Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 5 November 2024.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

5 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4631505

Read the official Assembly record

Text

As Chairman of the Justice Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, and I declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. I emphasise in the strongest possible terms that the Committee did not take its decision to seek an extension of this duration lightly. We are required to take a decision about the time we need to complete scrutiny and report to the House within the period set out in Standing Orders. In this case, the Committee has had to do that against the backdrop of complexity and significant uncertainty. The date in the motion provides for a longer period than has been normal; we recognise that. Looking at it without the appropriate context, it may appear that the extension is very long. However, it is the product of the particular circumstances of the Bill. The complex nature of the mixed content Bill, the fact that it is proposed that substantive provisions will be added by way of amendment at Consideration Stage and the High Court judgement on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 were among the matters that the Committee considered when coming to its decision to seek the extension. So far, the Committee has received briefings from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), the Bill Office, the Clerk Assistant with responsibility for the Bill Office, the Assembly's Legal Services and officials from the Department of Justice. Much of what the Committee heard during those briefings informed its view that an extension of this length is necessary. At every stage, we have been advised to take our time and do our best to get it right. One of the main factors that the Committee considered was the complexity of the Bill. Part 1 is "Biometric Data: Retention etc". As I stated at Second Stage, the Committee is aware of how:

"public interest in collecting and retaining biometric materials needs to be balanced with individual citizens' rights, with particular reference to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is on the right to respect for private and family life."

The Committee has also been made aware of a number of databases across the UK that hold biometric data, and the different retention regimes that are in operation, in which the PSNI also participates, were outlined to us:

"There is no doubt whatsoever that that is a highly complex area, especially given the rapid changes in biometric technology, and it was highlighted to us how important it will be to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed"

— insofar as it can be —

"in that regard." — [Official Report (Hansard), 1 October 2024, p26, col 2].

I repeat my remarks from the Second Stage debate, because it is important to emphasise just how complex an area it is. It is not the first time that the Department of Justice has legislated in that area. Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 (CJA) is "Retention of fingerprints, DNA profiles, etc.". As with the current Justice Bill, the intention was to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 was never commenced. A Department of Justice consultation on proposals to amend the legislation governing the retention of DNA and fingerprints in Northern Ireland, published in July 2020, stated:

"Prior to the planned commencement of the legislation in 2015, the Department was made aware by the then Chief Constable of a potential risk that the deletion of this material may undermine the investigation of unsolved Troubles related deaths in Northern Ireland. The Justice Minister at the time took the decision to suspend commencement of CJA until a solution could be developed to mitigate the risk."

The Committee understands why that section was not commenced, but why is that relevant to today's motion? Well, again, as I mentioned at Second Stage, a mere nine days after the introduction of the Justice Bill, the Committee was informed that a need to amend the biometric data part of the Bill had been identified. That information was provided to the Committee in an evidence session with departmental officials. We were told that the need came from the Department's stress testing of the provisions with operational partners when the drafting of the Bill was considered to be complete. During the Second Stage debate, the Minister of Justice clarified that the stress testing was with the PSNI. We had a situation in which the Department was unable to commence those provisions in 2015 because of an intervention by the then Chief Constable.

We have now been told that more interaction with the PSNI only days after the Bill's introduction has led to the identification of the need for amendments. That demonstrates, as though the provisions themselves were not evidence enough, that this is a highly complex area and one that can change quickly. Indeed, during an evidence session on 26 September 2004, we were told by a departmental official that Part 1 of the Bill is a "complex and technical area". Furthermore, a delegated powers memorandum that the Committee received states that the Bill:

"makes wide ranging and complex changes to the law including existing primary legislation."

There can be no doubt about the complex nature of the Bill, and, so far, I have referred only to Part 1. During Question Time on Tuesday 22 October 2024, the Minister of Justice stated:

"Whilst the Justice Bill is wide in scope, it is, as the Member will understand, narrow in focus and technical in nature." — [Official Report (Hansard), 22 October 2024, p42, col 1].

It is the Committee's contention that the Bill is anything but "narrow in focus". Part 2 relates to bail for children. The Committee has already been told that there is a need to consider how aspects of Part 2 will be supported by statutory partners, particularly regarding providing appropriate accommodation for children on their being granted bail. That is a key consideration and reflects a wider need for cross-departmental working. Part 3 relates to the use of live links for police interviews and when people are in police detention. The Committee is aware of how important it is to strike the appropriate balance between the efficient use of resources and the rights of detained persons and the potential need for the new arrangements to be monitored, which may take the form of a review. Part 4 covers a range of areas, from functions that relate to the police to functions that relate to criminal proceedings, legal aid, criminal records, certificates and court security. Many of the provisions in Part 4 aim to amend other legislation. Again, it is clear, even from an initial reading of the provisions, how complex many of those issues are. I refer to the various Parts of the Bill to highlight, as I said, how the Bill is not, in our view, narrow in focus. That is before the Minister's planned addition of a large number of substantive provisions by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. I do not want to rehearse the arguments on the appropriateness or otherwise of introducing a Bill when it was known that numerous amendments to add provisions would be tabled at Consideration Stage. It is important to refer to it, however, because it was one of the Committee's considerations when seeking an extension. The Committee is being asked to take a decision on the necessary time for Committee Stage without seeing the text of the proposed new clauses. Accordingly, we have had to take significant precautions in order to address the potential for slippage and for unforeseen issues arising. Back in March, the Committee was informed that the plan was that four substantive new areas were to be added by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. In addition to provisions on live links, we were told that the proposed amendments would include provisions to repeal vagrancy legislation and provisions to insert the new offences of directing and participating in serious organised crime. Subsequently, the Committee was informed that the plan is now to add six new provisions at Consideration Stage. The additional provisions include amending rehabilitation periods to shorten existing periods and to allow more convictions to be able to become spent. Those are not insignificant provisions. The Minister and her officials have committed to providing the text of the amendments as soon as possible, for which the Committee is grateful. We will be eager to see them, but, given that the Committee was initially told that four substantive provisions would be added, which was then increased to six, there was some concern that other changes might yet occur. Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, that is in the context of the need for amendments to an existing provision already having been identified. Indeed, last week, the Committee received the proposed text of some of the amendments, as promised by the Minister and her officials. I should say at this point that, although the text of the proposed amendments has been circulated to Committee members, the Committee has not yet had the chance to consider them formally. What jumped out immediately, however, was that the proposed amendments to Part 1 of the Bill, which covers biometrics, run to eight pages and look to insert a new schedule. At its meeting on 26 September 2024, the Committee was told by a departmental official:

"Final queries on the biometrics amendments have now been addressed, but that was just finessing the content that is in front of you."

An initial reading of the proposed amendments suggests that it is more than finessing. The Committee wants to conduct its scrutiny role to the best of its ability and to be efficient and effective. However, scrutinising a Bill before all the provisions are added is extremely difficult. We need to take focused evidence on the detail of what is being proposed, not an outline. We need to build in additional time for that. During Question Time on Tuesday 22 October, in response to a question about whether the Committee should wait until organisations can see the full content of the Bill before forming opinions on it, the Minister stated:

"Given that most external organisations generally comment on the policy intent of a Bill rather than its clauses, it would probably be wise to consult on the policy content of the entire Bill, which is known to the Committee now." — [Official Report (Hansard), 22 October 2024, p42, col 1].

The Committee's view is that it is essential that it scrutinises the clauses of the Bill as well as the policy intent, and that stakeholders should be afforded the same opportunity. If, for some unforeseen reason, which we know can happen, the legislation were to become the subject of a judicial review, we would not want a lack of proper scrutiny to be a factor in any such situation. A failure to take evidence on the detail of provisions would increase that risk significantly. The need for robust scrutiny of the legislation is a key factor in the Committee's considerations. As one departmental official said when advising the Committee to take the time that it felt that it needed in order to conduct its scrutiny:

"we welcome that scrutiny, because we want the legislation to be future-proofed. We do not want to have to come back to you in a year or two seeking to revisit any of those policy areas."

The Committee agrees with that sentiment. That brings me to another important aspect of the Committee's consideration: the High Court judgement regarding the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Members will be aware of the details of that judgement, so I will not go into specifics now. There are differing views about the judgement, but, regardless, the judgement has been made, and it contains strong criticisms of the Assembly. The Committee would have conducted robust scrutiny in the absence of any such judgement, but it has added emphasis. There is a particular onus on the Committee to conduct focused and effective scrutiny, notably where the Bill engages the European Convention on Human Rights. One aspect of the judgement that I draw to the House's attention is that the court noted that the rationale that was given in evidence for a certain decision about the provisions in question:

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

We do not want the same to happen this time. Not only must there be an open engagement process to bring such issues to the fore, but we must clearly evidence that we, as a Committee, have taken steps to probe the issues fully. However — again, I do not want to rehearse arguments that have already happened here and elsewhere — it is important to point out that the Committee has been disappointed by the Minister's reluctance to provide it with a Keeling schedule to aid its scrutiny. As I mentioned earlier in a different context, the delegated powers memorandum from the Department stated:

"the Bill makes wide ranging and complex changes to the law including existing primary legislation."

It is still the Committee's belief that a Keeling schedule would be very useful in that context. Furthermore, the delegated powers memorandum to which I refer should have been with the Committee before Second Stage, which took place on 1 October 2024. At its meeting on 26 September, the Committee was told that the memorandum would be with us within two weeks. However, we received it almost four weeks after that. We are fully aware that things can slip, but that further demonstrates the fundamental need to build flexibility and contingency into our approach to scrutiny. There has been some commentary here and in the media — indeed, concerns have been raised directly with the Committee — that this proposed extension to the Committee Stage will have an impact on the passage of subsequent Bills that the Minister plans to introduce later in the mandate. I emphasise in the strongest possible terms that that is not the Committee's intention. The Committee recognises the importance of giving legislation priority and of being efficient and effective. We take our responsibility for planning and reviewing our timetabling very seriously. That efficiency must be seen in the context of conducting robust scrutiny for each Bill. The Speaker made remarks in the House yesterday about ensuring effective conditions for scrutiny and has previously spoken about the risk of overloading Committees. The Committee will work hard to progress scrutiny, and we are conscious of those points. We are aware of the Minister's intention to introduce two further Bills, and the Committee will build those into its forward work programme and timetable. The Committee wants to see those Bills progressed. Scrutinising legislation is the Committee's top priority. That will drive our work. We will act responsibly to do the job properly.

One phrase that has been used during the deliberations a number of times is that the requested extension date is "a limit, not a target". I assure the House that, if the Committee can report earlier, it will, but that will depend on a number of factors, including departmental engagement and responsiveness and the Committee properly addressing issues raised during the process. The Committee has no influence whatever over when Bills are referred to it, and that is how it should be. If the Committee needs to scrutinise more than one Bill at a time, that is what we will do. To be clear, we are not seeking to bottleneck or artificially delay legislation. That is in no one's interest. Rather, we seek to take a responsible approach to scrutiny in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Indeed, the potential need to meet more than once a week as the mandate progresses has already been mentioned during Committee meetings. We want to manage our time effectively. Although not ideal, it is not unusual for Committees to be in the position of scrutinising more than one Bill concurrently. We are not actively seeking that, but we will devote our time to scrutinising legislation robustly, efficiently and effectively, should such a situation arise. Any future Bills that are referred to the Committee will also be scrutinised thoroughly. Issues such as complexity and the completeness and timeliness of the information provided by the Department will be factors in the time that we require to do so. At Second Stage, I finished my remarks as Chair of the Committee by expressing the Committee's desire to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department throughout the passage of the Bill. On behalf of the Committee, I reiterate that desire today. Let us proceed with that shared purpose. Today, I will finish my remarks as Chair by stating that the Committee's only aim throughout the process has been to conduct robust and effective scrutiny. That will continue to be the case. We want to ensure that what is added to the statute book is effective, clear, coherent, fit for purpose and future-proof. I will now make a number of points in my capacity as the DUP's justice spokesperson. My DUP colleagues on the Committee and I are committed to making the process work and doing the right thing. We take our responsibility seriously. At Second Stage, we were disappointed, as were most Committee members, to be honest, to hear those who are not members of our Committee criticise it for taking its time and suggest that there were politics at play. That is not the case. Thus far, my experience of the Justice Committee has been that it is a committed, engaged Committee, members of which take a genuine and avid interest in justice subject matters and have an eagerness to do our best by the justice family and the citizens who engage with the system. Anyone who has seen the extent to which we all ask questions will bear that out. There will inevitably come a time when we each take a different political view on an issue. That is natural and to be expected. We are political representatives after all, and that will also play out in the House. Thus far, however, none of that has arisen, and the Committee has been a constructive and collegial place in which to work. By and large, we operate by consensus where we can. While we may come from different perspectives and give our views, it is done respectfully, including when it comes to matters on which we disagree. Nobody is in there with a closed mind, and we recognise that in each other and bounce off each other as we tease out issues. Thus far, we nine have enjoyed a good dynamic and worked together well. I really hope that that continues. As we deliberated over the length of the extension, I did not seek to steer the discussion or decision and sought to ensure that every view was heard and considered. We deliberated over the options, the pros and cons and the knowns and unknowns, and we took advice. We then reached a decision without having to divide. Some, including me, expressed concern about the time frame, and all of that was debated on a number of occasions over various meetings. Ultimately, however, after considering the provisional schedule for each subject in the Bill and recognising the "limit, not a target" mindset, the Committee came to its decision together. I fully understand that such a time frame is not necessarily ideal, but nor is it ideal that we must specify a date for the completion of our work when we do not yet know, beyond the policy intent, exactly what it is that we must scrutinise in its entirety.

Some may suggest that elements of these topics seem straightforward on the face of it, but, until we see the actual text and the full extent of the clauses and consider the meat of the issues and what the implications may be, we cannot fully or accurately know, so it is imperative that we build in time in case it is required. In the course of all this, the Department has given indicative times for various documentation, some of which have been a movable feast. For example, with the delegated powers memorandum, the Department indicated that it needed more time and wanted to get it right. It is likewise for the Committee, and, just as the Department was not curtailed in the work that it had to do, the Committee should not be either. Given some of the commentary — unfair, in my view — on the proposed extension, the easy option would be to set a much shorter extension time frame that is, potentially, more to the Department's liking. However, what if we reach our deadline and the work has not been completed? We will have nowhere to move, the clock will have run down and the Assembly will have a complex and technical Bill that has not been fully scrutinised and a report that does not fully inform the House from a Committee whose deliberations are incomplete. It would be a colossal dereliction of our responsibilities to set ourselves a date that we could not meet. It is far better to allow ourselves the time that the issues merit and build in flexibility, should it be required. If things work out better and happen faster, that is ideal for all concerned. With the greatest respect to those outside the Committee — they are certainly entitled to their view — it is not for them to assert what the Committee must or should do and the way we must or should do it when they are not privy to what we have front of us, the extent of that which is still to come or the advice that we have received at every turn. There were lessons from the Committee scrutiny of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme regulations and the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, and we, as a Committee, are determined to learn them. We must also remember that the Minister and her Department's officials have been considering some of the policy areas for years. Parts of the Bill are carry-overs from the last mandate, so the Department has institutional knowledge. We must read ourselves into those matters, enquire about the consequences, intended or otherwise, and give due regard to the conventions. Those are not small affairs, and legislation is a serious business. We too are entitled to time to look into those areas. Some have suggested that the extension will impair the opportunity for further Bills. I reassure those who hold that concern that that is not our intention. I emphasise that at no point have we indicated that we would not scrutinise more than one Bill at a time. Of course, it is not the ideal or preferable way to do it, but that does not mean that we will not do it. It happens regularly towards the end of a mandate, as Members know only too well. If there are Bills in front of us, we will scrutinise them; indeed, we look forward to that. Even taking into account this time frame, by our provisional scheduling, we still have only around three meetings to cover children and young people, around six for biometrics and four for serious crime. Remember that we will have other Committee work on top of the Bill, like statutory rules (SRs). The complexity of biometrics alone is borne out by the fact that, after stress-testing the Bill with the PSNI, the Department has already had to add 22 amendments and a new schedule. The DUP has no interest in delay for delay's sake: none. That would be to nobody's benefit. Some may seek to get it done quickly; that is their prerogative. We will seek to get it done right, properly and within an appropriate time frame. The entire Committee is clear, as are we as Democratic Unionist Party members, that we are not in this to needlessly or pointlessly delay. We will put our shoulders to the wheel and do the job that we were elected to do, but we get one go at this. With haste often comes error. It is our responsibility to minimise that, as best we might, in the context of recent judgements and the advice that we have received. That is not to say that things will not go wrong. They may well do, because nothing is perfect, but the Committee and the House should at least be able to stand over our efforts and say that we did the best that we could, took account of the advice that we were given and tried to ensure that we learned from the mistakes of the past. We are doing our best to be practical and not to over-egg but, rather, to build in what, at this stage, we think, are reasonable timings. That is not easy to do when there is a lot still to come, but we will keep it all under review, be flexible where we can and report early if we may. However, we will not apologise for being responsible and for trying to ensure that we have adequate time. Once the House agrees an extension date, it is set, so we are better to go long than run short, and I trust that Members will see that. We in the DUP support the motion and trust that others will do likewise.

4,273 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:30 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