Debate contribution: Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 2 February 2026.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

2 February 2026

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Crime and Policing Bill: Legislative Consent Motion

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5356391

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their thoughtful contributions to the debate. The LCM is wide-ranging. It is the second LCM on this piece of legislation, and, as I indicated, there is the potential for a third LCM. Unfortunately, whilst that is complicated and often frustrating, it is completely outwith the control of the Department. We just have to respond, as and when we get the opportunity, to changes made to the legislation as it journeys through the House of Commons and House of Lords. I hope that Members understand, therefore, that I intend no discourtesy to the Committee or to the House regarding the frequency of the changes. Questions were asked about non-consensual deepfakes, and I want to make Members aware of a couple of things. Provision for the creation of deepfake images was originally intended to be included in the Crime and Policing Bill. At short notice, however, it was moved and is, instead, included in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. The timing of that change, which was by amendment, meant that we were not able to proceed with an LCM as originally intended. As deepfakes is a really important matter that has been on my radar and that we have been concerned about for quite some time, we held a public consultation on it last year. Given the importance of the matter and the fact that the underlying legislative base on which we are building is different in Northern Ireland than that in England and Wales and, indeed, Scotland, we believed that it was preferable to legislate locally, taking account of local issues. It is clear that when we can land those changes will depend on when the Justice Bill arrives in the Chamber and passes through the normal Assembly processes. However, we are working hard. The draft amendment for deepfakes is being processed, and we are hopeful that, when the Bill comes to the House at Consideration Stage, we will be able to make that amendment. Overall, we will get a better and more accurate suite of offences by taking it forward locally, which we would not have been able to through an LCM. The point that Mr Beattie made is somewhat moot. If you were to legally change your name during a court case, the conviction would attach itself to your new name, but a record would also be kept of any previous names that you have held. It is theoretically possible for someone to, as a sideline, create a new identity, which would then be handled differently, but it would bring very little benefit to the offender, given that they would then be found guilty in their new legal name. It is about ensuring that people are not able to change their name with impunity once they are convicted of sexual offences. That is the scenario that we are trying to avoid. Of course, we in the Department keep any law under review, and we are always looking at where may be any gaps. If there are issues of concern, we are more than happy to take evidence about those. However, it is not in our gift to change the primary legislation for which we are accepting a legislative consent motion. That has already been drafted and is before the House of Commons and the House of Lords. It is really about whether we want to bring these specific provisions to Northern Ireland, and, so far, the Department and the Committee agree that that would be beneficial. On child abduction, it would obviously be preferable for disputes between parents to be resolved through civil proceedings. That is intended to complement the Hague convention process for return. It is not a panacea; there will always be practical challenges in enforcement, and it will, of course, depend on relationships between law enforcement and the various agencies. However, it will provide an enhanced opportunity to ensure that, where one parent takes a child abroad and detains them without seeking the permission of the other carer, guardian or parent, that matter is brought before the courts and the child is returned to their regular place of abode. That is quite a powerful addition to the suite of measures that we have. Finally, with reflection on the issue of whether the number of knives owned by a person is an indicator of their propensity to commit knife crime, most of the evidence indicates that, sadly, it is. People who collect large numbers of weapons, knives and other bladed objects tend to have a propensity for violence and are therefore more likely to use them than those who have a smaller number of knives. I am not talking about the kind of stuff that involves an impulsive crime; I am talking about somebody who is committed to gathering and collecting knives and then using them, particularly some of the more specialist bladed items for which we have an amnesty for destruction. We are trying to improve public safety and limit people's opportunity to hoard large numbers of potentially deadly weapons without at least some intervention, consideration and supervision.

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

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 14:18 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