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 1 of 40.
“In this case, I am certain that all members of the Justice Committee would be happy to accommodate an amendment from the Minister, and I look forward to working on that with the Minister, the Department and colleagues on the Justice Committee.”
“The reality is that it is victims and their families who would be most affected by Caoimhe's law, including those who have campaigned tirelessly on the issue. Many of us have heard from and met them, and they want to see action. They want to see provisions promised in the Assembly brought forward. The Minister's decision not to bring them forward at this stage will be a disappointment to them. I hope that the Minister will reconsider her position or at least be in the best position to provide some support for the development of legislation on that in conjunction with the Committee. We know that the Minister is not averse to proposing amendments to her Bills.”
“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. There has, however, been some confusion between the Justice Minister and the Department for Infrastructure over who said what to whom and when about the development of the proposals. The fact that the Justice Department remains best placed to develop legislative proposals that are robust and comprehensive on that issue is extremely important, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that at the Committee. <BR /> <BR />It is not appropriate to leave the entire responsibility to the Justice Committee or its individual members.”
“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. <BR /> <BR />We welcome the objectives of the Bill in all those matters, and I look forward to continuing its scrutiny as a member of the Justice Committee, subject, of course, to its successfully passing Second Stage today. That said, we are disappointed that the Minister decided, as she outlined earlier, not to bring forward the necessary legislative proposals for Caoimhe's law, but she has said that she will provide more detail to the Committee, and I look forward to hearing that. The development of those proposals has the support of all parties, and, as far as I recall, the unanimous support of the Justice Committee.”
“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; whether they have been provided with full and detailed information about the case; and the sensitivities of the victims in a case when the reference is for the person who is before the court and has been charged with the offence. <BR /> <BR />Courts should not provide an opportunity for those charged with an offence involving aggravation by hostility to abuse victims and witnesses even further.”
“I see that the Minister wants to comment further on that. Yes, Naomi.”
“Measures to enhance privacy and protection for complainants in serious sexual offences cases, and to strengthen safeguards around disclosure, will encourage more victims and survivors to come forward and improve public confidence in how such cases are dealt with by the justice system. Too often, courts have become places where the victims in such cases have been made feel that they are the person on trial.”
“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. Statutory status will also allow for more robust representation of victims and witnesses in legal proceedings, thus ensuring that their rights and needs are prioritised. It will help the development of policies and guidelines and enhance public trust in the justice system by demonstrating the Assembly's commitment to addressing the needs of victims and witnesses. <BR /> <BR />We also welcome provisions in the Bill to address issues that have been highlighted repeatedly over many years, including by the Gillen review and the commissioner designate.”
“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. It will also be an affirmation of the work of the commissioner designate, whose tenure was extended beyond its initial three years to allow for the legislation to be passed and the appointments process for a successor to be completed. We commend the current Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, Geraldine Hanna. She has performed admirably in her role since being appointed in the midst of a period of Executive chaos. The Justice Committee recently heard important evidence from the commissioner designate in relation to family courts and victims of domestic abuse and their children.”
“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. Although the Bill may be narrower in focus than the Justice Bill, which, happily, we saw pass today, with its numerous amendments, it is an important Bill that affects how we and the courts deal with victims and witnesses of crime, particularly sexual offences and crimes aggravated by hostility. <BR /> <BR />The Minister is to be congratulated for succeeding in her aim of bringing the Bill to its Second Stage before summer recess, although that will likely mean that there will be ministerial amendments to be introduced further down the line.”
“Thank you very much for that, Minister. I agree with your sentiments about the investigating officers and, particularly, the victims of those terrible crimes. They came through that and then had to go through a lengthy court ordeal. <BR /> <BR />Recognising the operational independence of the PSNI, can you confirm whether your Department has sought any formal assurance that intelligence-handling protocols were properly applied in the Donaldson case and whether you are satisfied that the existing governance framework is robust enough to prevent failures in any future cases? Are further transparency measures needed to maintain public confidence following such a high-profile case?”
“Minister, do you have any idea when we will get clarification on the next programme?”
“Minister, to put this into some perspective, can you advise how many cases as so described have come before the Prison Service in the past five or even 10 years?”
“Surely the point that the Minister has just outlined is that the complexity of the cases emphasises and re-emphasises the need for each case to be assessed on its own merits and demerits.”
“What meaningful action are you, your Department and Executive colleagues taking, in the interim, to ensure that people's livelihoods are not being put at risk due to the dysfunction in the Executive and at Westminster?”
“Minister, I am sure that you are looking ahead to the change of leadership and premier in the UK. I hope that our hopes are not going to be dashed and that substance will prevail over PR, but that remains to be seen. Meantime, if the Budget cannot be agreed, there will, in effect, be a budget cut of over £1·5 billion across Departments. I hope that it does not come to this, as my colleague said, but, if it does, it could have a catastrophic impact on public-sector pay, housebuilding and other matters relating to that, such as investment in our infrastructure. You have been in that Department, so you know the pressures there.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí.”
“However, at this stage, we are not persuaded that the replacement proposal has been subject to sufficient scrutiny, consultation, examination or engagement to justify its inclusion. Questions remain about judicial independence, the future role of independent assessment, the impact on access to justice and the extent of the powers being conferred on the Department. For those reasons, while we support the Minister in opposing clause 28 standing part of the Bill, we are unable to support amendment No 91 and the proposed new clause 27A.”
“Any reform that has the potential to impact on the sustainability of legal aid provision should therefore be approached carefully, in a reasoned way, thoughtfully and by people who have experience and expertise on, dare I say, both sides of the argument and the equation. They may take different pathways to come to the one destination, but I am sure that there are many people who want to arrive at a fair, equitable and transparent outcome. <BR /> <BR />The difficulty is that the evidence base and, indeed, many of the practical implications of the proposed new clause 27A remain, at this point anyway, unclear. The SDLP accepts that reform may be necessary; there is no doubt about that. We accept that the original clause 28 raised legitimate concerns and should not remain part of the Bill.”
“Thank you very much for that, Minister. I am not here this evening to arrange a fight with barristers or to be referee in a fight with barristers. Well, maybe I could do that, but, at the end of the day, I want to make sure that, whatever the outcome, there is a fair, reasoned and transparent system. I am sure that not every barrister out there is just out to screw the system and get the maximum amount of money out of it. There are those who want a fair, transparent and equal system that is accessible to many people who do not otherwise have access to the legal system. That is my point, Minister. <BR /> <BR />Legal aid is not merely another item of public expenditure; it is a mechanism by which people are able to access the courts, defend their rights and secure representation.”
“We want people to get a good rate of pay for what they do, and we want those who need access to justice to get it.”
“I get that, Minister. The point that I am making, whenever I get to it, is that we want to arrive at a situation that was eventually arrived at last week around the pay, and that is by the involvement of professionals. I am sure that you will be the first to accept that many of those people are professionals. Indeed, the Department, and other Departments, engage them periodically to fight their cases. These are professional people who might even bring some very good ideas and thoughts to the table as to how the matter can be addressed. None of us wants to be in a situation where people are screwing the system, or even where there is fraud, which you raised earlier. We do not want to be in that type of situation. We want people to have access to justice.”
“Large numbers of legal aid providers disappeared, unmet legal need increased and increasing numbers of people were left unable to access legal support when they needed it most. The consequences did not simply disappear; they were displaced into public services, the offices of elected representatives, believe it or not, and other parts of the system. None of us should want to repeat any of those mistakes if they did materialise.”
“While the Department argues that it provides flexibility, legitimate questions remain about whether it also reduces the degree of independent assessment currently provided by the taxation process and places greater control in the hands of the Department. Stakeholders have warned that the Assembly has been asked to approve a framework before any clear alternative system has been developed or consulted on. That is a wider lesson that we should be mindful of. The Bar has also drawn attention to the experience in England and Wales following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, commonly known as LASPO. The evidence from that period shows what can happen when access to justice is weakened through structural reform.”
“Yes, and you will appreciate that there have been many other issues for the Committee to deal with. I thank you for your engagement with the amendments that I have had the opportunity to bring before the House. We will see how they work out. However, you will accept that it is important. I have been there and worn that T-shirt on many occasions when we have wanted to make sure that things are done properly, with the proper consultation and collaboration that needs to be done. I say that genuinely, because I have sat on the other side of the Chamber, and it is not a good place to be when things have not been done properly by the Department or by officials. <BR /> <BR />You mentioned the new provision for remuneration orders, Minister.”
“A central issue is the extent to which clause 27A could alter the existing balance between independent assessment and departmental control. The new provision would allow remuneration orders to prescribe how costs are to be calculated and determined.”
“<BR /> <BR />Closing off loopholes or addressing concerns that were raised during scrutiny but never fully resolved is not good lawmaking. The purpose of Committee scrutiny is not to delay reform or to frustrate progress; it is to ensure that, when change is made, it is robust, evidence-based and capable of standing the test of time or, indeed, court cases. That is particularly important when dealing with issues that engage access to justice. The concerns raised by legal stakeholders, including the Bar of Northern Ireland, cannot simply be dismissed.”
“Again, I hear what the Minister is saying, but it was not me who raised the issue of fraud; it was her good self. I would have thought that, if we were coming here this evening to discuss issues of fraud, the role of the police and others would have been given some consideration. <BR /> <BR />Nevertheless, we have all seen the consequences of rushed reform, incomplete scrutiny and legislation that reaches the statute book before key questions have been properly answered. Too often, Members find themselves returning months or years later to correct unintended consequences, and we have been here in this mandate discussing stuff that happened in the previous mandate that was rushed through at the last minute.”
“Issues around fraud, as the Member will well know, are matters for the police. When there is an issue such as that, it would be reported to the police and investigated by them.”
“Thank you for that, Minister. I, like other Members, would prefer to arrive at a comprehensive resolution that is workable and doable and that has been achieved by dialogue. From what I have heard from the evidence taken at Committee, I do not think that we are anywhere near the point of reaching an accommodation that is workable, doable, open and transparent and that achieves fairness in the system and access to justice for the people who most need it. When dealing with issues as important as legal aid and access to justice, that should concern all Members.”
“Fairness, openness, transparency, and how we achieve that, are vital.”
“We are picking up bits and pieces of information that would, perhaps, have been useful to hear about at Committee Stage. As the Chair said, we received clause 27A on 3 March. Indeed, one of the recurring themes throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill was concern about the scale and late timing of the ministerial amendments. This proposal is, perhaps, one of the clearest examples of that concern. The Assembly is effectively being asked to replace one significant legal aid reform with another at a significantly late stage of proceedings. I am not saying that one does not have to be adjusted or changed, but, if change is to happen, we want to make sure that it is done right, that it is done well and that it is done in conjunction with the professionals who operate the system at the moment. That is very important.”
“You hit the nail on the head, Minister: if it is fraud, it is fraud. I am sure that that could lead to a situation where people are investigated and debarred for commission of fraud. I would trust that, if there were such cases, that would be done. The Law Society is very rigorous in matters of ethics and how professionals perform their duty. <BR /> <BR />Nevertheless, where reforms affect or may affect independence, it is entirely appropriate that members proceed with caution. For those reasons, we agree that the original clause 28 should not stand part of the Bill. However, that does not mean that we are persuaded by the replacement clause that is proposed by amendment No 91: new clause 27A. We are getting back into scrutiny here.”
“<BR /> <BR />Again, I get where the Minister is coming from: some may bump it up in anticipation that the original fee will, perhaps, be paid. I get that, but I presume that the taxing master is wily enough to see that coming from way, way down the line. I would trust that to be the case.”
“The office provides an independent assessment of costs, balancing value for money for the public purse with fairness to those who provide legal services through the legal aid system. We have heard some further detail from the Minister on that this evening, which is useful, but part of the problem is that we need more detail to see how it may proceed. Like the Chair of the Committee, I have a certain nervousness about the position that we are in. Nevertheless, the evidence presented to the Committee highlighted the fact that the taxing master is already under a statutory duty to protect the legal aid fund and that the current system routinely reduces claims, where appropriate, which safeguards public money.”
“I get what the Minister is saying. Perhaps, had I expanded a wee bit further, she would have heard where I am coming from on this. <BR /> <BR />These are important questions when considering what kind of justice system we want in Northern Ireland. I will begin with clause 28. The SDLP supports the Minister's position that clause 28 should not stand part of the Bill. During the Committee's scrutiny, legitimate concerns were raised about the original clause, particularly its impact on the role of the taxing master and the implications for the independent assessment of legal aid costs. The Committee heard evidence that the taxing master performs an important judicial function.”
“At first glance, this group of amendments is ostensibly technical, dealing with taxation procedures, remuneration orders and the administration of legal aid. In many ways, however, the amendments are about access to justice. They may have implications for who gets access to legal representation, for who is able to vindicate their rights through the courts and for whether public confidence is maintained in a system that is independent, transparent and fair.”
“First Minister, I recently met representatives from migrant communities, many of whom — in fact, I think the bulk of whom — are involved in the health service, such as doctors, nurses and care workers. Those people expressed concerns to me about their fear and about the lack of safe, welcoming spaces where their families can celebrate their culture. I will emphasise one point: those are people who contribute positively to this community and are not an alien culture — that broad-brush approach that is often said about people who come here to contribute positively to our community. What measures are being taken to create those safe, positive spaces where people can celebrate who they are, their cultures and their identity?”
“Will the Minister tell us what consultation there was with the likes of the Department for Communities around schemes such as the ones that existed in the past — for example, Living over the Shop (LOTS) — whereby, with a bit of seed funding, the centre of those towns could be changed very significantly and could, in fact, help to address many of the waiting lists that those of us who are in our constituencies see growing steadily?”
“I thank the Member for giving way again. He makes a very valid point. In many of those town centres, some aspects, small buildings here and there and some not-so-small buildings have fallen into dereliction. I get where the Minister is coming from about bringing those back into use for ratepayers. However, many of our town centres, particularly the retail areas, have changed quite a bit, especially since lockdown.”
“The Member has touched on the issue of public moneys. Dies he accept that a number of concerns have been raised about from where public moneys will come and, indeed, about the legal costs that may be incurred as a consequence?”
“Minister, around 19,000 cattle are slaughtered each year due to bovine TB. Can you give an update on any clinical trials in England and Wales regarding vaccination and outline whether any similar research is being done here in conjunction with them? I have a wee PS as well: what about the spread of TB through deer?”
“They strengthen the police's ability to tackle impaired driving, provide more effective powers for dealing with dangerous and antisocial vehicle use and help to ensure that our roads, streets and public spaces are safer for everyone who uses them. For those reasons, the SDLP welcomes the amendments in the group and, in particular, calls on Members to support amendment No 90.”
“The amendment therefore provides the PSNI with a practical tool to intervene at the point where intervention is needed most. <BR /> <BR />It also sends an important message: public spaces belong to everyone. They belong to families, children, older people, people who are walking to work and those who simply wish to enjoy their local communities without fear, intimidation or risk. The rights of those individuals must come before the interests of those who choose to use vehicles irresponsibly and, in some cases, dangerously. <BR /> <BR />Taken together, the amendments represent proportionate and practical measures aimed at protecting the public.”
“<BR /> <BR />That is why amendment No 90 is so important. The amendment removes the requirement for a prior warning before a vehicle can be seized where it has been used in a manner that causes alarm, distress or annoyance. In our view, that reflects the reality of the situation faced by communities and the police. Where a vehicle has already been used in a dangerous, reckless or intimidatory manner, it is difficult to justify a position where the response of the authorities is simply to issue a warning and allow that individual to continue on their way. The purpose of seizure powers is preventative. They exist to prevent harm from occurring to pedestrians and the people who use the vehicles, not simply to respond after somebody has been injured.”
“I am glad that we have the opportunity to speak about them today. When they are used irresponsibly, those vehicles are capable of causing serious injury; indeed, the Committee Chair, Paul Frew, referred to an incident in his constituency. I am sure that there have been multiple other similar instances. In some circumstances, they can cause death. The consequences for pedestrians, particularly children, older people and people with disabilities, can be catastrophic, as they can be for the people who use the vehicles. The PSNI has repeatedly highlighted the practical difficulties associated with tackling that behaviour. Officers often face a difficult choice: either they pursue a vehicle and risk escalating a dangerous situation, or they allow that behaviour to continue because the legal threshold for intervention has not yet been met.”
“It is clear to anyone who walks through our towns and cities, especially, or visits parks and speaks to local residents that the misuse of scramblers and other vehicles has escalated well beyond a nuisance issue. Constituents contact us regularly — principally people in some of the more built-up and urban areas — about near misses involving children, elderly pedestrians and families who are using public spaces. Many Members will be familiar with complaints about high-powered scramblers tearing through parks and housing estates and e-scooters travelling at speed on footpaths in a reckless and intimidating manner. In communities across the North, what should be shared public spaces have too often become places where residents feel unsafe. <BR /> <BR />We should be clear about the risks involved.”
“The measures before us recognise the simple reality that the police need practical and proportionate powers to identify those who may be unfit to drive and to gather the evidence necessary to secure enforcement action where appropriate. The introduction of roadside drug-testing powers alongside the ability to obtain evidential samples through established procedures will help to ensure that the law keeps pace with changing patterns of offending and changing forms of impairment. They are sensible, measured provisions that support road safety and effective enforcement. <BR /> <BR />I want to spend a little more time on amendment No 90. At this stage, I thank Paul Frew and Nuala McAllister for their endorsement, as well as others who have expressed their verbal support to me during the development of the amendment.”
“The fifth group of amendments is united and clearly defined by a straightforward objective: to make our roads, streets and public spaces safer. The SDLP welcomes the provisions on drink- and drug-driving. <BR /> <BR />I will begin by speaking to amendment Nos 74 and 75. No one should underestimate the dangers posed by driving while impaired through alcohol or drugs. Whether that impairment arises through drink or drugs, the consequences can be equally devastating. Drivers place themselves, their passengers and other road users at risk when they get behind the wheel while their judgement, reaction times and awareness are compromised.”
“I could not agree more, Minister. However, such horrific incidents can heighten fear and undermine community cohesion. We have already seen efforts to capitalise on that fear from some who are not even indigenous to this country. What measures and engagement have you had with the Chief Constable and your Department to support community safety, assist the ongoing investigation and reassure residents, including many people who have come here to work and contribute positively to this society, who are all deeply shaken by that event? I am sure that you, Minister, share in the uppermost thing that many of us want to see here, which is calm in light of that awful and distressing situation.”