Joanne Bunting
East Belfast · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Their input was instrumental in shaping the Bill that the Assembly will shortly be invited to pass. <BR /> <BR />For those affected by the mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and related pathways and practices, the process has taken too long, but we can be pleased that we got there, for the victims' sakes.”
“It is still cruel, disheartening and difficult to fully comprehend. I hope that the experiences of the many women who were affected by those institutions and practices will serve as a challenge to us all.”
“We thank all who participated in the Victims and Survivors Consultation Forum. We know that that has not always been an easy space, but we hope that, today, they can reflect on all their efforts with pride.”
“<BR /> <BR />To victims and survivors considering whether to engage with the redress service, I send an unequivocal message: the scheme exists because your experiences matter, and you need not face the process alone.”
“<BR /> <BR />Of course, the experience did not end with the institution itself; rather, for the victims and survivors — those women and children — the period has been a thread of pain that has woven its way through their entire lives.”
“It is not an exaggeration to say that today is a momentous day. It is an honour and a privilege for me to move the Final Stage of this important legislation on behalf of the First Minister and the deputy first Minister, junior Minister Reilly and, indeed, the Executive.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,152 lines we hold for Joanne Bunting, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 24.
“Thanks, Minister, for giving way. I want to seek clarification on a point. Earlier, your colleague raised the issue of people mentioning deprivation of liberty. You will be aware that, in the proposals that are to follow, there is the creation of two offences: one of directing serious and organised crime and another of participating in it. For purposes of clarification, could the Minister indicate whether she envisages that each of those will carry a prison sentence?”
“The reason why I did not specify that is that, thus far, the Committee has neither had a conversation about it nor made its decision. Until such times as the Committee has a comprehensive conversation about how it wishes to proceed, I will not stand up and make remarks on behalf of the Committee when I do not know the Committee's position.”
“I have put on record that the Committee intends to work constructively through the issues as best it can and to collaborate with the Department for the betterment of justice and better law. How many more times does it need to be said?”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. <BR /> <BR />We have debated this at length, and I was very clear when I spoke as Chair of the Committee and as an individual Member that we are coming to the Bill with the best of intentions: to produce an Act that has been through the proper processes and has been effectively scrutinised. We will do that in as generous and as constructive a way that we can. I have been very clear about that, and the remarks that I made as Chair were made on behalf of the entire Committee. We stated our concern from the outset — it has been an ongoing issue — and we met the Minister to discuss the matter. The Minister is well aware of our views, and it would be inherently wrong to move through Second Stage without voicing the Committee's concerns.”
“We look forward to engaging with them further as we take and consider their evidence and submissions. <BR /> <BR />It is important to state that the Department has had years and, in some cases, months to work up the policies. Therefore, the Committee will absolutely need to take its time to ensure that we have all that we need to fully understand and effectively scrutinise all that comes before us and the consequences — unintended or otherwise — as best we can. We are charged with effective and thorough scrutiny, and that is our intention. In presumption of the progression of the Bill today, I assure the House and the Department of the DUP's due diligence in as constructive a manner as possible for the betterment of the justice system as we move to the next stage.”
“Although some areas initially appear to be straightforward, such as the inclusions around the Policing Board, we will wish to examine in more detail all the proposals, including, but not limited to, the no bill provisions and those around legal aid and criminal records certificates. <BR /> <BR />My colleagues will cover some of those topics in more detail in the rest of the debate as the House has already heard plenty from me. Suffice it to say that, thus far, each briefing that we have had has been reasonably high level, and we will need to delve into the issues throughout each part of the Bill much more deeply to fully appreciate the implications and consequences of all that is before us. As it stands, we are already in receipt of briefing papers from stakeholders and interested third parties.”
“We have no objections to the provisions embedding live links technology, albeit we have always said that innovation in the administration of criminal court proceedings must be weighed against ensuring the integrity of the wider process and ensuring that the quality of evidence and witness testimony is upheld. In principle, we support the use of live links, but we will want to see the full set of proposals and to consider the outworkings. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of distinct policy areas in Part 4. Some are tidying up exercises, while others are technical and/or more complicated to grasp.”
“None of those issues is necessarily easy and will merit due consideration, including around safeguarding. We wish to develop our knowledge of current practice, understand the distinctions that the proposals bring and further tease out, in practical terms, some of the areas that are contained herein as we progress and hear from interested parties. <BR /> <BR />Part 3 relates to live links, specifically for police interviews, extension of detention, warrants for further detention and provisions around consent for those who are under 18 or for vulnerable adults. We anticipate further provisions to cover live links in courts by way of amendment. We have been advised by the Department that considerable work is under way in that regard.”
“We are aware of the need for proportionality and appropriateness in bail conditions but are cautious about unconditional bail being standard, as proposed in the Bill, because we recognise that some conditions can be as simple as a direction to remain out of or to stay within a given area, or even the imposition of a curfew, and that those conditions are often welcomed by parents. <BR /> <BR />Again, we are conscious of the impact of those provisions on the child, the victim and the complainant. While custody is not ideal or preferred, it is sometimes, regrettably, the safest option for a child. Where social services decline to take a child because of previous violence to peers or staff, the alternatives may involve B&Bs or other accommodation where they could be subject to predators.”
“I will move to issues on accommodation when a child is granted bail. Whilst the aim may be to keep children from custody except as a last resort, we are familiar with the practical difficulties that can arise around accommodation for children and young people who are afforded bail. We note that the intended provision of accommodation has had to be shelved as a result of budgetary constraints. That is a very difficult policy area in which safety, rights and practicalities are all in play and are sometimes competing.”
“Thank you. I will resume the remarks that I was making in my capacity as a private Member on Part 2 of the Bill, which is on children's bail and custody. I will refer to the accommodation situation —.”
“Our criminal justice system already treats children and young people differently from adults in a range of respects, and many of the proposals in Part 2 flow naturally from that. In general, we are conscious that all efforts must be made to afford children the opportunity to change direction and not become trapped in a revolving door to the justice system and custody for the rest of their life. <BR /> <BR />We welcome the introduction of the new youth custody and supervision orders. They are preferable to multiple orders, which can be difficult and arduous to manage for all concerned. We want to probe further the options for 10- to 13-year-olds to gain a holistic picture. <BR /> <BR />Do you need to interrupt me, Mr Deputy Speaker?”
“Hence, the timelines involved here, along with the rights and practical outworkings of all the proposals, including the role of the commissioner, will need to be considered further and in great detail. We certainly do not want to get to a situation where unidentified biometric data is deleted, only for it to be later proven that emerging technology was capable of connecting that data and those persons to serious crimes against persons and property. That would be an abdication of the state's obligations to innocent victims. We will want to scope those matters out and ensure that we have a comprehensive understanding, as well as being certain that the proposed way forward is indeed the best way forward. <BR /> <BR />In Part 2 on children's bail and custody, we note the move from the presumption of bail for children to a statutory right.”
“They are emotive for many and will require extensive consideration and careful handling. We in the Democratic Unionist Party are extremely conscious of both sides of the coin: fundamental personal freedoms and rights, including the right to privacy, and the need to balance those with public protection, the public interest and the right of victims to seek and secure justice. <BR /> <BR />We are strong advocates of innocence until guilt is proven and of a fair and impartial justice system for defendants. Nevertheless, we also know the lasting impact and damage of crime, so we view proposals through the prism of victims, complainants and their needs.”
“There are references to case-by-case bases that leave questions around consistency. I confess to being slightly ill at ease with some of that until it is explored further. <BR /> <BR />There is also a Henry VIII clause. Departmental officials indicated that that was included for housekeeping purposes going forward. While that might be the intent now, once it is in statute, the reassurances will potentially matter little, should the powers be invoked in the years down the line. On that, we will await comment from the Examiner of Statutory Rules. <BR /> <BR />Let me turn briefly to each of the constituent parts. The biometric aspects of the Bill are somewhat technical, are certainly complex and have significant bearing on law enforcement's ability to detect and convict.”
“Given their present financial state, it is possible, if not likely, that those organisations are at saturation point and can absorb nothing further. Notable additional costs are likely to include those for the proposed Commissioner for the Retention of Biometric Material and for police software systems for same. It is likely that funding for those will form bids in future. I note, however, that officials have indicated that they have submitted a more detailed financial paper to RaISe for the Committee's perusal, but we have not had sight of that yet. We will give due consideration to the financials as we explore the relevant policy areas. <BR /> <BR />In some areas of the Bill the proposals are extremely broad, with us being asked to legislate with regulations to follow or provisions that will not immediately be commenced.”
“Given the existing pressures in the Department, however, and noting that the Department has advised the Minister of Finance that it may have to consider cuts in service provision, its ability to absorb further cuts as those issues are implemented remains to be seen. We will wish to examine that area further as the Bill progresses. It would also be helpful to know whether the Minister envisages the additional provisions that are due to follow being paid for from existing resources or, indeed, whether she will commit to publishing a revised EFM. <BR /> <BR />All the issues around costs must be probed further. In previous Bills, finance did not necessarily follow function, and the relevant bodies had to absorb the cost of implementation.”
“We welcome the commitment from the Minister and officials to bring the amendments as soon as each is ready. They have given us an approximate timeline but have stated that we should not expect to have everything until the end of the year. We will await the text with anticipation. <BR /> <BR />The financial aspects of the explanatory and financial memorandum are notably scant, offering little detail. When we probed at this juncture, we were repeatedly advised that, as work is ongoing, it would be imprudent to outline further details. In some cases, we were advised that business cases would follow. Importantly, the EFM indicates that the provisions will be paid for from existing resources.”
“The point that I was coming to is this: we are not unreasonable, and we know that there are issues that must be legislated for as an emergency at Consideration Stage. We are well aware that Departments sometimes may involuntarily find themselves in breach and that loopholes and lacunas must be addressed urgently. That is, however, a far cry from bringing in an additional six policy areas by way of amendment when some of them could have formed stand-alone Bills in and of themselves. A number of said policy areas are technical and, in the Minister's own words, complex, and some involve taking people's liberty for a lengthy period. <BR /> <BR />I do not intend to comment further or in any detail on the policy areas that are yet to come, as their wording will be key and to do so at this stage would be mere speculation.”
“<BR /> <BR />In his intervention, the Member also said that we had policy direction: yes, we do, but, again, I have said that text and direction are very different things. We raise the issue because it is a matter for the House. The Member may consider it to be being over-egged, but I was raising one of the issues for the Committee and am now speaking as the lead in the policy area for the Democratic Unionist Party. I would like to proceed, if that is OK. <BR /> <BR />As I said, or as I was trying to say, of course we understand that issues arise urgently and that the Department needs to address them. Nevertheless, no matter which way you cut this, six policy areas do not and should not arise like that.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member was being somewhat pejorative when he said that Committee members who have not considered Bills before may be overwhelmed: that is not the case. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill, but our concern is that that should be done in the right way and in the best way. We know that it has happened in predecessor Committees — had the Member been listening, he would know that I have already pointed that out — but just because it has been done before does not mean that it is the right way. To introduce six significant areas of policy at Consideration Stage is not a good way to proceed, and nobody can deny that. Likewise, if it were a different Minister's Bill, I do not think that the Member would be taking the stance that he is taking now, although I appreciate that he has a duty to do so in Committee.”
“Nobody indicated that the two years lost did not have an impact; nobody indicated that. That is not the point. The Member raised an issue, and I addressed it. Frankly, there is still no valid reason why those amendments could not have been brought and the Bill could not have been held. We will do our due diligence. <BR /> <BR />I wish to continue with my remarks.”
“I understand exactly why the Member makes the point. However, the mistake that she makes is that, in the period of hiatus, officials were working on the proposals and had additional time because they did not have other duties to consider.”
“She will state that this is not unusual and has been custom and practice with Justice Committees. That may well be so, but they were not this Committee, and it was prejudgement. I need not remind the House of the scathing judgement that impacted the Minister, her Department, the Committee and the House. We are determined, as I have said, to learn those lessons. Just because it has been done does not mean that it should be done. <BR /> <BR />Of course, we understand that things arise urgently and that Departments need to address them, but, no matter what way you cut this, six policy areas do not and should not arise like this. We are not unreasonable —”
“The fact is that it is bad procedurally; it is bad for scrutiny; and it is unnecessary. If other Ministers were to do likewise, I have no doubt that MLAs from the Minister's party would be howling about it, and they would be right. <BR /> <BR />As a Committee, we had implored the Minister to hold the Bill until the amendments were ready and to include them in a full Bill at introduction. At that time, she indicated that they would be ready by the autumn, but now we are told that it will be the end of the calendar year, as I stated. Even now, two weeks later, officials are already amending the original provisions on top of all the additions. We have had these conversations, so I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that predecessor Committees accepted such processes.”
“Therefore, we urge the Department to produce the proposed amendments at the earliest opportunity. <BR /> <BR />I will speak now in my capacity as an MLA. My party shares the Committee's concerns around the extensive provisions to be brought forward at the amending stage. In practice, it makes the Committee's work extremely difficult, particularly in calling for evidence and hearing from witnesses. As you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, an outline of a policy is one thing, but the text can be quite another, and, realistically, scrutiny of the actual wording is the only proper, conscientious and effective way to proceed. To table such amendments at Consideration Stage is an unusual practice at best and is, moreover, risky, on the basis that there are no guarantees that such amendments would be selected for debate.”
“In addition to the actions that I outlined, the Committee has commissioned the public finance scrutiny unit of the Research and Information Service (RaISe) to conduct research into the Bill's financial aspects; it has commissioned the Examiner of Statutory Rules to scrutinise the Bill's delegated powers; and it has commissioned the Assembly's Legal Services to provide legal advice to support the Committee's scrutiny particularly in relation to compliance with convention rights. The Committee wants to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department throughout the Bill's passage to ensure that the Bill emerges from the process as an effective, clear and coherent addition to the statute book that improves the administration of justice for all.”
“That is significant. I mention it now, because, at last Thursday's meeting, the Committee requested that officials provide further information and papers on several matters, including a delegated powers memorandum and a Keeling schedule, given the considerable number of provisions in the Bill that are contextualised via or amend other legislation. It is felt that the latter document in particular will be necessary to enable the Committee to conduct its scrutiny effectively, particularly given the Bill's extensive amending provisions. I trust that the Minister will support the Committee's request for such information. <BR /> <BR />I finish this part of my speech on a positive note. As I stated, the Committee has been proactive in preparing to scrutinise the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />I referred to the recent High Court judgement on the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. That is the key point on which the Minister spoke. One aspect of the judgement that I draw to the House's attention was that Justice Humphreys noted that the rationale given in evidence for certain decisions regarding the provisions in question, while given to the court:”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said, the Committee questioned officials on a number of issues around the Bill during the meeting last week. We asked how the provisions will be delivered primarily within existing resources, as stated in the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM), given the extremely challenging budget settlement that the Department has received. We raised concerns about the level of consultation that has taken place on some of the provisions and especially about the consultation on DNA and biometric data, which lasted for only eight weeks and was conducted during the initial summer months of the pandemic. We covered human rights compliance; we raised a concern about the Henry VIII powers in clause 31; and we covered a significant number of other issues.”
“I thank the leader of the Opposition for his intervention. I have no doubt that, when the provisions were brought forward, the Minister, the Committee and all concerned were genuine in their intent. However, there were outworkings, and we must take account of the learning and proceed in accordance with it. We must ensure that what emerges from the Bill's stages and our scrutiny is the best that can be done. That is our endeavour, and I will commit to it. I trust that the Minister understands that, when we come at the Bill from that perspective, it is with positive and constructive intent. <BR /> <BR />Bear with me for a second, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to make sure that I do not miss any points that need to be made on the Committee's behalf.”
“We were assured that the amendment does not propose a change to the policy, but that did not fill the Committee with confidence that the Bill was ready to be introduced when it was.”
“I hear what the Minister says. I will address her point as I come to it. My next paragraph indicates that evidence that was brought to the court was not brought before the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Last Thursday, the Committee received a briefing from departmental officials on the Bill's content and principles. I put on record the Committee's gratitude to the officials for their candour, patience and explanations. They were clearly experts in their respective areas of responsibility and gave us considerable time to ask questions. During the meeting, we were informed that the need for an amendment to the biometric part of the Bill had been identified a mere nine calendar days after its introduction.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee received a briefing —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Not only was the Bill introduced without the inclusion of the aforementioned provisions but the Committee has since been made aware that there are, in fact, six areas that the Minister plans to introduce by way of amendments at Consideration Stage. Those include amending rehabilitation periods to shorten existing periods and to allow more convictions to become spent. Again, I emphasise that those are not insignificant provisions. It is the Committee's view that it is — to say the least — far from ideal, especially so in the context of the recent High Court judgement regarding the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, details of which the House will be familiar with. The approach is deeply concerning.”
“The substantive nature of those provisions is evident without further explanation. Departmental officials have since advised the Committee that they will provide the text of the provisions, as and when they are ready. However, as I am sure that the House will agree, scrutinising legislation in that way is far from ideal. At its meeting on 11 April, the Committee agreed to write to the Department to raise "its grave concerns", to ask the Department to note the Committee's view that the Bill should contain all the clauses at introduction, and yet still to emphasise that the Committee wished to work collaboratively with the Minister and the Department to support the effective development and scrutiny of the legislation. I reiterate that our desire to do so as a Committee has not changed.”
“However, they also said that the intention was to add those provisions by way of an amendment at Consideration Stage, as opposed to them being included in the Bill as introduced. To say that Committee members were shocked at that revelation would be an understatement. Members immediately expressed their concern at the suggestion, noting its potential implications for effective scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 14 March, the Committee considered correspondence from the Department stating that four substantive new areas were to be added to the Bill by way of amendment at Consideration Stage. In addition to those provisions for live links, the amending provisions would include proposals to repeal vagrancy legislation and for the new offences of directing and participating in serious organised crime.”
“However, I need to draw attention to some less-than-positive aspects of the process that the Committee has been considering. <BR /> <BR />In March, the Committee considered a proposal for a statutory rule to allow courts and statutory tribunals to continue to receive evidence, wholly or in part, through audio or video links using the powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee asked for more detail, particularly about the appropriateness of the continued use of the powers in the Act, and whether there were any plans to place such measures on a permanent statutory footing. Departmental officials advised the Committee that it was, indeed, the Minister's intention to include a permanent provision for the use of live links in the first justice Bill of the mandate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Part 4 covers a range of areas: functions relating to the police, criminal proceedings, legal aid, criminal records certificates and court security. Many of the provisions in Part 4 aim to amend other legislation — something that I will return to later in my speech — and, again, it is clear, even from an initial reading of the provisions, just how complex a lot of the issues are. <BR /> <BR />I put on record the Committee's gratitude for the work produced by the Assembly's researchers, so far, on the Bill. It has provided Committee members with a solid foundation on which to build when conducting our scrutiny. <BR /> <BR />My remarks thus far have reflected the positive approach that the Committee has demonstrated in conducting its scrutiny role, and I reassure the House that it will continue to do so.”
“The need to consider how aspects of that part of the Bill will be supported by statutory partners, particularly with regard to appropriate accommodation for children when granted bail, was highlighted to us. It is a key consideration and reflects a wider need for cross-departmental working. <BR /> <BR />Part 3 relates to the use of live links in police interviews and detention, and we were given some useful suggestions for areas to consider: for example, the importance of achieving the appropriate balance between the efficient use of resources on the one hand and the rights of detained persons on the other, as well as the potential need for new arrangements to be monitored, which may well take the form of a review.”
“The number of databases across the United Kingdom that hold biometric data and the different retention regimes that are in operation were also outlined to us. There is no doubt whatsoever that that is a highly complex area, especially given the rapid changes in biometric technology, and it was highlighted to us how important it will be to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed in that regard. <BR /> <BR />On Part 2, which relates to bail and custody for children, we were directed to the Department's strategic framework for youth justice 2022-27 and briefed on the importance of ensuring that the proposed legislative changes align with that framework.”
“At our meeting on 19 September, we received an excellent and comprehensive briefing from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe), which covered the main parts of the Bill. That paper has been published on the Committee's web pages, and I encourage anyone with an interest in the Bill to read it. <BR /> <BR />On Part 1, which is labelled "Biometric data: retention etc", we were informed about the existing legal framework in Northern Ireland. We were also told about how the public interest in collecting and retaining biometric materials needs to be balanced with individual citizens' rights, with particular reference to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is on the right to respect for private and family life.”
“As Chair of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and declare that I have an immediate family member who works in the legal profession. I state from the outset that the Committee and I look forward to scrutinising the Bill and working with key stakeholders and departmental officials in so doing, should it pass Second Stage today. <BR /> <BR />There is little point in my repeating what the Minister just said in outlining the content of the Bill. It will be referred to the Committee should it pass its Second Stage, which is when the Committee's scrutiny will begin in earnest. However, we have been proactive in preparing for that scrutiny.”
“The Department made a transformation bid with regard to ending violence against women and girls, but, unfortunately, that did not move to the next stage. What are the Minister's plans for the next steps, as that bid was unsuccessful?”
“I am grateful to my colleague for securing this question for urgent oral answer today. It seems as though the workers in Harland and Wolff are in a perpetual state of flux. It is very difficult for people. The Minister mentioned immediate employment, but what is being done to secure their employment going forward, what is being done to support them in this time of further instability, and what is being done to secure further government and other contracts around shipbuilding to secure the future of the yard?”
“I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. My constituents, along with many others across Northern Ireland, are living in damp and mouldy conditions, and because they are in poverty, they are not able to pay for remedial works themselves. The Trussell Trust points out that just over four in 10 people claiming universal credit in Northern Ireland are either behind on bills and credit commitments or are finding it a constant struggle to keep up with them. They cannot afford to do the work themselves, and if they were able to afford to do it themselves, the Housing Executive would not stand over the work. Doubtless, there is a considerable backlog of maintenance. What will the Minister do to tackle the delays in maintenance across Housing Executive properties?”
“I welcome the strategy and trust that, as it is taken forward, work will also be done with men and boys. What processes have been put in place to effectively evaluate the strategy to ensure that it is actively making a difference for women and girls?”
“<BR /> <BR />The consequences are not just for lawyers, they are for our justice system in Northern Ireland and the fundamental principles of access to justice and the right to legal representation. The sector will, doubtless, appreciate the motion, but in the grand scheme, so should we all.”
“We are sleepwalking our way into a position where people will no longer be able to access help by way of legal representation. <BR /> <BR />Delayed payments are not the totality of the problem for the legal profession, but they certainly have serious outcomes and can make a bad situation infinitely worse. The issue for the House is that it is not just about the odd legal firm disappearing. From the Department's perspective, the delays are used as a management tool to assist with budgeting, but the result is jeopardy for others. Twelve weeks is inordinate, and, given the delays in the system, the payment is often for work that was undertaken up to a year previous. In no other sector would that be acceptable, but then lawyers are just above politicians on the popularity scale.”
“We ought not to forget the bigger picture: it is an access to justice issue. Closed doors on legal aid firms mean that it is all the more difficult for the public — our constituents — to access justice. Remember that our constituents are the people who avail themselves of those services, and those who are in receipt of legal aid are entitled to it. Every facet of their lives is inspected before approval is granted because it is means-tested, and even those thresholds have not kept pace with wages, thus excluding many who work but are still on the breadline. Considerable resources are brought to bear to secure prosecutions, but the fundamental tenet of justice is that everybody is entitled to legal representation and a defence where applicable.”