system, which is something that we try to avoid. Ironically, once their case is dealt with, if found guilty, they are often subject to far fewer conditions under a court order than they were while they were on bail and were technically innocent. Recommendations from a number of reports have advocated unconditional bail as standard for children. That is the baseline that we are introducing in the new provisions. It is important to note that the right to bail — in particular, unconditional bail — as standard is not absolute: it is a qualified right. We are not saying that conditions cannot be applied but that any decision to do so should be considered carefully, taking into account a range of factors, including the child's age, circumstances and their understanding of, and ability to comply with, any conditions imposed. It is also important to say that, where parents wish to, for example, apply a curfew, they are, of course, as parents, at liberty to do so. It does not require a court order to tell your child where they can go or that they cannot go out at certain times of the day or night. Parents will also be involved in the consultation. A large-scale consultation by the Law Commission identified four grounds on which a court can consider refusing bail or imposing bail conditions: to prevent the child failing to surrender to custody; to prevent the child committing an offence while on bail; to prevent the child interfering with witnesses or otherwise obstructing the course of justice; or to prevent the child's release causing a serious threat to public order. Any bail conditions that are set should be the minimum needed to prevent one or more of those things from happening. Anecdotally, we have heard that parents request certain bail conditions, such as curfews, to help them to manage their child and keep them out of trouble. Although I understand that and empathise with parents who are trying to do their best for their children, the justice system and the use of bail conditions is not a parenting tool. It simply has to be used for the court's benefit for public interest, and it has to be in the interests of the law. If it means that we are going to be in breach of children's rights and our international obligations, it is not something that we can simply continue to do. A number of issues have been raised about the biometrics section of the Bill, but I will first address the need for amendments to the biometrics provisions and why amendments are needed so soon after the Bill's introduction. As part of the stress testing of the legislation with the PSNI, we identified the need for some amendments to further improve it. It was not possible to make those change prior to the introduction of the Bill, and, therefore, I intend to bring those forward at Consideration Stage. The proposed amendments will include a power to photograph individuals in specified circumstances at a police station. That will align the power to take photographs with the powers to take fingerprints and non-intimate samples. A power to specify a date of attendance at a police station for fingerprinting samples and photographs will simplify the process and ensure the better management and provision of policing resources. The replacement of the term "reported" with the term:

"complaint being laid against a person"

in Part VI of PACE NI is to reflect operational procedures across the biometric provisions and avoid any confusion with the various meanings of the term "reported" in the criminal justice system. Clarification regarding the retention periods for biometrics on foot of community-based restorative justice schemes; the protection of biometric material that would normally fall for deletion but is subject to a decision pending by the Biometrics Commissioner regarding applications made under article 63G; and an amendment to ensure that biometrics held under article 63F, which concerns material pending investigation or proceedings, can be retained by the PSNI for up to 28 days. It is incorrect to suggest that those are unorthodox amendments. Those provisions were originally drafted in 2020, which speaks to how long it takes for us to develop legislation and take it through the House, and yet most people's biggest fear today seems to be about undue haste. These were drafted in 2020. It was through continuous engagement that we recognised where amendments were required. It is not unusual for changes to be identified during a period of four years, and those changes can be handled through simple amendments. The handling of the biometrics consultation was also raised. The Department initially intended to include those provisions in a justice Bill that was being drafted during the previous mandate. At that time, there was a time constraint to complete that consultation and have the provisions included in the Bill. However, I direct Members who were concerned about the eight-week consultation to paragraph 65 of the Fresh Start Agreement, to which their parties were signatories, which reduced standard consultation periods to eight weeks from 12.

I appreciate the difficulties with consulting over the summer and the challenges associated with COVID, but we were up against a time barrier. Therefore, we had to continue with that. It was also a specific piece of legislation, and most of the respondents to the consultation were from very technical fields and dealt with it in a very technical way.

The Department has continued to engage with key stakeholders as the work has progressed, whether it is the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the PSNI or others. I hope that Members are reassured by the fact that subordinate legislation and updates to the PACE codes that are required to support the implementation of the legislation will also be subject to public consultation in due course. There will be further opportunity for scrutiny of the measures. The Department will ensure that there is good time for those future consultations to enable stakeholders to contribute fully. That subordinate legislation requires separate consultation, and, by the end of the process, it will have been fully considered. The Department is also progressing work to assess the financial impacts of implementing the provisions on biometric data, some of which can only be determined when the full detail of the legislation is finalised, as we do not know what amendments will be tabled by Members or the Committee. There are likely to be costs associated with a number of the elements, such as the setting up of a commissioner to deal with the retention of biometric data. We are progressing work to assess the costs, including the development of potential staffing models, which will require consultation in due course with the commissioner, once they are appointed. There may also be costs to the PSNI in developing or updating IT systems to support the implementation of the legislation. We will engage with the PSNI further on that as it takes the work forward. However, it is court-ordered. It is not something that we can put on the long finger. Not doing that work would leave us in breach of human-rights obligations and the law. We have to proceed, but we will work with our partners to ensure that we do so in a proportionate way. A number of Members said that they were concerned about the provisions on biometric data, in the sense that the less data you retain, the lower the chance of obtaining a speculative match and solving a crime. However, it is not the size of the database that is important but, rather, the data from the right people being retained and the number of crime scene profiles that are held. For example, when the Home Office commenced new legislation on biometric data in England and Wales in October 2013, over 1·7 million profiles and fingerprints were removed from the national DNA and fingerprint databases. Contrary to expectation, its introduction had no demonstrably adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the databases. In fact, the overall subject-to-crime-scene match rate on loading from the national DNA database increased. There is, however, another train of thought, which I understand, that deletions will result in the loss of forensic identifications that would otherwise have been made. That is a natural consequence of removing fingerprints and DNA profiles from searchable databases. However, it should be noted that those revisions are not optional: they are required in order to comply with court judgements. A number of benefits have to be weighed against that disbenefit. A balanced and proportionate approach to the retention of DNA and fingerprints that respects the European Court's judgements and ensures that our domestic legislation complies with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is key. It will also remove the blanket and indefinite nature of the retention of material under the current law. A regulation-making power for a new review mechanism to determine the necessity for the continued retention of biometric data, which can address Members' concerns and will, crucially, future-proof the provisions, is important. Independent oversight of the retention of DNA and fingerprints and the use or potential use of new biometric technology by the police in Northern Ireland also future-proofs the provisions and ensures that proper independent scrutiny and assurance is provided. Doug Beattie, amongst others, raised a specific point about the interplay between retention and legacy investigations. I am aware that my officials have written in detail to the Committee about how the provisions will interface with the ICRIR. Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2013 contained a new biometric retention framework for Northern Ireland. If that had been commenced, a large volume of material would have fallen for deletion from police databases at that time. In 2015, prior to the proposed commencement of the legislation, the Department was alerted by the then Chief Constable to the potential impact that those deletions might have on legacy investigations. Minister Ford took the decision to delay commencement until a solution could be identified to lawfully mitigate that risk. That is the situation that we are now in. The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery was established following the introduction of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and has been operational since May 2024. The Act included a power to make regulations to permit the retention of designated collections of biometric material that would otherwise be destroyed under certain statutory destruction provisions. Remember, some of that material will have been collected in places other than Northern Ireland. The provision ensures that this is preserved material and that it is available for use by the ICRIR as and when required. The independent commission regulations have now come into force, and we continue to liaise closely with the NIO and the PSNI to ensure that we align with their processes and procedures. For non-Troubles-related legacy cases, which the Member also expressed some concern around, the legislation enables the PSNI to continue to hold material taken from anyone in relation to an ongoing case. Provided that the case is ongoing, that data can be retained. The balance to which I referred in my opening speech is essential and will, of course, be subject to Committee scrutiny. The Bill reflects the judgement, and the balance took account of, for example, Sunita Mason's review of the retention of criminal records and practice elsewhere. Experts have advised that the provisions are reasonable. They reflect my views and those of the Department, but the Committee is free to take further evidence at Committee Stage and, indeed, to discuss further with my officials whether it believes that we have reached the correct balance. On the impact of live links, I assure Members that their use is always subject to the "in the interests of justice" test. Under article 44, a district judge in a Magistrates' Court may extend detention for up to a period of 96 hours with the requirement of the detainee and a police officer to appear in person before the court. The new provisions will enable a detainee and a police officer to participate in those proceedings before the court via a live link, without the need to travel to court in person. The PACE legislation sets out the responsibilities of officers to individuals in detention. Article 40 of PACE (NI) will be amended to enable the PSNI to carry out a police interview via live links, including provisions to ensure that compliance with PACE and the associated codes is appropriately transferred between the officer at the station and the officers conducting the live link interview. Operationally introducing live links for reviews of police detention and interviews will provide much greater flexibility for the PSNI and will mean that reviews and interviews will, potentially, be dealt with more swiftly, meaning more efficient use of its scarce resources. For example, the current legislation requires a superintendent carrying out an interview to authorise, in person, an increase in the continued detention of a person in police custody from 24 hours to 36 hours. The new provisions provide an opportunity for a superintendent to undertake a review of the extension of detention via a live link, provided that the appropriate safeguards have been met, from a different station to that in which the detainee is held. The use of live links also has the potential to result in further efficiencies, particularly in travel and escort costs. The proposed provisions would also ensure that the Department was continuing to deliver on its digital strategy. Maurice Bradley raised the issue of breaches of bail, covered in clause 7. I confirm that the PSNI has confirmed that it is content and that, in many cases, the provision is reflective of what happens in practice anyway. He also raised a point about whether accommodation can be varied where there is a risk of high-risk juveniles coming into contact with lower-risk individuals. We are confident that the current layout of the Juvenile Justice Centre is adequate to manage that successfully, and, indeed, the staff do so day-to-day. Live links in interviews will be governed by PACE, as I said, so there is guidance and safeguards around that. Those were the main issues raised. I was asked why the live links legislation and a draft of the replacements for the live links used in court during COVID have not been brought forward. Mr Frew said that this was straightforward. He said that, because we had COVID regulations, it should not be that difficult. However, that misses the point. We have not been transposing the COVID regulations, which were done at pace and without consultation, an issue that, I know, caused the Member concern. We have gone back to first principles. The legislative drafting instructions to the Office of Legislative Counsel are 138 pages long. They are far from simple or straightforward. We are not simply replicating the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CVA). That legislation was brought forward to deal with a health emergency. The current wider provision sits very uneasily alongside a number of pre-existing pieces of primary criminal and secondary civil legislation that deal with live links but do not entirely align with the CVA. Having gone back to first principles to ensure that what we put in place for the future will meet our longer-term needs, we found that we can cope both with criminal and civil proceedings and do that in a nuanced way. The previous approach to primary legislation stretches back 20 years, and it was piecemeal and more cautious about when and for whom live links could be used — for example, with the defendant's consent. We are attempting to consolidate processes into a single approach that will not need to be constantly revisited in primary legislation but that has some flexibility in secondary legislation for some of the factors that influence the decision. It is important that we ensure that there is no diminution in access to special measures and that we get the balance right with human rights considerations and access to justice. The model that we have ended up with is set out in the way-forward document that was published earlier this month, and it is quite similar to the CVA but is much more comprehensive. The policy approach is based on extensive stakeholder engagement and consultation as well as on learning from experience here and in other jurisdictions. We have also had to continue making extension orders, which has proved to be quite time-consuming, since they can cover only a maximum of six months. On each occasion, as well as drafting the order, we have had to document the justification for continuing to use live links via emergency legislation, undertake an equality screening exercise and complete a rural needs assessment and so on. That is onerous for a Department that is carrying around 10% to 12% vacancies because of a lack of funds. It is not in the Bill because, again, it was impossible for the Department to publish the results of the consultation and to brief a Minister when it did not have a Minister. Once I was in post, I was able to make the decisions that were required in order that the legislative drafting could proceed, and that is now happening. Mr Gaston raised a number of points. First, he asked why the amendment was being made to give the Policing Board the power to delegate functions to its staff in respect of certain duties under the Act and whether the board thought that that would be helpful to it. The judgement that I referred to is the driver for that, and it is the case of McKee & Hughes (and others) v The Charity Commission of May 2019. It made clear the need to ensure that a body such as the board has express powers in legislation to enable it to delegate any of its functions. Therefore, I want to make sure that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is very clear on that point and that there is no ambiguity. In response to the case of McKee & Hughes (and others) v The Charity Commission in May 2019, the board revisited its procedures to ensure that they were compliant with the legislation, and those procedures are working well. There will be no need for the board to revise its procedures as a result of the amendment. The amendment will simply provide a power of delegation that will be available should the board wish to use it. It is not automatic that the board will choose to do so. Mr Gaston also raised a slight misapprehension, I think, about the amendment to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 regarding the repeal of section 29. That amendment will repeal section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which relates to the requirement of the Comptroller and Auditor General to perform various duties in respect of the Northern Ireland Policing Board's policing and performance plans. The provisions require the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit, certify, make recommendations where appropriate, comment on the plan's compliance against section 28 of the Act and comply with some other administrative aspects on furnishing reports. The amendment will repeal all the requirements that are in that section. The repeal of the provisions will reduce duplication of oversight arrangements for policing, and anyone who has worked in the policing sphere, engaged with the Policing Board or spoken with the Chief Constable will know that duplication of oversight is a major issue and burden, financially and in other ways, to policing. The amendment will, however, also free up resources of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which primarily is responsible for the financial and value-for-money audits of public bodies. The amendment will also bring Northern Ireland into line with arrangements of its UK counterparts and ensure that best value arrangements are adopted, and I hope that Mr Gaston will welcome that. In the 2017 Northern Ireland Audit Office report on continuous improvement in arrangements in policing, with continued recommendations in the 2018 and 2019 audits, the Comptroller and Auditor General concluded that it was time for the Department to review that legislative requirement for auditing policing plans. In light of that, we did a preliminary review and found that, due to amendments of legislation across other jurisdictions, we were now the only jurisdiction that had that kind of audit. The Department consulted on that as part of a wider consultation on policing oversight and accountability arrangements.

The findings of that consultation were presented to me, as Minister of Justice, in October 2022, and I agreed to the recommendations to repeal section 29 of the Act.

Mr McNulty and, from a slightly different perspective, Mr Gaston raised concerns that the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not included in the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware that we should be talking about only those things that are included in the Bill, but I think that it is important that I explain the reasons for exclusions from the Bill. I have been clear about my commitment to raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to bring Northern Ireland more into line with international standards, including directives from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Increasing MACR would reinforce the message that young children who offend need support, guidance and help, not criminalisation and punishment. Evidence also clearly demonstrates that early formal contact with the justice system often results in poorer outcomes for individuals in the long term, which, of course, impacts negatively not only on them but on their victims, their families and their wider community. To change the law in that area, Executive support would be required, but that has not previously been forthcoming, though I have addressed it with Executive colleagues in the past. To further inform the discussion, my Department carried out a public consultation to seek views on increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility from the current age of 10 years, which is the lowest in Europe. That consultation took place between October and December 2022, with responses demonstrating overwhelming public support for an increase. Over 83% of respondents agreed that the age should be increased beyond 10 years, with the majority supporting an increase to 14 years. My officials have developed several options for progressing the issue based on views expressed during the consultation, and I shared a paper with Executive colleagues on 8 July to seek their views on my proposals. Those included, but were not limited to, exemptions for serious offending such as, for example, serious sexual offences or murder. Any increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility that requires legislative change will require me to get Executive approval. To date, I have had one response to the letter that I sent on 8 July, and that was from my colleague Andrew Muir. I have had no response from other Ministers either in favour of or against the proposals, and it is also fair to say that I have issued a number of reminders to make sure that my letter had not simply fallen out of those other Ministers' in trays.

I will, yes.

Well, I think that I have been very clear in what I am saying. It would require the Executive to approve any amendment to the Bill. The Executive have not responded to my letter asking them whether they wish me to bring forward such an amendment, so, yes, that is exactly what I have just said.

Yes, of course.

Unfortunately, no. Any increase would require legislative change. However, in the meantime, as a Department, we will continue to implement our successful policy to divert children of all ages, but particularly younger children, away from the formal criminal justice system and deal with them through early intervention and community support in line with the actions set out in my Department's strategic framework for youth justice. In conclusion — I guess that everybody will be delighted to hear those words, if not all the others — I am encouraged by the support shown by Members today.

I will, of course.

Irrespective of whether they carry a prison sentence, they do not fall under deprivation of liberty because a prison sentence is a custodial sentence and will be set out in law. Deprivation of liberty generally involves issues where somebody, for other reasons, has their liberty removed from them, either for public protection or for their own protection, so there is no intention in that. Of course, if the Member wishes to have non-custodial sentences for those offences, she will be free to look at bringing that forward, if she is concerned about deprivation of liberty for those who are engaged in directing or participating in serious organised crime.

Does the Member want to intervene?

In fairness and with all due respect to the Committee Chair, I did not twist what she asked. I was very clear that custodial sentencing is not part of deprivation of liberty. It is part of the criminal justice system. With respect, the Member chose to intervene on this issue to twist what my colleague said and misrepresent the point that she made. To be clear, there are no issues with respect to human rights and deprivation of liberty in the Bill. There will be, of course, custodial sentences that relate to offences created by the Bill. Those are two different and distinct things. In drawing my remarks to a close, I thank everyone who contributed today to what was, I hope, a useful and constructive discussion. It is plain that the Committee will have an interesting and challenging time considering the issues. I commend the Bill to the Chamber for approval and wish the Committee every success in the task ahead. As we modernise our justice system, as with any other part of government, it is important that we do so with due diligence and with some speed, because the protracted delays that we see in our system are not reflected in other jurisdictions. People in Northern Ireland deserve no less of a justice system than people in any other part of these islands.

7,142 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:23 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