Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Stewart Dickson on 5 November 2024.

MLA

Mr Stewart Dickson

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

5 November 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Extension of Committee Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4631536

Read the official Assembly record

Text

In considering the extension, a careful balance needs to be struck between the thorough scrutiny and the timely progress needed for effective legislation, much as was reflected in the Committee Chair's comments. While I recognise the Justice Committee's valid concerns regarding the time required for proper review, we need to remember that the Bill is part — the Chair alluded to this — of a broader strategy to strengthen our justice system within the tight time frame that we have left in the mandate, together with legislation that, the Minister has indicated, she intends to bring forward in the future. That legislation is vital to the House but much more so to the citizens whom it will affect. The Committee's role is to scrutinise the Bill, and, of course, that is essential. I and the Alliance Party fully support the need for that careful oversight. While the discussion is inevitably around the extension of the Committee Stage to near enough its maximum, I welcome the Chair's comments, which I take at face value, that the Committee will put its efforts into the scrutiny of the Bill and, if we are finished early as a Committee, we will be finished early. I certainly —

The Minister has given a strong indication to the Committee and the House that that is exactly what she intends to do. The policy intent of the Bill is clear. We have already got one section of amendments. The Minister will, I am sure, deal with that aspect in her comments, but I have no fear that the Minister and the departmental officials will bring those forward, as has been indicated. The core of the Bill is clear and focused. The technicalities that have been referred to are at or near completion, allowing us to move forward efficiently without compromising the quality of our review. We are cognisant of the need to follow the requirements of the High Court judgement with regard to the quality of our work, both in how we scrutinise the policy intent of the Bill and in the clause-by-clause requirements placed on us. Some Committee colleagues have voiced concerns about the breadth of the amendments anticipated at Consideration Stage, but it is worth noting that, while the Bill is wide in scope, many of its provisions are specific and address essential areas such as sentencing and victim protection. The Bill is indeed broad, but it is manageable within the Committee's framework. The Chair has indicated that that is the task of a Committee. That is what we are here for; that is the job that we have been given to do and that we will do. The proposal for the extension creates the real possibility that, if we were to maximise the time, the Bill could be postponed until 2026. Such a delay would not only hinder justice itself but affect other critical legislation. That has been referred to in the debate already. The Minister has told us that she intends to introduce other legislation. The Chair has made the point that overlapping will be difficult but doable and that it is the Committee's intent to achieve it. Processing this Bill promptly will help to avoid those difficulties. That will require a number of players to come together and genuinely deliver: it will be for the external people who will come to us with their view on the Bill; it will be for the Department to be efficient in the way in which it delivers its responses to all the scrutiny; and it will be for the Committee in the way in which it works.

If that requires the Committee to put in extra time other than Thursday afternoons, that is what the Committee will have to do, if we are to take at face value the Chair's words today.

It is also important to remember that delays may impact on protections intended for victims and vulnerable communities, who look to us for support. With that in mind, I encourage my Committee colleagues to work thoroughly and expeditiously to balance the need for detailed review with the urgency that our justice system requires. I will hold the Chair to the view that she has given today that she intends to ensure that the Committee works effectively and efficiently through this and that, if we can conclude the Committee Stage earlier, that is exactly what we will do. There will be no foot-dragging and no delay. I am heartened by the words that she given to the House today, and I look forward to working with her and others to deliver the Bill. Overlapping the Bill is, as the Chair referenced, the High Court decision and the focus that it has placed on the scrutiny role not only of Committees but of the House. Therefore, it will be interesting to see the outworking of that, as we are probably the first Committee on which that will have a major effect. I think that is worth pointing that out to other Committees, Ministers and Departments, as it will be interesting to see its effects on them. The Justice Committee has been in the depths of the consideration of that, and, despite my having asked, on a number of occasions, officials and others who have come to the Committee how they perceive the effect of the High Court judgement on the work of the Assembly, I am not sure about it. That has to be taken into account by other Committees as they go forward, but, for today, the focus is on the extension of the Committee Stage of the Bill. While there may well be arguments for saying that we should or could set a shorter time frame, I am content with the time frame that has been set and with the intent that if we can complete the work more effectively and efficiently sooner, we will do so. I am happy to accept the proposal from the Committee Chair on the time frame for the extension of the Committee Stage of the Bill.

1,009 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