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 61 of 151.
“My officials and I continue to press for greater resources through regular engagement with the Department of Finance, the Finance Minister and the Executive.”
“My Department contributes to a number of priorities in the draft Programme for Government (PFG). However, my Department's ability to deliver on those priorities is dependent on adequate funding being made available. There will be difficult decisions ahead if we continue to have insufficient budget allocation to meet the demand-led pressures of my Department. The front-line services delivered across the Department must be considered collectively and not as individual areas. The Budget outcome for 2025-26 and beyond is yet to be confirmed but is likely to be very challenging for the justice sector as a whole. <BR /> <BR />My Department is ambitious to deliver on the priorities set out in the Programme for Government for the people of Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Member said somewhat jokingly that he was surprised that the kitchen had not been blown away. It is fair to say that we have been worried on occasions that that might happen at Magilligan. It is not a minor issue. We had problems earlier in the year where, for example, the gas supply to the kitchen was damaged. We had to seek external support in order to feed the prisoners at Magilligan. It is a serious issue, and it is only coming to a head now because it is in absolute crisis. We have to resolve it.”
“Absolutely. Rehabilitation is and must remain the priority for the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS). Central to that is the infrastructure pillar of the Prisons 25by25 strategy, which aims to ensure that we have a fit-for-purpose and secure prison estate. Outline business case 1 (OBC1) approval was granted by the Department of Finance for the redevelopment of Magilligan project. However, because of cost inflation, over which we have no control, NIPS is now proceeding with a phased approach determined by urgent business need. Alongside a new wing at Halward House, the project forms part of the first phase of essential capital works at Magilligan to deliver a safe, decent and secure environment to facilitate prisoner rehabilitation and prepare them for reintegration into the community at the end of their sentence.”
“Crucially, it ensures that the facilities are operational for the size and capacity of the prison that we now have on that site. In addition, it is a clear indication of my support for the continuation of Magilligan prison and the investment that that represents in the north-west region, a matter that has exercised many of the Member's Assembly colleagues.”
“I am perhaps more cognisant than most Ministers of huge budgetary restraints, given that I have been facing them for much longer than most. Even when a surfeit of money was available, the Department of Justice never saw the benefit of it. My officials and I are very aware of the need to achieve value for money. <BR /> <BR />The project will bring a number of benefits. Since 2017, we have spent around £500,000 on the kitchen to maintain the status quo, which is completely inefficient and does not represent value for money. The project will offer more reliable environmentally sustainable energy provision, which will contribute to the relevant government targets in achieving net zero emissions. That, obviously, comes at a premium. It also allows us to improve our rehabilitative offer at the Magilligan site.”
“The project will involve the closure of two separate inefficient buildings and the construction of a more energy-efficient mixed-use building that will serve as a prison kitchen, catering college and cafe for both prisoners and prison staff.”
“I am satisfied that the planned investment in a new kitchen and cafe at Magilligan prison represents a necessary investment of the limited capital resources made available to my Department. The existing buildings were constructed as a temporary facility and have been in place since 1990. They were designed to provide meals to 300 prisoners three times a day. However, the population of Magilligan is now at its maximum capacity of 500 prisoners. <BR /> <BR />The current facilities have served well beyond their lifespan and are not fit for purpose in respect of meeting current health and safety requirements. Nor are they able to provide prisoners with the opportunity to undertake the full range of qualifications in hospitality and catering that are available in other prison establishments.”
“There is a mechanism by which we can ensure that they add value to the current protective mechanisms, including, for example, non-molestation orders. It is about ensuring that there is additionality and, crucially, that we introduce them only at a point at which they are properly resourced. If victims go seeking protection and that protection fails, that is a real issue for us. We have to be sure that whatever we introduce is operationally sensible and deliverable.”
“It originated as a Committee amendment at Consideration Stage of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill. While we, as a Department, noted the potential merit of notices and orders, we did not support that amendment because we had significant concerns at the time about including that level of detail in secondary legislation, rather than in primary legislation. We also raised concerns about the restrictive two-year time frame, because it was an untried and untested policy. It had been legislated for in Scotland, but it had not been operationalised. It was only when it was operationalised that they realised the extent of the problem. It is also affecting implementation in England and Wales. <BR /> <BR />I want to reassure Members that we are committed to introducing DAPOs and DAPNs.”
“We need additional resources, which we bid for through the transformation bid for the violence against women and girls strategy, but, again, that bid was not agreed.”
“However, we are working with the PSNI and the Department of Health to identify not just how we can better introduce DAPOs and DAPNs with the right underpinning regulations but further measures that, we believe, would enhance the protection of those at risk of harm from domestic abuse. That includes investment in services to address offending behaviour; measures to enhance multi-agency work to assess and mitigate the risk posed to victims of domestic abuse; investment in technologies to support the PSNI response; and measures to reinforce the ability of Health and Social Care (HSC) to support those at risk. Again, additional resources will be needed for that. <BR /> <BR />We have included DAPOs and DAPNs as an inescapable pressure because there is a statutory duty on the Department to deliver them, but that requirement has not been met.”
“The Member's question on the success of various strategies has a number of strands. The first thing is that the rise, if you like, is likely to increase and then level out as people become more familiar with the use of the system. That is why the cost goes from £12 million to £17 million. It is then likely to be maintained at that level. <BR /> <BR />With respect to the cost, it is hard to know exactly how many will come forward, but we have done it on the basis of an estimate from looking at what is happening in other jurisdictions where they have not been introduced successfully and have been judged not to add value. We are trying to take account of that learning.”
“I am keen to find the best way to progress it. <BR /> <BR />My Department's high-level estimate is that the total new cost arising from the proposed DAPN/DAPO regime is likely to be in excess of £12 million in year 1, rising to over £17 million by year 3. That is not affordable within my Department's current budget, so resources will need to be made available to support their introduction. They have been identified as a pressure with the Department of Finance. However, cost is not the sole reason for not bringing DAPNs and DAPOs forward at this time. My officials are also exploring other operational factors with partners to ensure that the eventual model is effective, adds value and is operationally deliverable.”
“My Department has progressed significant preparatory work to bring forward domestic abuse protection notices and orders. However, as Members will be aware, the statutory requirement to lay regulations has not been met. My officials are continuing to work with partners to resolve a number of significant and complex operational challenges to ensure that the regime is affordable and deliverable and, crucially, that it will enhance the protections that are available to those who are most at risk of harm. However, we are determined to make progress. My officials intend to provide a further update to the Justice Committee on that work in December. I believe that the introduction of domestic abuse protection notices would make a real difference to the safety of those at risk of harm from domestic abuse.”
“I refer the Member to my answers to both of the previous questions. The management of the policing estate is a matter for the Chief Constable in cooperation with the Policing Board. It is not a matter that falls to me as Justice Minister, nor would it be appropriate for me to breach the boundaries of the tripartite arrangement to reach in or control that. I encourage the Member to write to the Chief Constable, who may be able to furnish him with further information in that regard.”
“As I have said, it is not for me to opine on the right decisions for the PSNI to live within budget. That is entirely a matter for the Chief Constable. He has operational independence on that matter but is also operationally accountable to the Policing Board for those decisions. However, with respect to the ICO fine, you will be aware that the PSNI did considerable work to reduce the fine. I wrote to the ICO to make those representations, because I believe that to take public money out of the police purse at this time is likely only to increase pressure on the very people who were impacted by that data breach.”
“The management of the PSNI estate is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am committed to respecting the operational independence of the Chief Constable and the role of the Policing Board. As I have not had any discussions on the matter, it is therefore suggested that the Member should write directly to the Chief Constable.”
“I commend the Bill to the Chamber for approval and wish the Committee every success in the task ahead. <BR /> <BR />As we modernise our justice system, as with any other part of government, it is important that we do so with due diligence and with some speed, because the protracted delays that we see in our system are not reflected in other jurisdictions. People in Northern Ireland deserve no less of a justice system than people in any other part of these islands.”
“In fairness and with all due respect to the Committee Chair, I did not twist what she asked. I was very clear that custodial sentencing is not part of deprivation of liberty. It is part of the criminal justice system. With respect, the Member chose to intervene on this issue to twist what my colleague said and misrepresent the point that she made. To be clear, there are no issues with respect to human rights and deprivation of liberty in the Bill. There will be, of course, custodial sentences that relate to offences created by the Bill. Those are two different and distinct things. <BR /> <BR />In drawing my remarks to a close, I thank everyone who contributed today to what was, I hope, a useful and constructive discussion. It is plain that the Committee will have an interesting and challenging time considering the issues.”
“Irrespective of whether they carry a prison sentence, they do not fall under deprivation of liberty because a prison sentence is a custodial sentence and will be set out in law. Deprivation of liberty generally involves issues where somebody, for other reasons, has their liberty removed from them, either for public protection or for their own protection, so there is no intention in that. Of course, if the Member wishes to have non-custodial sentences for those offences, she will be free to look at bringing that forward, if she is concerned about deprivation of liberty for those who are engaged in directing or participating in serious organised crime.”
“Unfortunately, no. <BR /> <BR />Any increase would require legislative change. However, in the meantime, as a Department, we will continue to implement our successful policy to divert children of all ages, but particularly younger children, away from the formal criminal justice system and deal with them through early intervention and community support in line with the actions set out in my Department's strategic framework for youth justice. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion — I guess that everybody will be delighted to hear those words, if not all the others — I am encouraged by the support shown by Members today.”
“Well, I think that I have been very clear in what I am saying. It would require the Executive to approve any amendment to the Bill. The Executive have not responded to my letter asking them whether they wish me to bring forward such an amendment, so, yes, that is exactly what I have just said.”
“I have had no response from other Ministers either in favour of or against the proposals, and it is also fair to say that I have issued a number of reminders to make sure that my letter had not simply fallen out of those other Ministers' in trays.”
“Over 83% of respondents agreed that the age should be increased beyond 10 years, with the majority supporting an increase to 14 years. My officials have developed several options for progressing the issue based on views expressed during the consultation, and I shared a paper with Executive colleagues on 8 July to seek their views on my proposals. Those included, but were not limited to, exemptions for serious offending such as, for example, serious sexual offences or murder. Any increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility that requires legislative change will require me to get Executive approval. To date, I have had one response to the letter that I sent on 8 July, and that was from my colleague Andrew Muir.”
“Evidence also clearly demonstrates that early formal contact with the justice system often results in poorer outcomes for individuals in the long term, which, of course, impacts negatively not only on them but on their victims, their families and their wider community. To change the law in that area, Executive support would be required, but that has not previously been forthcoming, though I have addressed it with Executive colleagues in the past. <BR /> <BR />To further inform the discussion, my Department carried out a public consultation to seek views on increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility from the current age of 10 years, which is the lowest in Europe. That consultation took place between October and December 2022, with responses demonstrating overwhelming public support for an increase.”
“Mr McNulty and, from a slightly different perspective, Mr Gaston raised concerns that the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not included in the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware that we should be talking about only those things that are included in the Bill, but I think that it is important that I explain the reasons for exclusions from the Bill. I have been clear about my commitment to raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to bring Northern Ireland more into line with international standards, including directives from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. Increasing MACR would reinforce the message that young children who offend need support, guidance and help, not criminalisation and punishment.”
“The findings of that consultation were presented to me, as Minister of Justice, in October 2022, and I agreed to the recommendations to repeal section 29 of the Act.”
“In the 2017 Northern Ireland Audit Office report on continuous improvement in arrangements in policing, with continued recommendations in the 2018 and 2019 audits, the Comptroller and Auditor General concluded that it was time for the Department to review that legislative requirement for auditing policing plans. In light of that, we did a preliminary review and found that, due to amendments of legislation across other jurisdictions, we were now the only jurisdiction that had that kind of audit. The Department consulted on that as part of a wider consultation on policing oversight and accountability arrangements.”
“The repeal of the provisions will reduce duplication of oversight arrangements for policing, and anyone who has worked in the policing sphere, engaged with the Policing Board or spoken with the Chief Constable will know that duplication of oversight is a major issue and burden, financially and in other ways, to policing. <BR /> <BR />The amendment will, however, also free up resources of the Northern Ireland Audit Office, which primarily is responsible for the financial and value-for-money audits of public bodies. The amendment will also bring Northern Ireland into line with arrangements of its UK counterparts and ensure that best value arrangements are adopted, and I hope that Mr Gaston will welcome that.”
“That amendment will repeal section 29 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, which relates to the requirement of the Comptroller and Auditor General to perform various duties in respect of the Northern Ireland Policing Board's policing and performance plans. The provisions require the Comptroller and Auditor General to audit, certify, make recommendations where appropriate, comment on the plan's compliance against section 28 of the Act and comply with some other administrative aspects on furnishing reports. The amendment will repeal all the requirements that are in that section.”
“In response to the case of McKee & Hughes (and others) v The Charity Commission in May 2019, the board revisited its procedures to ensure that they were compliant with the legislation, and those procedures are working well. There will be no need for the board to revise its procedures as a result of the amendment. The amendment will simply provide a power of delegation that will be available should the board wish to use it. It is not automatic that the board will choose to do so. <BR /> <BR />Mr Gaston also raised a slight misapprehension, I think, about the amendment to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 regarding the repeal of section 29.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Gaston raised a number of points. First, he asked why the amendment was being made to give the Policing Board the power to delegate functions to its staff in respect of certain duties under the Act and whether the board thought that that would be helpful to it. The judgement that I referred to is the driver for that, and it is the case of McKee & Hughes (and others) v The Charity Commission of May 2019. It made clear the need to ensure that a body such as the board has express powers in legislation to enable it to delegate any of its functions. Therefore, I want to make sure that the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 is very clear on that point and that there is no ambiguity.”
“We have also had to continue making extension orders, which has proved to be quite time-consuming, since they can cover only a maximum of six months. On each occasion, as well as drafting the order, we have had to document the justification for continuing to use live links via emergency legislation, undertake an equality screening exercise and complete a rural needs assessment and so on. That is onerous for a Department that is carrying around 10% to 12% vacancies because of a lack of funds. It is not in the Bill because, again, it was impossible for the Department to publish the results of the consultation and to brief a Minister when it did not have a Minister. Once I was in post, I was able to make the decisions that were required in order that the legislative drafting could proceed, and that is now happening.”
“We are attempting to consolidate processes into a single approach that will not need to be constantly revisited in primary legislation but that has some flexibility in secondary legislation for some of the factors that influence the decision. It is important that we ensure that there is no diminution in access to special measures and that we get the balance right with human rights considerations and access to justice. The model that we have ended up with is set out in the way-forward document that was published earlier this month, and it is quite similar to the CVA but is much more comprehensive. <BR /> <BR />The policy approach is based on extensive stakeholder engagement and consultation as well as on learning from experience here and in other jurisdictions.”
“We are not simply replicating the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CVA). That legislation was brought forward to deal with a health emergency. The current wider provision sits very uneasily alongside a number of pre-existing pieces of primary criminal and secondary civil legislation that deal with live links but do not entirely align with the CVA. Having gone back to first principles to ensure that what we put in place for the future will meet our longer-term needs, we found that we can cope both with criminal and civil proceedings and do that in a nuanced way. The previous approach to primary legislation stretches back 20 years, and it was piecemeal and more cautious about when and for whom live links could be used — for example, with the defendant's consent.”
“Live links in interviews will be governed by PACE, as I said, so there is guidance and safeguards around that. Those were the main issues raised. <BR /> <BR />I was asked why the live links legislation and a draft of the replacements for the live links used in court during COVID have not been brought forward. Mr Frew said that this was straightforward. He said that, because we had COVID regulations, it should not be that difficult. However, that misses the point. We have not been transposing the COVID regulations, which were done at pace and without consultation, an issue that, I know, caused the Member concern. We have gone back to first principles. The legislative drafting instructions to the Office of Legislative Counsel are 138 pages long. They are far from simple or straightforward.”
“The use of live links also has the potential to result in further efficiencies, particularly in travel and escort costs. The proposed provisions would also ensure that the Department was continuing to deliver on its digital strategy. <BR /> <BR />Maurice Bradley raised the issue of breaches of bail, covered in clause 7. I confirm that the PSNI has confirmed that it is content and that, in many cases, the provision is reflective of what happens in practice anyway. He also raised a point about whether accommodation can be varied where there is a risk of high-risk juveniles coming into contact with lower-risk individuals. We are confident that the current layout of the Juvenile Justice Centre is adequate to manage that successfully, and, indeed, the staff do so day-to-day.”
“<BR /> <BR />Operationally introducing live links for reviews of police detention and interviews will provide much greater flexibility for the PSNI and will mean that reviews and interviews will, potentially, be dealt with more swiftly, meaning more efficient use of its scarce resources. For example, the current legislation requires a superintendent carrying out an interview to authorise, in person, an increase in the continued detention of a person in police custody from 24 hours to 36 hours. The new provisions provide an opportunity for a superintendent to undertake a review of the extension of detention via a live link, provided that the appropriate safeguards have been met, from a different station to that in which the detainee is held.”
“The new provisions will enable a detainee and a police officer to participate in those proceedings before the court via a live link, without the need to travel to court in person. The PACE legislation sets out the responsibilities of officers to individuals in detention. Article 40 of PACE (NI) will be amended to enable the PSNI to carry out a police interview via live links, including provisions to ensure that compliance with PACE and the associated codes is appropriately transferred between the officer at the station and the officers conducting the live link interview.”
“The Bill reflects the judgement, and the balance took account of, for example, Sunita Mason's review of the retention of criminal records and practice elsewhere. Experts have advised that the provisions are reasonable. They reflect my views and those of the Department, but the Committee is free to take further evidence at Committee Stage and, indeed, to discuss further with my officials whether it believes that we have reached the correct balance. <BR /> <BR />On the impact of live links, I assure Members that their use is always subject to the "in the interests of justice" test. Under article 44, a district judge in a Magistrates' Court may extend detention for up to a period of 96 hours with the requirement of the detainee and a police officer to appear in person before the court.”
“Remember, some of that material will have been collected in places other than Northern Ireland. The provision ensures that this is preserved material and that it is available for use by the ICRIR as and when required. <BR /> <BR />The independent commission regulations have now come into force, and we continue to liaise closely with the NIO and the PSNI to ensure that we align with their processes and procedures. For non-Troubles-related legacy cases, which the Member also expressed some concern around, the legislation enables the PSNI to continue to hold material taken from anyone in relation to an ongoing case. Provided that the case is ongoing, that data can be retained. <BR /> <BR />The balance to which I referred in my opening speech is essential and will, of course, be subject to Committee scrutiny.”
“In 2015, prior to the proposed commencement of the legislation, the Department was alerted by the then Chief Constable to the potential impact that those deletions might have on legacy investigations. Minister Ford took the decision to delay commencement until a solution could be identified to lawfully mitigate that risk. That is the situation that we are now in. The Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery was established following the introduction of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and has been operational since May 2024. The Act included a power to make regulations to permit the retention of designated collections of biometric material that would otherwise be destroyed under certain statutory destruction provisions.”
“Independent oversight of the retention of DNA and fingerprints and the use or potential use of new biometric technology by the police in Northern Ireland also future-proofs the provisions and ensures that proper independent scrutiny and assurance is provided. <BR /> <BR />Doug Beattie, amongst others, raised a specific point about the interplay between retention and legacy investigations. I am aware that my officials have written in detail to the Committee about how the provisions will interface with the ICRIR. Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2013 contained a new biometric retention framework for Northern Ireland. If that had been commenced, a large volume of material would have fallen for deletion from police databases at that time.”
“However, it should be noted that those revisions are not optional: they are required in order to comply with court judgements. A number of benefits have to be weighed against that disbenefit. A balanced and proportionate approach to the retention of DNA and fingerprints that respects the European Court's judgements and ensures that our domestic legislation complies with article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is key. It will also remove the blanket and indefinite nature of the retention of material under the current law. <BR /> <BR />A regulation-making power for a new review mechanism to determine the necessity for the continued retention of biometric data, which can address Members' concerns and will, crucially, future-proof the provisions, is important.”
“For example, when the Home Office commenced new legislation on biometric data in England and Wales in October 2013, over 1·7 million profiles and fingerprints were removed from the national DNA and fingerprint databases. Contrary to expectation, its introduction had no demonstrably adverse impact on the overall effectiveness of the databases. In fact, the overall subject-to-crime-scene match rate on loading from the national DNA database increased. <BR /> <BR />There is, however, another train of thought, which I understand, that deletions will result in the loss of forensic identifications that would otherwise have been made. That is a natural consequence of removing fingerprints and DNA profiles from searchable databases.”
“We will engage with the PSNI further on that as it takes the work forward. However, it is court-ordered. It is not something that we can put on the long finger. Not doing that work would leave us in breach of human-rights obligations and the law. We have to proceed, but we will work with our partners to ensure that we do so in a proportionate way. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members said that they were concerned about the provisions on biometric data, in the sense that the less data you retain, the lower the chance of obtaining a speculative match and solving a crime. However, it is not the size of the database that is important but, rather, the data from the right people being retained and the number of crime scene profiles that are held.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department is also progressing work to assess the financial impacts of implementing the provisions on biometric data, some of which can only be determined when the full detail of the legislation is finalised, as we do not know what amendments will be tabled by Members or the Committee. There are likely to be costs associated with a number of the elements, such as the setting up of a commissioner to deal with the retention of biometric data. We are progressing work to assess the costs, including the development of potential staffing models, which will require consultation in due course with the commissioner, once they are appointed. There may also be costs to the PSNI in developing or updating IT systems to support the implementation of the legislation.”
“The Department has continued to engage with key stakeholders as the work has progressed, whether it is the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the PSNI or others. I hope that Members are reassured by the fact that subordinate legislation and updates to the PACE codes that are required to support the implementation of the legislation will also be subject to public consultation in due course. There will be further opportunity for scrutiny of the measures. The Department will ensure that there is good time for those future consultations to enable stakeholders to contribute fully. That subordinate legislation requires separate consultation, and, by the end of the process, it will have been fully considered.”
“I appreciate the difficulties with consulting over the summer and the challenges associated with COVID, but we were up against a time barrier. Therefore, we had to continue with that. It was also a specific piece of legislation, and most of the respondents to the consultation were from very technical fields and dealt with it in a very technical way.”