Patsy McGlone
Mid Ulster · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“Limiting the power to dismiss charges involving the death of or serious physical harm to a vulnerable person will enhance the fairness and integrity of those criminal proceedings.”
“The SDLP welcomes the provisions for the long-overdue establishment of a statutory Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses of Crime. That is a significant step forward in the development of our justice system.”
“Putting the office on a statutory footing will ensure that the commissioner's role is legally recognised and accountable to the public and the justice system. The Minister outlined a number of the measures in the process of accountability.”
“OK. I thank my colleague — indeed, the Minister — for responding. It is, as the Minister said and my colleague highlighted, a sensitive area. People who are approached to give a reference should think long and hard about the implications of the references that they give: where they might wind up; the circumstances in which they give them;…”
“The SDLP welcomes the Victims and Witnesses of Crime Bill and the opportunity to debate it, alongside the Chairperson — or should I say, "Mr Amendment" — at its Second Stage.”
“I accept that the Minister's Department, as she has stated repeatedly, does not have the capacity or resources to develop those legislative provisions during this mandate.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,995 lines we hold for Patsy McGlone, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 40.
“Thanks very much, Minister. Will you confirm how the report's recommendations will, in fact, shape departmental priorities; whether any of those recommendations will require legislative change; and, if so, when such proposals might be brought before the Assembly?”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, we welcome the Committee's amendment requiring commencement of the new framework within a specified period.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“Thank you for that, Minister. You pre-empted what I was going to say next. I look forward to hearing those matters being teased out in more detail when Emma Sheerin presents those amendments. In fact, the amendments that Emma has tabled would address those concerns by creating a more distinct regime for children. <BR /> <BR />Rather than removing retention powers in those circumstances, the Minister's amendments — this is my view at the moment, Minister, and we will hear it all teased out — will retain the ability to hold biometric information where it is considered necessary while introducing greater oversight through the biometrics commissioner and a more structured statutory framework. Alongside the debate around —.”
“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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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 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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“<BR /> <BR />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.”
“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 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. <BR /> <BR />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.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire agus le baill an Choiste.”
“We have heard the evidence and the legal briefs from the former Attorney General, and we cannot just pooh-pooh that. The evidence given by BASC can also not be ignored. <BR /> <BR />I would welcome the Bill's being allowed to come before the Committee to receive the detailed scrutiny that is required to drill down into the issues and, should it be needed, to get clarity — legislative or otherwise — so that those who have highlighted their concerns will be given the opportunity to present their evidence. For that reason, I support the Bill's moving to Committee Stage.”
“I thank the Member for that. We have to work through the practical implications. Even if the case does not go to court — I am sure that the Member, like me, has dealt with multiple cases in which firearms have been scooped — by the time it has been determined that there is no case to answer it may be a year, a year and a half or two years after there has been a perceived incident or an allegation without substance. <BR /> <BR />The other issue that those from rural areas will understand is that firearms may have been inherited and are precious. Those who hold firearms are among the most law-abiding people in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />There is so much detail that requires much more scrutiny under the microscope of the legislative Committee.”
“When it comes to reconsideration, even if the person is determined not to have been breaking the law, something has gone on their file about whether they may or may not be a fit person, because they have come to the notice of the police. Bear that in mind.”
“Does that constitute a pack, if a rabbit or hare goes across and four or five of the dogs dart after it? That is another issue that will have to be considered as we clarify what the unintended consequences of the Bill might be. <BR /> <BR />I will take it a stage further. There are those who feel that those who engage in shooting sports as their main hobby could accidentally fall within the scope of the Bill, jeopardising their firearm certificates. The only place that that could be tested is in a court of law. Therefore, that must be clarified. I will explain. For example, if a police officer determines that a person is breaking the law — in this instance, that would be this law, as it stands — their firearms are taken. So that people understand this, something goes on their file.”
“I have no doubt that there may be those unintended consequences, but they nevertheless require further scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) has taken legal advice. It has concerns about the implications of "searching for and pursuing" and about the scope of criminal liability, among other things. Mrs Cameron referred to walking dogs. The BASC also raised the issue of that possibly being within scope of criminal law. That is of widespread concern among those who hold firearms for sporting purposes and vermin control. <BR /> <BR />The phrase "using dogs", for those who are not aware, could refer to a group of four or five people who are crossing the fields on their way to Lough Neagh with five or six dogs.”
“In the debate, we consider that animal welfare is paramount and that it is paramount that we get the legislation on that right. No one wants to see animals torn asunder by dogs. I agree with the spirit of the Bill, as, I am sure, most Members do. I am from and live in a rural area. Many of my friends, neighbours and family are involved in shooting sports as, indeed, am I and others from the area. I have therefore received quite a bit of communication on this. <BR /> <BR />We have to go with the evidence that is in front of us. More recently, I have read in some detail the advice given by the former Attorney General, John Larkin KC. He gave a legal analysis that raised concerns about what may legally constitute, for example, the pursuit of a wild animal, as well as some other matters of concern in the Bill.”
“I thank the Member for introducing the Bill. Like Ms Murphy, I declare an interest as the holder of a firearm certificate, which I hold for the purposes of sport and some vermin control.”
“<BR /> <BR />We must also ensure that independence is the foundation of any legacy commission or information recovery body. For decades, London, Dublin and republican and loyalist organisations have sought to shape legacy processes and control narratives, often because they had the most to lose. Addressing the legacy of the past extends beyond legislation in London or Dublin: it shapes our politics, our community relations, our policing and the capacity of our devolved institutions to deliver for the future. We cannot afford another missed opportunity.”
“It is equally important that disclosure sheds light on how non-state actors operated with impunity and how, for many, the direction of violence was not about political ideals but about power, control, personal gain and dominance over the very communities that they claimed to defend. <BR /> <BR />The dirty war that was waged by all sides must be brought fully into the light. Too often, the reality is not one of noble causes or heroic acts but of brutality, sexual violence that was hidden behind kangaroo courts, women being intimidated for rebuilding their lives, children being abused by those wielding unchecked power, communities being driven out and thousands of people being forced to leave the North simply to live in peace.”
“National security vetoes cannot be used to conceal evidence of collusion or double standards. The absence of full disclosure has long failed victims and their families; families like that of Sean Brown and those of the disappeared. <BR /> <BR />On Sunday, I attended the launch of a book on the investigation into the murder of Sean Brown. Among 25 people who were involved in the murder, a number were agents of the state. He was an innocent man. Victims, and society as a whole, deserve the full and unvarnished truth. Anything less leaves only half-truths, revisionism, continued pain and justice denied.”
“In Dunmurry and Lurgan, public servants in the PSNI, along with residents and businesses, were attacked by organised criminals. Their vision offers nothing to the people of Ireland — no prosperity or better future — only destruction, fear and hopelessness, and certainly not unity of the people of Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Let me be absolutely clear: violence was never inevitable. Those who directed it made a choice. Violence is not inevitable today, either. Those who engage in it now also make a choice. The people of Ireland rejected violence throughout the Troubles, just as they reject it now. One issue will determine our success in addressing the legacy of the past: disclosure. Security institutions must accept that collusion is, in itself, a crime; one that demands accountability.”
“Indeed, what we witnessed in Dunmurry a few weeks ago was a manifestation of the continued glorification of past violence. At this point, the quote attributed to Albert Einstein is very appropriate: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. By contrast, memorialisation carries responsibility and demands recognition of wrongdoing, acknowledgement of injustice and, where appropriate, an apology.”
“Those seeking to wreck the Troubles Bill — we have heard them over in Westminster — are not acting out of any honour-bound duty to the security service; their aim, by consequence, is to suppress truth, conceal evidence of collusion and distort the historical narrative. History will acknowledge that this was a dirty war in which loyalist and republican paramilitaries were involved but also, at times, actors of the state. <BR /> <BR />We know how agents such as Freddie Scappaticci and Brian Nelson were handled. We know of the actions of the British paratroopers on the streets of Derry, Ballymurphy and the Shankill Road. I am under no illusion that it suits both state and non-state actors to obscure the truth, evade accountability and bend the rule of law.”
“I welcome the opportunity to set out the SDLP's position on addressing the legacy of the past. Our position will not be a surprise to anyone, as we are among the few who have been consistent throughout the decades when dealing with past. We do not support the motion. It is important that we put on record that those who continue to perpetuate the myth that any one group of actors from the Troubles is being disproportionately pursued do a grave disservice to the rule of law. They are propagating falsehoods that hinder society's ability to uncover truth, deliver justice and, ultimately, achieve reconciliation. <BR /> <BR />Since 2012, there have been just 25 prosecutions for Troubles-related offences. Of those, more than half concerned paramilitary actors, while fewer than a quarter involved MOD personnel.”
“With regard to the connection agreement charging structure, the Minister will be aware that, on 26 November 2025, she made a decision on fairer grid connection costs. At that stage, the Utility Regulator was working on modification of the NIE Networks licensing system, which was to be followed by the publication of a new statement of connection charges. Can the Minister give an update on that and tell the House when that is likely to happen?”
“In essence, it is not Groundhog Day; it is Groundhog Year, year in and year out.”
“Thanks very much, Aoife. We have come to the Chamber on numerous occasions and heard the same issues: people cannot be discharged from hospital; there are growing waiting lists for care, especially in rural areas; there are fewer carers; there are mediocre wages and a mediocre career structure for carers; and there are growing travel expenses.”
“Absolutely, Minister. For many of us, it was a bit odd to see that the body had gone through, I think, three finance officers since its inception. In the review report, some of the descriptions of the culture include "toxic", "silo working", "divided" and "disrespectful". Minister, you touched on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. Will you be communicating those to the Secretary of State, or arranging a meeting with him, as Minister of Justice, to articulate the concerns that you have clearly shared with us today?”
“Minister, you gave some detail as to the damages paid out per annum. Picking up on what Mr Stewart said, are you able to detail the percentage of those claims that have been rejected in that period, and whether there are specific geographic locations where the rejection rate is higher than it is in others?”
“The Supreme Court has clarified the law, but it has not ended the wider political and moral debate on rights protection and legacy issues in particular. Our focus should remain on protecting the integrity of all strands of the Good Friday Agreement, including its explicit human rights commitments.”
“<BR /> <BR />The case underlines once again the need for a comprehensive bill of rights for Northern Ireland, as envisaged in the Good Friday Agreement. We must avoid any drift towards weakening rights protection through constitutional ambiguity or political expediency. Victims and survivors in particular deserve legal certainty, transparency and confidence that their rights will be protected, regardless of changing political circumstances. <BR /> <BR />The broader challenge now is to ensure that Brexit-related arrangements do not result in any diminution of rights for people in Northern Ireland. The peace process succeeded because it recognised that rights, equality and the rule of law are stabilising forces in a divided society.”
“I will start by making an observation: only the TUV could reduce a complex Supreme Court decision to a toilet in the Assembly. Seriously? <BR /> <BR />The Supreme Court has narrowed aspects of article 2 protections. The judgement must not displace fundamental human rights commitments that underpin the Good Friday Agreement, and it will be for the Attorney General to scrutinise the decision. Human rights were never an optional extra in our peace settlement; they are central to building trust, confidence and parity of esteem in the North. The SDLP has always believed that rights protection must be practical, enforceable and accessible to ordinary citizens, particularly victims and families, and there will understandably be some concern that the scope of post-Brexit safeguards has been interpreted more narrowly than many had anticipated.”
“Members in the Chamber will particularly be remembering and thinking about Katie Simpson and will want to extend our sincerest sympathy and thoughts to her family and friends, some of whom are with us today. Minister, what robust protocols will be put in place to ensure that there is full accountability for police officers where investigations have been poorly conducted, such as the investigations into the abuse and murder of Katie Simpson?”
“Minister, we need to develop a just transition framework not only for our farmers but for our wider rural societies that is progressive and forward-looking and has support. What bid did the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs make to you for that just transition, and what allocation was made by your Department in the draft multi-year Budget?”
“It was kind of my colleague to let me intervene.”
“I thank the Member for giving way again. Does the Member agree that the current crisis being imposed on the world by, principally, President Trump will lead to a re-evaluation of the reliance on fossil fuels, which will have a major impact on all our communities, not least our rural communities, farming, transportation, heating oil and suchlike? Therefore, the thrust of the just transition committee and its workings and dealings will, as of itself, be readjusting to a different type of agenda, an agenda imposed on us by world prices, by heavy reliance on fossil fuels and, probably, by the need for additional impetus from the Executive to address issues such as renewables and EV, issues that other countries, including Norway, have addressed, to find that they are the countries that are least reliant on fossil fuels.”