Debate contribution: Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Patsy McGlone on 2 June 2026.

MLA

Mr Patsy McGlone

Party at the time

Social Democratic and Labour Party

Date

2 June 2026

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Justice Bill: Consideration Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5584169

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire agus le baill an Choiste.

The passage of the Bill to Consideration Stage represents an important milestone in a lengthy process of scrutiny, engagement and development. It has, in truth, been a long time coming, and the Chairperson has outlined the long and windy path to get the Bill to this point. The Committee for Justice spent a considerable period examining its provisions and taking evidence from a wide range of stakeholders: experts, representative bodies and rights organisations. That scrutiny will undoubtedly strengthen the legislation, and I thank all those who put the effort into providing us with amendments. It is also fair to say that the Committee expressed concerns about the scale of the package of amendments that the Minister has tabled for Consideration Stage. While Members will no doubt recognise the reasons that amendments sometimes become necessary, that is not generally the most effective way to develop legislation. Significant policy proposals are best brought forward at the earliest opportunity to allow sufficient time for detailed scrutiny, stakeholder engagement, public consultation and consideration, and that is particularly true in the case of a Bill as substantial as this. The Justice Bill touches on a wide range of issues across our justice system. It seeks to modernise aspects of policing and criminal justice; update legislative frameworks that have become outdated; strengthen protections for victims; and improve the operation of the law in a number of important areas. The group 1 amendments deal with one of the most significant and sensitive elements of the Bill: the retention, use and oversight of biometric material. As technology continues to evolve, biometric information plays an increasingly important role in modern policing. DNA profiles, fingerprints and photographs can be an invaluable tool in preventing and detecting crime, identifying offenders and protecting the public. Few would dispute the importance of ensuring that law enforcement agencies have access to effective tools to keep communities safe. However, the retention of biometric information also raises important questions about privacy, proportionality and individual rights. Decisions about how it is collected, how long it is retained and who can access it engage fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual and the state. The challenge before us, therefore, is not whether there should be a biometric retention regime; it is how we create a regime that is effective in supporting law enforcement while remaining proportionate, accountable and rights-compliant. That challenge featured prominently throughout the Committee's scrutiny. The Committee received extensive evidence from policing bodies, children's organisations, rights groups, legal representatives and regulatory bodies. While there was, in fact, broad support for placing the biometric retention framework on a modern statutory footing and for the establishment of a dedicated biometrics commissioner, a number of concerns were consistently raised regarding proportionality, oversight, transparency and review mechanisms. Particular concerns were expressed regarding the treatment of children and young people under the proposed framework. Organisations including the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) and others questioned whether sufficient distinction had been drawn between adults and young people. Concerns were raised about privacy, the presumption of innocence and the potential for stigmatisation where biometric information may continue to be retained despite an individual not being charged or convicted. Questions were also raised about the retention of biometric material following cautions, diversionary disposals and restorative justice processes, with stakeholders highlighting the importance of rehabilitation and reintegration in the youth justice system. The Committee also heard differing views regarding the powers and scope of the proposed biometrics commissioner. While there was broad support for the establishment of such an office, questions were raised regarding the extent of the commissioner's powers, the operation of review mechanisms — I hope to hear a wee bit more about that — and the importance of ensuring meaningful independent oversight. Those themes are reflected in the amendments before us today. During scrutiny, Committee members also heard and benefited from evidence from the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, whose contribution helped inform much of the discussion on the ministerial and non-ministerial amendments before us today. A recurring theme of that evidence was that an effective biometrics regime is not simply about determining what information may be retained but about ensuring that any framework is built on principles of necessity, proportionality, transparency, independent oversight and public confidence. Those are key elements of any biometrics commissioner's role. The commissioner emphasised the importance of creating systems that are capable of evolving alongside technology, which, as we know, is ever evolving, and ensuring that individuals understand their rights and have meaningful avenues through which decisions can be reviewed and challenged. Those principles can be seen in many of the amendments before us today; indeed, many of those principles are reflected in the amendments tabled by the Committee. Throughout its scrutiny, the Committee repeatedly returned to questions of independent oversight, effective review mechanisms, transparency, public confidence and ensuring that individuals are able to understand and exercise their rights. The SDLP stands solidly behind those key principles. The Committee's amendments on custody photographs and commencement reflect those concerns directly, while a number of the wider, non-ministerial amendments would give legislative effect to many of the issues identified through Committee sessions. While Members may focus on the differences between the Minister's amendments and those proposed by my colleague Emma Sheerin, it is important to acknowledge that both approaches are basically attempting to achieve the same overarching objective. Both seek to establish a modern, fit-for-purpose biometric framework that is capable of supporting law enforcement and public protection while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards for individuals whose biometric information is collected and retained. Indeed, many of the amendments are mutually exclusive precisely because they seek to answer the same policy questions in different ways. The Minister, in tabling those amendments, has clearly taken on board a significant number of the issues that have been raised. They strengthen oversight arrangements, establish the role of the biometrics commissioner and place the framework on a clearer statutory footing than was originally proposed. The non-ministerial amendments seek to go further in a number of areas that stakeholders repeatedly highlighted during evidence sessions; in particular, they place greater emphasis on independent review mechanisms, rights of appeal, access to information, the treatment of children and young people and the circumstances in which biometric information should continue to be retained following diversionary or restorative justice outcomes. Many of those proposals also reflect concerns that were repeatedly identified by the Committee during its scrutiny. Questions of accountability, transparency and the ability of individuals to challenge decisions relating to the retention of their biometric information feature prominently. The SDLP stands by those priorities. The argument being advanced by those amendments is not that biometrics have no role in modern policing; rather, it is that public confidence is, in fact, strengthened where individuals have clear rights, decisions are subject to effective challenge and review and particular care is taken in relation to children and young people. Those are important considerations for the SDLP. I am sure that Members share those concerns. The balance is most clearly illustrated in the debate around children and young people. A number of the amendments would create a more differentiated approach to the retention of biometric material where people who are under 18 are concerned. They reflect the concerns raised by members during the Committee scrutiny that children should not simply be treated as adults in the justice system and that particular weight should be attached to rehabilitation and reintegration. Several stakeholders questioned whether biometric material should continue to be retained following cautions, diversionary youth conferences and restorative justice processes. The arguments were that, where the justice system has deliberately chosen a diversionary route, consideration must be given to whether the continued retention of biometric information is consistent with the objectives of that approach.

1,303 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:43 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