Naomi Long
East Belfast · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Underneath the Facebook posts to say that he had passed away, people speculated with such comments as, "Probably high on drugs", "Probably drunk", and, "Typical boy racer". There was all of that speculation. It was hurtful to the family, and it was inaccurate.”
“There are circumstances that we need to consider and be careful of. I was told, for example, that, when the issue of good character references at trial was being looked at in New South Wales — Committee members may wish to look at this for themselves — one of the groups that opposed their removal was representative of domestic abuse victi…”
“It sets out the strategic direction adopted by the Department and key partners to tackle those appalling crimes and protect vulnerable victims of exploitation.”
“The provision seeks to provide protection, via legal advice and representation for complainants, against the use of non-relevant personal material and evidence of previous sexual history being used in the court process.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the wider issue of ensuring that a withdrawal of services never happens again, I think that most of us agree that, although everyone has the right to take industrial action, no one has the right to derail and hold to ransom the entire justice system in that way.”
“Those measures will go some way towards helping to support complainants and enable them to have input into the decision-making process about what records containing their personal and sensitive information are required to be shared with the defence.”
The complete record
Every one of 7,548 lines we hold for Naomi Long, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 151.
“We are therefore not in complete disagreement.”
“I reiterate that there are two concerns about Gerry's proposals. The first is about national security determinations, which are a matter for the UK Government and do not fall within our purview, as they are reserved matters. Paragraph(2)(c) of amendment No 38 falls outside our legislative competence. That is the first thing. <BR /> <BR />The Member is correct that his other amendments are within the legislative competence of the Assembly, but we argue that they would be better addressed through updates to PACE code D, which would then be subject to public consultation. That revised code will be introduced alongside the new retention framework. There is not blanket opposition to the intent, but we cannot legislate on reserved matters, and there are better ways of dealing with the amendments that are not to do with reserved matters.”
“<BR /> <BR />Complaints have been raised about the fact that, for example, fingerprint data was not immediately accessible, and that has led to problems with investigations. This is about trying to find a balance so that the data is retained for as long as is reasonable but no longer and that people, once their innocence has been established, have the right to have their data removed from the database at the appropriate point. The Members are, of course, right: a person's data may be held for a period even though they have not been convicted or charged with an offence. That is called the investigation phase. There are measures in the Bill that deal with the investigation phase, and those require the PSNI to seek permission from the commissioner to continue to hold data for long-running investigations.”
“Does the Member agree that if, for example, somebody who was released without charge during an investigation and had their data immediately removed from the police database went on to commit further serious offences, that would be seen as a failure of the PSNI's investigatory processes and that there therefore have to be checks and balances? If somebody's data is collected, it is right that that should be removed at the point where their guilt or innocence has been established in a proportionate way. To simply remove someone's data from the database because they have not been charged with an offence would potentially hamper police investigations, because they would not be able to follow up on people who are persons of interest for that crime or, indeed, others.”
“The point of these biometrics regulations is to ensure that that is not the case. Of course, there are legitimate purposes for people to hold our personal data and biometric data. Those are legitimate and fair, but they must also be proportionate and respect people's right to a private life and their privacy and dignity. It is important to strike that balance. Members may argue about whether the balance has been struck in the right place, and I will come back to that in my closing remarks on this group, but it is important to say that none of us in the Chamber wishes to see unfettered access to people's data or the ability to retain things indefinitely, which, is, unfortunately, the situation that we are in prior to this Bill's being passed.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to provide clarity, because the retention of the data of people who have been acquitted was discussed earlier. In order to comply with human rights, if someone is acquitted, their data has to be removed from the database. If the police wish to retain it, they will have to apply to the biometrics commissioner and have an independent assessment. This is not a catch-all whereby the police can simply collect data and keep it. In fact, the evidence shows that, if they thin their data, they are more likely to find information; otherwise, you cannot see the wood for the trees. <BR /> <BR />I share the Member's concerns about people's private data. I do not want the police or any other organisation to have unfettered access to my data and to be able to use that for any purpose.”
“We need to give the police the opportunity to be able to search the information that they already have on people who have known convictions and then eliminate them from or include them in their enquiries.”
“We have put that structure in place to ensure that there is no indefinite retention; that there is a proper scheme, depending on the seriousness of the offence committed and the age of the offender; and that people have a right to appeal to have their data removed if they feel that it is disproportionate for it to be held, with that appeal being considered by an independent biometrics commissioner. Those are the checks and balances. It is not a presumption of guilt or that people will go on to reoffend. Many people with data on the police database will never reoffend. Equally, there will be people who reoffend and are not on the database.”
“The holding of a person's biometric data is not a presumption of their guilt or that they are likely to offend further. The holding of biometric data is a tool to allow the PSNI to investigate crime thoroughly as it occurs. It does not limit the cohort of people that the police will investigate to those whose data is already in the system, but it does allow the police to, for example, take fingerprints and compare them with the databases that they already have, which may help them to eliminate people from their enquiries or, indeed, identify people who need to be investigated further. The key is that it has to be proportionate.”
“The checks and balances are therefore carefully crafted to ensure that we protect public safety but that we also give people the opportunity, where their data is no longer required, to have it properly removed from the system. We have already had a court judgement about indefinite retention, which was also helpful in saying that one consideration that we had to make in any new scheme was the age of the person involved in the offending.”
“I appreciate what both Members have said. To reassure them, there is a mechanism in the Bill to ensure that, where there is an open or unsolved case, data can be retained. The police will review their files every five years to make sure that the case is still open and then make a decision about whether retention is proportionate. <BR /> <BR />The Member raised the particular issue of the retention of young children's data. The issue there is about proportionality. For example, if someone commits an offence as a minor and then goes on not to reoffend, that will be taken into account, but, to be clear, that is a challenge that they will be able to take to the commissioner. They will have the opportunity to request that their data be removed.”
“I appreciate what the Member said about sharing our amendments early, which we did to maximise Committee scrutiny. I want to be clear that I respect the role of Committees. Their work is vital not just for scrutiny but for identifying areas where new policy can be developed. I would have preferred to do that more slowly. In the next mandate, perhaps, if we get a five-year mandate, that will be how we will proceed.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He has been generous with his time. We all agree that the ideal situation, as with the Sentencing Bill for example, is where the vast majority of clauses are in the Bill at Second Reading. Obviously, we were coming out of a period of suspension of the institutions, which meant that we needed to act at pace. The Bill was always going to be diverse and would therefore require considerable scrutiny. My priority was to ensure that it was able to get to this stage before the end of the mandate.”
“Would the Member like to point out how many of those pages contain amendments to the Bill that he has tabled?”
“I thank the Chair for giving way. While many of the things that he referenced do not fall to the Department in terms of our ability to influence their timing, I confirm that we concur with the Committee that five years is a reasonable term in which to do that. I also reassure Members that, if it can be done sooner than five years, we will take the opportunity to do that.”
“The revised code will be introduced alongside the new retention framework. I do not, therefore, support amendment No 38. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my opening remarks on the group 1 amendments. I look forward to hearing and responding to the views of Members and hope that it will be a constructive and positive debate. Thank you.”
“National security determinations (NSDs) can authorise a retention period of up to five years for DNA and fingerprints, where that is necessary and appropriate for national security purposes, and are subject to review by the UK Biometrics Commissioner. The legislative provisions relating to NSDs are set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and fall within the responsibility of the UK Government. As such, paragraph 2(c) of article 63C proposed by amendment No 38 would fall outside the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That amendment contains some issues that are within the competence of the Assembly but that would be more appropriately addressed through the updates to PACE code D, which will be subject to public consultation and Committee scrutiny.”
“The amendments that I have just spoken to propose to make isolated changes to individual aspects of a carefully drafted suite of provisions in the Bill. To do that would risk rendering part of the new biometric retention framework inoperable through bad drafting, technical deficiencies and potential unintended consequences. As such, I do not support any of those amendments. <BR /> <BR />Finally in respect of Part 1 of the Bill, Mr Gerry Carroll tabled amendment No 38, which includes provision that individuals should receive written notification whenever their retention period changes as a result of:”
“I am satisfied that that combination of safeguards for individual rights is sufficiently robust without compromising public safety. <BR /> <BR />Article 63Z contains an enabling power for the biometrics commissioner to issue guidance. As an independent officeholder, it is appropriate that the commissioner determines whether and how such guidance is issued as well as what should be included in the guidance. Making guidance mandatory and prescribing its content, as proposed in amendment No 35, would risk undermining that independence. I do not think that it would be appropriate for my Department to establish an independent office and then direct it, at that level, on how it should exercise its functions. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill are extensive, complex and intricately interlinked.”
“Where an individual seeks reconsideration, the decision will be reviewed by a different and more senior officer with no prior involvement, ensuring procedural independence. That two-stage process reflects established best practice in, for example, FOI procedures and balances fairness with operational practicality. The PSNI is the data controller and is best placed to make decisions on the necessity of continued retention in the interests of investigating crime and public protection. It is therefore appropriate and, I argue, necessary for the PSNI to have responsibility for the process. In addition to that, individuals may complain to the biometrics commissioner, who can require reconsideration or deletion in cases where retention is unlawful. The Chief Constable will be obliged to comply.”
“That would potentially risk undermining an ongoing investigation and is therefore not appropriate. It is also not appropriate or, indeed, workable for anyone other than the PSNI to carry out such a review. I am satisfied that the current provision appropriately balances safeguarding an individual's rights with operational effectiveness, and it should remain unchanged. <BR /> <BR />The appeals process for a decision arising from a review conducted under article 63U is the next amendment being considered. The proposed amendment seeks to exclude PSNI personnel from determining appeals against a decision to retain material after a review. Under the current proposals, requests for a review will be handled by a designated PSNI team.”
“I am satisfied that, on balance, the provision is proportionate and appropriate, and it should stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Article 63T provides an important safeguard requiring periodic review every five years of material retained for long-running ongoing investigations. That is distinct from the provision in article 63U that requires the review of long-term retained material held on foot of a conviction. The provision at article 63T recognises that some investigations, such as those for unsolved murders, can remain open for some considerable time. However, it provides a safeguard to ensure that an individual's material is not held any longer than is strictly necessary. Amendment No 29 would require the PSNI to notify an individual that they are subject to such a review and then enable an appeal process.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 28 would remove article 63Q, which provides a two-year retention period for penalty notices issued to adults under section 60 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That aligns with the approach in England and Wales and applies to penalty notices issued for a defined set of recordable offences as follows: indecent behaviour, section 9 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968; shoplifting, section 1 of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; criminal damage, article 3(1) of the Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977; disorderly behaviour, article 18(1)(a) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, article 18(1)(b) of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; and resisting, obstructing or impeding a constable, section 66(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.”
“As I have previously pointed out, the review mechanism will provide additional safeguards, including shorter time frames for under-18s before mandatory review. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 23 and 24 would remove article 63P, which provides a five-year retention period for diversionary youth conferences and community-based restorative justice schemes. Both are directed by the PPS and represent a step up from community resolution notices (CRNs), with restorative justice schemes broadly equivalent to a caution. It is therefore appropriate that they attract a five-year retention period for under-18s, and I am of the view that the provision should remain.”
“<BR /> <BR />Proposed new article 63JA in amendment No 12 would introduce a three-year retention period for individuals under 18 who are convicted of a qualifying offence and a three-year retention period for those under 18 convicted of a non-qualifying offence, subject to approval by the biometrics commissioner. Those proposals have not, in my view, been sufficiently developed or tested. Moreover, the proposal in amendment No 13 to remove existing articles 63L, 63M and 63O would dismantle the less stringent regime designed specifically for under-18s. I believe that the provisions included in the Bill should be retained as a key component of the framework. They provide an appropriate balance between safeguarding young people's rights, respecting victims and maintaining public safety.”
“Amendment No 11 relates to qualifying offences that are listed in article 53A of PACE NI and that include the most serious violent, sexual and terrorism-related offences. Given their seriousness, I consider the maximum retention period of 75 years to be necessary and proportionate for adults and those under 18. However, it is important to note that the statutory review mechanism will include earlier statutory review points for young people than for adults. That will provide an early opportunity to consider whether it remains necessary and proportionate to retain a person's material. I am therefore satisfied that the current proposals are both proportionate and appropriate.”
“The Department's consultation in 2020 included an initial proposal for a standard 12-month retention period. However, several respondents questioned whether 12 months would be sufficient. On the basis of the evidence available to the Department, a decision was made to amend the original proposal to a three-year retention period for qualifying offences and 12 months for non-qualifying offences, thereby ensuring a differentiated and proportionate approach. I am satisfied that that remains appropriate.”
“While I am generally content to accept both amendments in principle, there may be technical issues with the drafting of the provisions that require remedial action to ensure that they operate as intended and do not present any unintended consequences. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak to the many amendments to Part 1 tabled by Ms Emma Sheerin, Ms Aoife Finnegan and Ms Ciara Ferguson. While the intention behind amendment No 5 is not entirely clear, it appears to relate to article 63I, which deals with charges left on the books. In certain criminal cases, the PPS may invite the court not to proceed with a charge but, instead, to have it left on the books. I consider it both reasonable and proportionate to apply a time-limited retention period in those circumstances, given that proceedings may be recommenced.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments that I mentioned at the outset that the Committee for Justice has tabled for inclusion in Part 1 of the Bill. The Committee's first amendment, No 40, creates an enabling power to allow the inclusion of photographs and other emerging technology in the definition of "biometric material" under the retention provisions in Part 1. A second amendment, No 104, on commencement of the new DNA retention framework, which is consequential to clause 33, would require the Department to bring the new retention framework in Part 1 into force within five years of Royal Assent.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 111 makes changes relating to informed warnings and restorative cautions that will clarify that any reference to a caution in Part VI of PACE NI is to be interpreted as including an informed warning or restorative caution. Provisions in new article 53B in amendment No 17 will mean that existing references to cautions in articles 61, 63 and 64A are no longer required, so there are amendments to remove those redundant references. <BR /> <BR />Finally, there are regulation-making powers to require that any future regulations to accommodate changes in the terminology used for informed warnings or restorative cautions or that deal with transitional arrangements for DNA and fingerprints must follow the draft affirmative procedure.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are new provisions in amendment No 66 to establish a power to photograph individuals in specified circumstances at a police station, thereby putting photographs on the same footing as DNA and fingerprints. Regarding the powers of the PSNI to recall an individual to a police station for material to be taken, there are powers in amendment No 67 to specify a date of attendance at a police station for the taking of DNA samples, fingerprints and photographs. The aim is to improve the process of making arrangements for requiring an individual to attend a police station for their material to be taken and to reduce the likelihood of an individual attending the station when custody staff are not available to facilitate the taking of that material.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are provisions to create grace periods for DNA and fingerprints being held for individuals under investigation. An amendment provides for a 28-day period to ensure that, following the conclusion of an investigation, the PSNI has sufficient time either to lawfully process the deletion of an individual's DNA and fingerprints or to submit an application to the biometrics commissioner for continued retention. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 8 makes a change relating to applications to the biometrics commissioner to clarify that the DNA and fingerprints of an individual who is arrested but not charged can be retained by the PSNI until the outcome of an application to the biometrics commissioner is known.”
“Existing references to a person "being charged with an offence" or "informed" that they "will be reported" will be replaced by "being charged with an offence" or "a complaint being laid against the person". <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 22 makes changes to retention periods for DNA and fingerprints held on foot of a community-based restorative justice scheme, because stand-alone community-based restorative justice schemes that are directed by the PPS are considered to be on a level similar to that of a caution. That amendment and associated consequentials will ensure that stand-alone community-based restorative justice schemes attract the same retention period as a caution for adults, which is 75 years or 25 years, and, for someone who is under 18, five years.”
“<BR /> <BR />A number of amendments were tabled in respect of schedule 2, beginning with amendment No 108 to replace the term "reported" with "a complaint being laid against the person" in Part VI of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which is due to "reported" having different interpretations across the criminal justice system. The amendment, therefore, is designed to provide legislative clarity.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendments to Part 1 tabled in my name are as a result of stress-testing the draft legislation with the PSNI, which identified a need for some modifications to the provisions of the Bill at introduction to provide greater clarity in a complex area and to ensure the effective operation of the new framework. I do not intend to labour the detail of each provision in the grouping, which, I am sure, will be a relief to Members, as a number of the amendments are consequential. I can, however, provide this summary of the nature of the amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill that I introduced to the Assembly in September 2024 has four key principles: to amend retention periods for biometric material; to make changes to bail and custody arrangements for children and young people; to improve services for victims and witnesses; and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of aspects of the justice system. <BR /> <BR />Part 1 of the Bill creates a new framework for the retention and destruction of DNA and fingerprints in Northern Ireland. I now want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name in that Part of the Bill.”
“While the amendments may have been presented differently, reflecting the sequence in which the amendments are made to the Bill and the consequential nature of a number of the amendments of any changes to the text of the provisions, reflects drafting tweaks and technical adjustments to ensure that the amendments work as originally intended. There is no change of policy approach or any new policy content that the Committee has been unsighted on. Committee scrutiny of those amendments is, therefore, unchanged. Again, I express my thanks for the diligence with which it undertook that work.”
“<BR /> <BR />Before I speak substantively to the nature of the changes to be made in Part 1 in my name, I want to address some of the concerns that, I understand, the Chair of the Committee for Justice may have had regarding the text of the amendments tabled on my behalf by the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) compared with the format provided to the Committee at the start of the Committee Stage for publication as part of its call for evidence. I reassure the Chair and, indeed, the members of the Committee that there have been no substantive changes to my amendments in policy intent or outcome.”
“The Committee's other amendments include tweaks to clauses 4, 5 and 6 in Part 2 to include a child's vulnerabilities as a relevant consideration to be taken into account when a decision on whether to release a child on bail or to impose bail conditions is being taken by police or the courts; the inclusion of a review mechanism for the use of live links by police in Part 3; and a consequential amendment to clause 33 to specify a time frame for the commencement of the biometric provisions of Part 1 within five years of Royal Assent. I very much appreciate the Committee's consideration of those issues, and I look forward to debating its amendments at the appropriate point in our proceedings.”
“Before turning to the amendments, I take the opportunity to thank the Committee for its support and commitment in completing its scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill and the proposed amendments. I also thank the current and previous Chairs, Deputy Chairs and members for their engagement throughout and for their subsequent support for all the substantive provisions of the Bill at its introduction and their endorsement of amendments that they scrutinised during the Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has tabled a small number of modest amendments, including a regulation-making power to provide for the retention and use of photographs in Part 1 of the Bill that we are to debate shortly.”
“If you write to a local GP and ask them to disclose medical records, you have to pay for that service. It also takes time, because the NHS — I am sure that the Health Minister, who is sitting and listening, would agree — is under extraordinary pressure and this is possibly not its highest priority right now. <BR /> <BR />All of those factors add to the delay. I want to ensure that resourcing is not an excuse for any delay and that we are not subsidising firearms licensing from the wider policing budget, which is there to protect the public and ensure that we are all safe. If we can do firearms licensing and, indeed, the bit that we are responsible for in the Department — appeals— more effectively and efficiently, of course, we will.”
“Firearms licensing is an operational matter for the PSNI. The PSNI has asked me to consult on increasing fees, but the PSNI strategic transformation team, in its work, is looking at all of those issues, including how the portal works and how effective it is. I am sure that the Member agrees with me that, ultimately, you want people to be thoroughly vetted and checked before they are given a firearms licence. You want to know that that person can be trusted with a firearm, does not have a record of violence, has not been involved in criminality, and so on and so forth. A degree of checking needs to be done. A cost is also incurred, because, very often, it will require doctors' reports and other such evidence to be gathered. That can take time.”
“That does not, however, change the fact that it will still cost significantly more than people currently pay for that service in exactly the same way in which the Department's firearms branch, which deals with appeals, currently has to subsidise those in their entirety.”
“First of all, the public are not being asked to pay for it in my consultation. We are asking the people who want to hold a firearm to pay for their own licensing arrangements on a cost-recovery basis — to pay what it costs. The reason for the £2 million deficit to which you refer is not the inefficiency of the office but the fact that we do not charge enough for the service. Therefore, of course, there is a deficiency in income. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to the efficiency of the service, however, PSNI's strategic transformation team has taken forward work on how it can speed up the firearms licensing process to provide a more efficient and effective service.”
“Given the legislative burden that we carry, the Department would probably need to wait until the next mandate to do it. However, should any Member wish to amend legislation to accelerate that process, I would be more than happy to engage with them in support of it, because people must be held accountable and there must be consequences for such actions.”
“I am very supportive of an amendment that would allow the Police Ombudsman to submit an early report where it is clear that the officer concerned has committed gross misconduct to allow that person to be dismissed. It would allow the PSNI access to the information that is required to commence and conclude disciplinary proceedings as long as it would not prejudice any ongoing criminal case. Of course, it would have to liaise with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) about that. <BR /> <BR />Such an amendment would require primary legislative change. Obviously, given our reduced mandate, we have not been able to progress that, but we are making changes to regulations that cover the code of conduct and vetting and barring issues. The Chamber will see more of that in the weeks ahead. It is my intention to do that as early as possible.”
“I have also raised the issue with the Agriculture Minister, in respect of the equine industry, and the Health Minister, in respect of safeguarding and, particularly, child social services, as I believe that there is work that we can do jointly to chase up those issues. <BR /> <BR />Last week, during the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meeting and at the intergovernmental agreement meeting on justice with the Irish Government, I raised the issue with them because, of course, as we will all be conscious of, the equine industry acts on an all-island basis and Katie lived with her abuser for part of the time that was reviewed in the report when he was on the other side of the border, in Lifford. Therefore, it is important that they understand the consequences of the report and work with us to ensure that it is implemented fully.”
“Dr Melia has agreed to coordinate and chair an implementation group to oversee the delivery of her 16 recommendations. That will bring invaluable continuity to ensuring that they are implemented. I am grateful to Jan for her ongoing commitment and support. The Department is in contact with her and will provide whatever support she needs as she takes forward the implementation phase. <BR /> <BR />I have also shared a copy of the report with my Executive colleagues in advance of Dr Melia convening the implementation group. I anticipate that cross-Executive support will be forthcoming, not least in the context of ending violence against women and girls.”
“On each occasion on which the criminal Bar has raised issues with me, I have tried to act in good faith. I have to say that that has not been reciprocated, because one of the conditions for undertaking the accelerated review was that the Bar would play no further part in deciding which cases got a derogation, but it did not hold up its end of the bargain. In order to ensure that victims and witnesses were not negatively affected, I allowed the accelerated review to proceed in spite of that, and I will continue to do everything that I can to ensure that justice is available to every victim and every person in the court system without their having to go cap in hand to anyone to ask for it. I also reinforce what I said earlier, which is that there is nothing to prevent the Bar going back to work today.”
“First and foremost, I agree. It is completely unwarranted that people are being re-traumatised as a result of their feeling the need to come to me, any other elected representative, the PPS or the CBA to recount their trauma and seek a derogation. I do not believe that any victim, any witness or, indeed, any person should have to go through that. It is not an ethical situation. I am glad that the case has been resolved, and I hope that that brings some comfort to the family. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to how expeditiously I will try to resolve the matter with the Bar, I have never dragged my heels on the issues. When I got the report from the Burgess review, I implemented it in good faith and backdated it to the point at which I made the decision, not just to the point at which I announced it.”