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 5584181

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I understand that. I do not think that anyone in the Chamber would suggest for one second that the commissioner should be fettered in any way in his or her role. It is the function and role of that commissioner to let them get on with their job, basically, and to make sure that those key principles of transparency, oversight and justice are adhered to within the functionary role that the commissioner will have. I thank the Minister for that intervention. During Committee scrutiny, concerns were raised not simply about what information could be retained but about whether individuals would understand their rights, have access to clear information and be able to challenge decisions made about their biometric material. That is reflected in amendments dealing with review mechanisms, appeals, the provision of information and guidance and the independence of decision-making. The amendments recognise the important principle that rights are meaningful only if people are aware of them and are able to exercise them in principle. A framework that allows people to understand why their information is being retained, to seek a review of that decision and to challenge it through an independent process is likely to command greater public confidence than one that does not. There is one further area where scrutiny has been particularly important, namely the treatment of photographs in the new framework. The Department has made it clear that its intention is largely to bring Northern Ireland into line with existing legislative arrangements elsewhere. However, throughout scrutiny, a number of members questioned whether that approach risks missing an opportunity to address an emerging issue now, rather than waiting for developments in other jurisdictions. The Committee repeatedly sought clarification from the Department and the PSNI regarding the treatment of photographs and images. Concerns were raised that, in the era of facial recognition technology, increasingly sophisticated image analysis and rapidly developing artificial intelligence systems, photographs can no longer be simply viewed as ordinary images. The ability to extract biometric information from photographs is growing rapidly, and the law must keep pace with that reality. Ultimately, Committee members were sufficiently concerned to table a Committee amendment creating a statutory framework governing the retention, use and destruction of custody photographs. That amendment reflects a view expressed by stakeholders during scrutiny that the advances that I have outlined in facial recognition technology and AI mean that photographs can no longer be treated as wholly and solely separate from the wider biometrics debate. We in the SDLP certainly believe that there is merit in that approach. If we legislate for the retention of biometric material, it is reasonable to ask whether photographs and images should sit outside the framework altogether. Similarly, we welcome the Committee's amendment requiring commencement of the new framework within a specified period. The Committee was right to highlight the fact that legislative reform alone is not enough. Public confidence will ultimately depend on the provisions being implemented in practice and within a reasonable time frame. There is little value in undertaking substantial reform only for the implementation of it to remain uncertain. If the Assembly concludes that the changes are necessary, there should also be a clear, time-based pathway to their delivery. Reasonable people may disagree on where the balance should be struck. There is a legitimate public interest in making sure that law enforcement agencies retain the tools necessary to investigate crime and protect the public. Equally, there is a legitimate concern that children should not carry the consequences of contact with the justice system further than is necessary and proportionate. It is our view that the most important test is whether the framework that emerges properly reflects the distinct position of children, provides meaningful oversight and review mechanisms and commands public confidence that the powers will be exercised fairly, proportionately and only where justified. For the SDLP, there are important principles that should guide the consideration of this group of amendments. First, any biometric regime must command public confidence. That confidence depends not only on the effectiveness of the system but on the public's trust that powers are being exercised fairly and proportionately. Secondly, independent oversight is essential. Where the state collects and retains highly personal information, there must be meaningful safeguards, transparency and accountability. Thirdly, individuals must be able to understand and challenge decisions that affect them. Rights are meaningful only if people are able to exercise them in practice. Clear information, accessible review mechanisms and effective routes of appeal are therefore vital components of any system. Finally, we must recognise that the particular position of children and young people must be assessed and evaluated properly. Rehabilitation and public protection are not mutually exclusive objectives; indeed, in many cases, successful rehabilitation is one of the strongest forms of public protection. The task before the House is to ensure that the framework that will emerge from the Bill strikes the correct balance between public safety and individual rights, between effective law enforcement and proportionality and between accountability and operational effectiveness. The SDLP will vote according to those principles on successive amendments.

844 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