Debate contribution: Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 23 June 2025.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

23 June 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5045917

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate and thank in particular the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee, who oversaw the scrutiny of the LCM. I will turn to some of the points that Members raised during the debate, which was constructive. To be clear, any engagement that we had with others, including the PSNI or the Human Rights Commission, was on the same broad terms as with the Committee. Unfortunately, we cannot share the detail of the content of legislation until it is published in Westminster. That is the same courtesy as we would expect to be shown to this House. There is also the issue that things were being added at the last minute of which we were not aware. The Committee may therefore have found itself frustrated that we were briefing that something was in the Bill that was then out of it or that was out and then in. There is a challenge in that regard, which is why it would always be my first preference to introduce legislation here ourselves. That would allow us to have more detailed scrutiny. However, the Bill is a valuable opportunity for us to update the measures, and, as the Committee Chair said, it is important that we take a robust stance on the issues. Many of the criminal offences covered in the Bill, whether that is cuckooing, child sexual abuse or the actions of sexual offenders more generally, deal with some of the most vulnerable victims that we will have to deal with. It is important that we keep pace not just with technology but with what is happening more widely in the criminal space. I thank Members who highlighted the issue of indefinite notification requirements. The benefit of that provision — this partly answers Mr McNulty's point — is that it will allow the PSNI to look at the lowest-risk offenders and, where it feels that that risk is no longer valid, remove individuals from the register. That allows the PSNI to concentrate its scarce resources on the highest-risk offenders. It is important that it is always about balancing out proportionally where those resources have to go. We all want those high-risk offenders to be the subject of increased scrutiny. The provision will allow the opportunity to do that under an own motion process. There is already a process whereby the offender themselves can ask to be removed from the register, but this will allow the PSNI to initiate a review if it feels that that is appropriate to do so. To be clear, however, that will apply only to category 1 sex offenders — those who are in the lowest risk category — and removal will take place only in those cases where all of the partners are content that the risk is mitigated in other ways. I know that Members have a particular interest in the issue of spiking. The new clause has the potential to improve police data collection and gain a better understanding of the prevalence of spiking. A number of Members, including my colleague Connie Egan, spoke about the fact that it is an under-reported crime. There is embarrassment, fear of not being believed and the assumption that, if there is not a specific offence to deal with it, it will not be dealt with by the courts. All of those things together can dissuade people from coming forward and reporting. There is an opportunity through this legislation to raise public awareness, deter individuals from engaging in the criminal offence, provide a platform to allow meaningful data to be collated and allow strategic and developmental planning to address that behaviour in future. There is currently no substantive data that will tell us the prevalence of spiking. Given the broad nature of the existing offences, it is hard to measure it. We do not have specific data on spiking, but this will allow us to capture that. I am not sure that I fully understood Mr McNulty's point about the Executive not doing this. The bottom line is that we are doing it: we are doing it today via the LCM and in the most expeditious manner possible. That is what everybody would want us to do so that this will be available to people in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity. I hope that, in my introductory remarks and my response to Members' queries, I have shown that the Bill's provisions will not only strengthen the ability of our law enforcement agencies and the courts to tackle serious and organised crime but ensure that we do not fall behind the rest of the UK in our response to the issues. I commend the motion to the House.

788 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:50 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