Peter Weir
Strangford · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Funding was secured for that scheme, and we have been able to take further steps on it. As highlighted by my colleague Diane Dodds, we have seen my successor, the current Minister, be able to implement it at the beginning of September 2021 and funding be made available for it.”
“One of the great fears — I saw it particularly, as Education Minister, from the point of view of children and the domestic setting between partners — was what was going to happen in families when the doors closed and the locks went on. What was happening behind closed doors?”
“There is another significant element of the Bill. I have spoken about it in the Chamber on a couple of occasions. There is always a slight danger that we, as legislators, see legislation as being the end of a process and think that we can pack it away, put it on the shelf and forget about the problem because it has been solved.”
“I welcome the passage of the Bill's Final Stage and commend all the campaigners who have pressed so hard for it and the Bill sponsor. For Pat Catney, hearing some of the tributes must be like hearing eulogies at your funeral, without having to go through the indignity of dying, which is always a double advantage.”
“As highlighted by a number of Members, the impact of period poverty, though not confined to it, has been particularly acute in young women's education. We know that the impact can lead to the missing of education and constraints within education, and that it does so in a disproportionate way.”
“I support the Bill's Final Stage, and I commend the Bill's sponsor for introducing it. I thank the Minister and the Department for the positive attitude that they have taken towards it.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,831 lines we hold for Peter Weir, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 77.
“There are good foundations, and the Bill builds on them, but the advantage of the seven amendments is that they take those progressive gains and help move the Bill up a gear and make a step change in the delivery of autism services. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 provides us with additional clarification. Early intervention on autism can be critical, as it is with a range of subjects. It can be critical in changing people's lives. In many ways, it should be obvious that service and support should go alongside early intervention, but the explicit outlining in amendment No 1 of "support" to go alongside that early intervention is an important step in helping to clarify what is needed. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, clarification lies at the heart of amendment No 5 by adding the term "cross-departmental" to the cooperation that is needed.”
“First, I join others in congratulating the Committee on processing the Bill to this stage; the all-party group on autism; Autism NI for its sterling work; and, particularly my friend and colleague Pam Cameron on bringing the Bill forward. The amendments build on what is already a good Bill that would enhance autism services and build on the good work done by Dominic Bradley and John Fee. It is important to get that in before I get an intervention from Mr McNulty. I am looking around the Chamber, Mr Speaker, and you and I might be the only Members in the House tonight who served with John Fee. It was my pleasure to serve with John Fee and Dominic Bradley in their time in the Assembly.”
“Let us get the amendments right for the sake of the victims of modern slavery, like Lucas and the others, who will be impacted by them. Let us take a lead rather than catching up with others in a year or two's time.”
“<BR /> <BR />In closing, my plea to Members is to vote against Committee amendment No 13, not because it is not a step forward — I acknowledge that it is — but because amendment Nos 14 and 15 put forward a better alternative to provide enhanced support for confirmed victims in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Every day, we deal with many things that are controversial or political in the Assembly, but this should not be one of them. This should be about people, not politics. It is difficult for all of us in the Chamber to imagine the horrors that victims of modern slavery have had to go through. It is about providing those people with the best support available, and amendment Nos 14 and 15 do that. Through these amendments, we can recapture the position of 2015 and be on the verge of having groundbreaking human trafficking legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 17 would allow the Department to introduce slavery and trafficking risk orders. We need to get ahead of traffickers. We have to realise that, whatever actions are taken by the House or the police, criminals who are intent on the evil practice of trafficking are always trying to stay one step ahead of us. When it comes to those who are awaiting prosecution, it is important that we nip any further exploitation or trafficking in the bud. Amendment No 17 would mean playing catch-up with England and Wales, which have had STROs since 2015, but it is a welcome step forward.”
“All victims go through the same NRM identification process, so it makes no logical sense that victims in Northern Ireland would be in less need than those across the water. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the other amendments. Amendment No 16 would protect victims from being punished for crimes committed as a result of their exploitation by extending the statutory defence to include class A drugs. This is to meet an emerging form of exploitation, which is human trafficking for distribution. I appreciate that there have been differences on some of the other amendments, but I hope that Members will agree on the need to view victims through the lens of their exploitation and not through the lens of criminality when it comes to crimes that stem from their exploitation.”
“<BR /> <BR />During last week's debate in the House of Lords, it was suggested that Westminster could learn from the Committees, and I hope that the amendment is recognition of the need for long-term statutory support for confirmed victims. <BR /> <BR />We have the opportunity, if we accept amendment No 14, to lead the way in providing at least 12 months' statutory support to confirmed victims. Alternatively, if we accept amendment No 13 and provide 12 months "or less if not required", we will be playing catch-up with Westminster for years to come. If genuine victims in England and Wales need at least 12 months' support, why would genuine victims in Northern Ireland need less?”
“They would cover the full year. At the moment, the danger is that people simply exit at the referral mechanism point, and there is no support beyond that. As I said, Lucas is not just a one-off example. There is significant evidence of genuine victims in similar circumstances, not just in Northern Ireland but in England and Wales. The question is this: how are individuals like Lucas not considered to be in need of extended support? Clearly, there is a need for 12 months' support, which has been acknowledged by the national Government at Westminster. In a recent House of Commons debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill, they gave an assurance that they would provide 12 months' tailored support to confirmed victims and said that they would set out further details and guidance. This has been accepted nationally.”
“He is also managing two serious health conditions that require ongoing treatment and constant monitoring, but he has unsuccessfully sought assistance from the Housing Executive and social services. He is entirely reliant on charitable support, which is coordinated by Flourish NI. Lucas is just one example, but his is not a one-off case.”
“He has applied for pre-settled status. It is appalling that Lucas has been left homeless ever since he exited the NRM. Without extended support, he has no choice but to sofa-surf. At one point, he had to live in a tent. Lucas wants to start work, begin to rebuild his life and make a contribution to society. However, without a fixed address, that is virtually impossible.”
“They would be individuals who had gone through the UK Government's processes and been confirmed by the Home Office as genuine victims of modern slavery. It is unfair and unrealistic to expect those victims to fend for themselves once they have exited the NRM. Victims face an uphill climb with their recovery. <BR /> <BR />Take, for example, the particular case of a client of Flourish NI, one of the leading charities for victims of human trafficking. We will call him "Lucas". Flourish NI works with victims once they have exited the NRM. Lucas is a European national who was trafficked to Northern Ireland for the purposes of criminal exploitation. He has had a positive conclusive grounds decision. Lucas is not eligible to receive EU settled status because he has not been in Northern Ireland for five years.”
“I have no doubt that the Minister and I have the same good intentions in that regard. I do not impugn any motivation. The amendment makes two clear points. One is that it gives some certainty. For those who seek that level of support, it reassures them that the rug will not be pulled from under them. That might be a false worry, but it will be uppermost in people's minds. The second point is that, when we say that it will be for 12 months or less, while it gives support, it is provided on the basis of the assessed need. That is circumscribed under section 18(5). Therefore, the idea of an unlimited level of support, irrespective of whether it is needed, is not accurate. <BR /> <BR />It is also important for Members to realise that the support that we would give would be only to genuine victims of modern slavery who need it vitally.”
“The Minister's argument is largely that not every victim would require support for a full 12 months. We should remember that this is grounded in section 18. Section 18(5) creates the limitation on support, which is provided on the basis of assessed need. There would not be an assessed need for somebody to receive double funding, for example, so that would limit it. Different theoretical arguments can be used on that. From a practical point of view, I think that the direct costs would be minimal, but it would give a level of assurance. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 15 safeguards against any potential concerns that the Department has no flexibility and that unnecessary support would be provided. It reaffirms the key provision of section 18: it is a needs-based support. Amendment No 14 would not discourage victims.”
“There will, of course, be a cost. On balance, however, does the Minister not agree that it would be a price worth paying to see lives restored following exploitation?”
“To make that argument would be to dismiss all the evidence provided by the front-line charities that work with victims. They were vociferous when they made those comments to the Committee and separately to parties. Those charities said that 12 months should be the minimum, not the maximum, time for which confirmed victims should receive support. If support is provided, victims can engage with the police to bring about successful prosecutions.”
“Therefore, instead, my colleagues and I will support amendment Nos 14 and 15, which are in my name. They provide enhanced support for confirmed victims. <BR /> <BR />As has been indicated, amendment No 14 would provide "necessary assistance and support" under section 18(9) "for at least 12 months". Members may think that we are talking about semantics, but think about the wording of the two amendments from a victim's perspective. Sometimes, it is difficult to put yourself in other people's shoes, but I urge you to do that. They will wonder what support they will receive. Will it be one month, 12 months, at least 12 months or more, if that is needed? The support and the certainty will be make or break for victims of modern slavery in their recovery. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has indicated that not everyone needs a minimum of 12 months.”
“I indicated that I felt that amendment No 12 was also a step forward. Amendment No 13 is, largely, in conflict with amendment No 14. While amendment No 13 is, at least, some level of advance, amendment No 14 is better. That is the point that I am making. In case there is a lack of clarity, I say that we will certainly support amendment No 12, but, because there is a conflict between amendment No 14 and amendment No 13, we will support amendment No 14 as a preference to amendment No 13. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 could be interpreted as having an upper time limit. Maybe that is a misinterpretation, but it certainly could be interpreted in that way. In addition, because it refers to 12 months or less, there is a danger of it being significantly less.”
“That is a step forward. However, we support amendment No 14, rather than amendment No 13, because we contend that amendment No 13 does not go far enough. There is the potential to limit the intention of the amendment, as the wording —”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 13 would amend section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act to provide:”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not want to be churlish. Although we have a preference for amendment No 14, I will happily acknowledge that amendment No 13 is a step forward. As it stands, our statutory support ends when an individual is confirmed as a victim of modern slavery. After that, under section 18(5), support is only discretionary, and, in practice, according to the DOJ's figures, few individuals receive that discretionary support. Evidence has shown that a lack of long-term support leaves already vulnerable individuals at risk of homelessness, destitution and even the horrors of re-trafficking. There is a failure to provide certainty and stability. In those circumstances, we cannot expect individuals to help the police with information to prosecute perpetrators, which is so critical to our overall strategy against human trafficking.”
“As time has developed, we have learned more and more about victims' needs. As with any legislation, we do not rest on our laurels; we look continually to improve it. <BR /> <BR />I will deal particularly with the issues that are raised in the amendments that Mr Storey, Mr Newton and I tabled. While there is a clear difference of position in amendment Nos 14 and 13, I do not believe that amendment No 14 is incompatible with amendment No 12 — the Committee amendment — of which I am very supportive. It would apply support during the recovery period, when the potential victim is going through the national referral mechanism, commonly known as NRM, and being confirmed as a victim or not of modern slavery. The Committee's intention is rightly to ensure that potential victims have the support that they need during that process.”
“I had the honour of being a Member of this House in 2015 when, with support from all sides of the House, we passed the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which was introduced by my friend and colleague Lord Morrow. That was one of the most significant and worthy pieces of legislation that had been brought through this House, and it made this House a shining example, leading the way for the rest of the UK. Although that was a very important and worthy Act, nothing ever stands completely still.”
“It is disappointing to hear that. Why would she need sign-off when the money was initially allocated specifically for the programme? It is something that is entirely within the scope of her Department. Why can the announcement not be made and funding be made available during this mandate?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I was making the point that there was an accusation that, because the DUP had held the Economy portfolio — previously ETI — there was a threat of fracking. I simply ask if the Member can point to anywhere in Northern Ireland where fracking has taken place in the 15 years in which this party has held those posts, and I will be more than happy to cover the cost of the petrol for both of us to go there, but I suspect that he may not be able to point to any example of where fracking has taken place in Northern Ireland.”
“If not, there will be the opportunity in Committee to tease out the issues, because the Assembly needs to move forward on the basis of a level of certainty with any legislation, even this Bill, which, I suspect, will not reach the statute books in this mandate. As legislators, we need to know precisely what is being voted on. I am glad that there will be that opportunity to tease that out as the days move ahead.”
“Hopefully, we will get a more forthcoming approach from the Bill sponsor than we have had thus far in the debate. Perhaps that can be addressed, as well some of the issues with the scope of the Bill, in the Member's summing-up of the debate.”
“The fact that, in the space of 15 years, there has been no fracking perhaps suggests that there is not a danger coming from our party or, indeed, the Assembly as a whole. I simply mention those caveats. It is fairly clear from the parties in the Executive that there is a unanimous view on the subject. <BR /> <BR />The only other caveat that I would add is that we need to exercise a little bit of caution on the wider issue of petroleum licensing, for which there are two applications. From a legal point of view, due process has to be followed. We have to be careful that we do not reach a situation in which a potential decision is judicially reviewed, given that there is unanimity of approach from the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I look forward to the opportunity to at least tease out some of the issues.”
“We will not shift from the current position unless there is that level of endorsement, which clearly is not going to happen. There is therefore a question mark over the pure necessity of the legislation in the first place. <BR /> <BR />The energy strategy is now out for consultation, and there is a clear direction of travel in that proposal. However, rather than reaching the point at which that consultation concludes, the Bill seems to be pre-empting it. Mention was made of the fact that one of the reasons for its necessity is that, essentially, over a 15-year period since 2007, despite some interruptions to devolution, the only political party that has had control over this issue, from a departmental point of view, is the DUP. It would appear that the suggestion was that the DUP could not be relied upon to stop fracking.”
“If there is merit in all of this, it is that it at least gives the Committee the opportunity to tease out the detail of the proposed legislation, but it is clear, given the time frame, that the legislation is not in a position to get on the statute book. <BR /> <BR />Let me make it absolutely clear: we, as a party, support the phasing out of fossil fuels. That has been highlighted in, for instance, the energy strategy brought forward by the Minister, and it is clearly the direction of travel. It is undoubtedly the case that, across the Executive, there is not any enthusiasm or support for fracking. From that point of view, an assurance has been given that, if there were any attempt to change that, the Executive as a whole would have to endorse that, because it is clearly controversial and cross-cutting.”
“It comes down to the fact that legislation needs to have a clear-cut policy intent, and clear-cut consultation needs to take place. Embracing any legislation should be done on the basis of full knowledge. By way of comparison, there was some criticism of the School Age Bill that we dealt with earlier on the basis that it should have come forward sooner. It came forward when it did because there had been clear-cut development of the policy and consideration of the policy options, and, indeed, consultation had taken place. While some Members wished that the legislation had been brought forward sooner or that it had a wider context than the confines of the Bill, it was absolutely clear what the policy position was and what we were voting on.”
“I do not know whether that means that she will deal with it in her summing-up, but, if the Member is refusing to detail the scope of Bill, it is very difficult for the rest of us to have absolute certainty. Perhaps the passage of the Bill at Second Stage will give the Committee an opportunity to explore those sorts of issues.”
“As the Committee Chair highlighted, because of the passage of time, there has not been the opportunity for the Committee to explore the issue or, indeed, to question the Bill sponsor. There is at least an opportunity for us to explore what the scope of the Bill actually is, because I am still somewhat confused. The Minister sought to make an intervention — the Member may deal with this in her summing-up — to get clarification from the Member on whether the Bill purely covers petroleum licensing or whether it covers, for instance, boreholes when it comes to water. The Bill sponsor, who, one would assume, should be the person who is most over the scope of the Bill, essentially said, "Well, I am refusing to answer that".”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I suspect that I will not need the full 10 minutes; I just want to make a few brief remarks. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Bill. There is a potential criticism when a Bill comes to its Second Stage in February before the dissolution of the Assembly, especially given that, only a few days ago, the party opposite was actually calling for the election to be brought forward, which would have curtailed any further business. There is a danger that people could see this as virtue signalling without any effect. That would be a very harsh criticism of the proposals that are in front of us today, because we are at least taking a benign look at this. <BR /> <BR />The Bill gives us the opportunity to debate the issue, and it gives the Committee the opportunity to explore it.”
“It is a bit rich to get criticism on that from some who are supporting a Budget that would take money out of the education system, but I appreciate that we do not want to move into wider matters today. <BR /> <BR />The automatic position that has been put in place, and which is clear, straightforward, fair to everyone and equitable to all families, is the way forward. This is an important Bill, and it will be greatly welcomed by the many families who will benefit from it. Due to the Bill's progression, so far, and the accelerated passage, it will be able to be delivered so that parents can benefit from it straight away. I support the Bill.”
“Sometimes, that is an unavoidable route. The Bill creates a situation in which everyone who falls within the category of being able to apply is treated equally, and it removes the period in which the parent or representative has to make a special case for why it should impact their child, or plead for that to be the case, and then endure that uncertainty until they find out whether they are successful. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, in an education system in which resources are always scarce, and where we ensure that we have the maximum delivery at the front line for our pupils, it means that we are not adding a layer of bureaucracy or cost to the system. The Minister is right to highlight the need to move ahead on educational underachievement, for example.”
“First, we know that, whether or not it is an educational needs tribunal — indeed, all of us have been involved in a range of tribunals — it is very difficult to get from one tribunal to the next in a way which, while they are supposed to be as objective as possible, does not involve a level of subjectivity in its decisions. The route taken in the Bill of an automatic opportunity for parents to make that choice for those children born between 1 April and the end of June is the correct one, because it removes the risk that different cases of a similar nature will be treated very differently. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, those who have been involved with tribunals, many of which are often necessary, whether on education or other things, will know that they create a high level of uncertainty and worry for the families and individuals concerned.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is clear that, in taking this forward — again, the Minister has chosen the right pathway — three different pathways could have been chosen. As the Minister mentioned, you could have had an automatic deferral that would have pushed the school age back. I think that that would have been wrong and difficult to implement, and it would have taken choice away from parents because, at the heart of this, we must ensure that it is what is right for individual families that is put in place, therefore that would have been the wrong route. <BR /> <BR />The other alternative would have been to have some form of tribunal system through which an application for deferral was made. That would have been fraught with difficulties on at least three grounds.”
“I support the Minister's remarks that the evidence so far draws a clear distinction between what is a clear-cut, proven case of the potential impact on the young-in-year pupils and other groups who would potentially be impacted by a much wider change to the school starting age. Again, as I said, we will come back to that debate at a later stage. <BR /> <BR />Important safeguards have been put in the Bill. First, it is appropriate and correct that the Bill provides, through its formula, for a guaranteed year of preschool education for all pupils and that no one will lose out on that because of a later deferral. Also, every pupil will be guaranteed a minimum of 12 years' statutory education. That is right from an equity point of view and also from the point of view of ensuring that the correct level of educational provision is made.”
“That means that, even with the restriction that is there with accelerated passage, it will be delivered within this mandate. This is not simply a case, as it sometimes is in other cases, of having good intentions. It is about ensuring delivery, and the Minister's being able to build on that commitment and to deliver today and in the weeks to come is critical for those families. <BR /> <BR />As for the direct merits of the Bill, I believe that the contents have been got right. There is a wider debate — I know that this has been raised by the Chair and others — to be had about the appropriate overall school starting age and the flexibility around that. It is clear from what the Minister said that, on a broader level, that will always be kept under review. I suspect that we will come back to it at a later stage.”
“That focus enabled me, as the then Minister, to make a direct commitment that this piece of legislation would be brought forward and to do so with a level of confidence and a realistic hope that it could hit the statute book. However, making a commitment is not the same as being able to reach the final stage of delivery. When the current Minister came into office, one of her earliest statements was to accept and support this as her first priority. That was one of the earliest things that she said as Minister, and she has been absolutely true to her word and has made sure that this has moved forward. That has required drive from the Minister and also hard work from her officials, which is important to place on the record.”
“Therefore, the priority that has been given to this issue to try to make sure that there is delivery — I particularly welcome the Minister's remarks today — will ensure that this will not simply be on the statute book before the end of the mandate but its implementation will begin as well. That means that there is the opportunity for parents to avail themselves of this at the earliest possible opportunity, effectively for next year's entry to school.”
“However, a decision was taken to prioritise this above all else, and that was the right decision, because had this been brought forward in a different format as simply one component of a wider education Bill, I doubt that we would be here today. Even with accelerated passage, it is extremely doubtful, if not impossible, that those issues could have been tackled in such a way that they could have made it onto the statute book in this mandate. <BR /> <BR />I trust in the bona fides of others. I know that one of the previous Ministers, Mr O'Dowd, tried to bring this provision forward in a previous mandate and, effectively, ran out of time. Allowing that to happen again was a risk that was simply not worth taking.”
“Today's legislation is a tribute to the organisations and to those individual parents. <BR /> <BR />During this mandate, there was pressure, and, in the Department, there was understandably an overwhelming focus on dealing with the immediate crisis of COVID. However, when there was a little bit of space to look at legislation, it was clear to me and departmental officials that the key priority for the Department, and the biggest difference that could be made from a legislative point of view, would be tackling the school starting age and delivering for families on the issue. <BR /> <BR />Consideration was given, probably a little over a year ago, to a range of other educational issues, and there was the opportunity for this to be a component part of a wider piece of legislation dealing with a range of miscellaneous provisions in education.”
“No. I was going to welcome the Chair's general commitment. If the Chair is having a little bit of a dig, maybe I will withdraw such generous remarks. <BR /> <BR />It is important to put in context the genesis of the Bill. While the vast majority of parents are broadly content with the process of their children going to school in the time frames that have been set to date, for many families, this will be a major benefit and something for which they have been crying out for a long time. Whether Members are here in the capacity of a Minister, a Committee member or an MLA, they will be aware of constituents who have been in touch with them about very good, genuine examples of the impact that a premature start to school has had on their child, particularly in the early years of learning.”
“Towards the end of the mandate, some of us, perhaps, have a wider concern that, sometimes, a range of legislation appears in the form of private Member's Bills that have been drafted in a much greater hurry.”
“I am delighted to be able to speak in today's debate, and I am also delighted that this legislation has been brought forward. I am strongly in support of it. <BR /> <BR />The legislation has not simply come out of the ether. From a policy point of view, it has been well researched. Indeed, all the policy options have been considered in a thorough and timely manner, and there has been proper consultation and strong engagement. We know from what the Minister and others have said that that engagement and consultation has shown that there is overwhelming support for this Bill. That bedrock of strong policy consideration and consultation is the proper way that legislation should be brought forward.”
“It will never make up for the loss of a child, but it at least provides a level of support for them. I am also glad that, through the work of the House and through the cooperation of the Minister and the Department, we have been able to reach a point where we have a strong sets of laws that not only covers the situation of the initial direct bereavement but has been extended to miscarriage and, indeed, to day-1 rights. That is a good example of cooperation in the House in making something that is fit for purpose. <BR /> <BR />While it is a Bill that I hope, in one sense, is never used, I acknowledge that, sadly, it will have to be. At least it provides that level of support. I welcome the passage of the Bill and look forward to ensuring that, from April 2022, parents are able to benefit from it.”
“The bond between a parent and their son or daughter is an extremely strong bond. In any circumstances, the tragic loss between parent and child is a terrible thing. However, while that is sad, it is much magnified when it is the loss of a child to a parent. Parents see that, as well as anything else, as somehow going against the natural order of things, so it is critical that we give that level of support to parents, and that is why I believe that the Bill is so important. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister indicated, many private employers — perhaps even the vast majority — out there have an understanding attitude towards this. In most cases, there is already something good in place, but the Bill ensures that there is that guarantee that every worker is given that support at a time of great tragedy.”
“I support the Bill in its Final Stage and welcome its passage into law. <BR /> <BR />Somewhat ironically, while it is a very good Bill, I am sure that all in the House would agree that, in an ideal world, it is a Bill that would never have to be used by any parent. A single death is a tragedy, and, unfortunately, this is a Bill that will, sadly, have to be relied upon by many families. <BR /> <BR />I join others in congratulating the Minister and officials on bringing it to this stage, and I also pay tribute to the Minister 's predecessors, Paul Frew and particularly Diane Dodds, who acted as a flagbearer for this legislation. It is through their hard work and, indeed, the hard work of bereaved parents that we have come to this stage. <BR /> <BR />I came to the House today from a funeral. A friend of mine was burying her father.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. Despite the problems that have been highlighted by the report, it is important to place on record the good work that happens in the Prison Service and the hard work of the prison staff. Everyone in the House will want to see the full adoption of the report, which is what the Minister indicated will happen, and support given to the prison staff on the ground. As the Minister has highlighted, the key challenge will be not so much strategy as implementation. What assessment of the resources that will be required to ensure the full implementation of the report has been done? Is that achievable without additional financial support for the Department beyond what is on offer in the budgetary settlement?”