Mervyn Storey
North Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. It will be noted that there are those who cry much about the environment and purport to be the champions of the environment who did not have the courtesy to come to the House and be present when the statement was being made.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Clearly, there are some in the House who want to continue with the same old, same old and get the same outcomes at a huge cost to the public purse and to farms in Northern Ireland. The Minister is absolutely right: it is a scourge.”
“I am sure that the Minister will be aware, having listened to the Member who spoke before me, that the farmers of North Antrim will make an informed choice about who best supported farmers during this mandate of the Assembly.”
“A pilot scheme has been operating with the Education Authority, the PSNI and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust across 60 schools in the south Down area since September 2021 and was extended to a further 77 schools in the Newry and south Armagh areas at the start of February 2022.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I am pleased to welcome the motion. It implements the provisions taken forward by the Committee in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 to establish an Operation Encompass model in Northern Ireland, which is, as the Minister has outlined, a police and early intervention pa…”
“We had our final meeting of that Committee this morning, and I want to place on the public record our appreciation and thanks to our Committee staff of for all the work that they have done.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,983 lines we hold for Mervyn Storey, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 60.
“I also wish the Minister well and trust that she has a speedy recovery so that she will be able to get on the doors; but maybe not that speedy — maybe just back in train in time for the election. In all good humour, we wish the Minister well. We are disappointed that she is not able to be with us in the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the Final Stage of the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill. This is a day that some of us thought we might not see. When I took over as Chair from my colleague and friend Mr Paul Givan, I remember having a meeting with the Minister to discuss a possible way forward with the Bill. I am glad that our collective efforts have brought us to this point.”
“I thank the Minister for standing in for Minister McIlveen. I ask him to pass on our best wishes. I trust that she will have a speedy recovery. We welcome the response that the Minister has given to us today in relation to the report. However, what concerns are there in the Department, particularly in relation to the unacceptable draft Budget and the impact that that would have on the delivery of these needed interventions? I very much welcome the increase in nurture groups. That is an issue that we have championed over the past number of years.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Earlier, one of the contributors to the debate talked about the "big, fat elephant in the room". There is another one: a five-party mandatory coalition. The Finance Minister rightly said that, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. We have an Opposition within the Government. A five-party mandatory coalition does not work. Given the probable trajectory of the demographics of Northern Ireland over the next number of years, I am sure that it will not be long until some parties will want us to go back to majority rule, something that they vigorously opposed. At present, majority rule does not suit them, so they are happy to be in a five-party mandatory coalition that does not work. That big, fat elephant has to be dealt with.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that, while we will argue that it is acceptable that we give Health more money, there are health-related provisions in other Departments that will now be negatively impacted, such as the custody suite in Musgrave Street police station in this city, which has reduced attendance at A&E departments by some 45%? If that multi-agency approach is not funded, the figures in A&E departments will increase again.”
“It ain't happening. If you talk about openness and transparency, you have to face up to that reality.”
“The Minister saw it himself, because a Member showed the graph from the Fiscal Council report. The only Department with a net negative result is the Department of Justice. That cannot be denied, despite all the spin that you and your colleagues have tried to put on it that, somehow, you are giving additional money to Justice.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your role as the Speaker, could you rule whether we are discussing the Fiscal Council or the internal workings of the DUP, which seem to be exercising the Minister?”
“I am glad that the Minister is so concerned about the financial implications for Northern Ireland. Will he comment on the £1 million a day that is lost to Northern Ireland because of the rigorous implementation of the protocol that he and his colleagues in the House have supported?”
“— for 40 years and destroyed its economy.”
“— the bombing of the heart of Northern Ireland —”
“— and dealing with the Budget for Northern Ireland, we do not need to take lectures from a party that supported —”
“I remember sitting with the Minister in a room not far from this Building when he was unprepared to put through the regulations for welfare reform. Now, all of a sudden, his party have become champions of welfare reform. Who put the regulations through for welfare reform? It was the big, bad Tories. Of course, it was always them. They did the heavy lifting, and Sinn Féin takes the credit. Is there anything new in that? When it comes to finances, the Fiscal Council —”
“The effects could be wider, however, as the reduction in the legal aid budget will adversely impact on the legal profession and affect access to justice. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my comments as Chair of the Justice Committee. In the concluding moments, I will take a moment to say that I listened to some of the contributions from members of the party opposite, who are keen to remind us of my party's actions and claim that we have put party before the people. They have short memories: they were prepared to stay out of this place for three years, three years when we did not have a Budget or Ministers. Then, of course, it suited their political agenda. Now, of course, they have a go at the Tories for their austerity. However, it was the party and the Minister opposite who were not prepared.”
“It seems that, in the House, that is the way in which some parties operate. <BR /> <BR />The PSNI is not the only organisation that will be required to reduce its headcount. The Probation Board could lose up to 15 probation officers in the first year alone, with reductions of 25 and 33 in the following years. Criminal Justice Inspection will cut a full-time inspector position. The Prison Service may need to reduce the number of staff by 84 in each of the two years, while the Youth Justice Agency may be able to live within its indicative budget for the next year but only by not filling positions that are currently vacant. If demand increases, staff will need to be replaced. In all, the Department has indicated that 11 justice organisations may need to reduce headcount.”
“Instead of progressing towards that number, however, the number may end up at 15% below what it is currently. Of course, it seems that you can cherry-pick what you do and do not support from NDNA.”
“<BR /> <BR />The evidence received by the Committee illustrates the serious concerns about the impact that the Budget will have right across the justice system, including on the provision of services that contribute to and assist the health service. That is described in some places as the "downstream effect" of those particular financial challenges. <BR /> <BR />Recently, the PSNI postponed its intake of new officers that was planned for this month, owing to the uncertainty that sufficient recruitment funding would be available for those officers. The Committee was advised that the number of officers over the Budget period may be reduced by up to 1,000, while the number of support staff may be reduced by 350. Members will be aware of the NDNA commitment to increasing the number of officers to 7,500.”
“The Fiscal Council's assessment was that the approach appears "even-handed" but creates "winners and losers" among Executive Departments. Its report includes a table that clearly shows that Justice is the only Department for which funding will be reduced over the three-year Budget period. Baseline funding for the Department of Justice includes security funding, which the Minister contends should not be included, as that funding is provided directly to the PSNI from the NIO. The Department advises that, when that funding is removed, along with the funding for the domestic abuse strategy, which is cross-cutting but included in the Department's baseline, the draft Budget allocation will be 0·1% below last year's baseline for the first year of the Budget period and just 0·7% and 0·1% above the baseline for the following two years.”
“The Committee undertook detailed scrutiny of the 2022-25 draft departmental budget for the Department of Justice. As well as receiving written and oral briefings from departmental officials, Committee members discussed the draft Budget with the Minister of Justice at its meeting of 15 February 2022. The Committee also heard directly from key organisations and stakeholders across the system and received written responses from the justice non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). <BR /> <BR />At the outset, I highlight the Committee's appreciation of the intention to prioritise the health service in the multi-year draft Budget. The blanket approach by which every other Department is required to contribute 2% of its baseline to the health service is too simplistic, however.”
“On 17 February, the Committee considered the memorandum that had been laid by the Department of Justice on 7 February and agreed that it was content with the proposal to extend to Northern Ireland by way of a supplementary legislative consent motion the provisions in chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill insofar as they relate to Northern Ireland, and that commencement of those provisions would be conditional on Assembly agreement to consider whether the code of practice, following the public consultation, complies with protected rights and requirements. I can therefore confirm, as set out in the Committee report, that the Committee for Justice supports the Minister of Justice in seeking the Assembly's endorsement of the supplementary legislative consent motion.”
“The Department stated that the amendment would not materially alter the scope of the extraction powers envisaged by the Bill but, instead, provides greater clarity on the exercise of the powers in the context of confidential information. <BR /> <BR />Having considered the detailed information provided, the Committee agreed, on 3 February 2022, that it was content in principle with the proposed approach that had been outlined.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was also advised of a further amendment to the extraction clauses, which will put the exercise of data extraction powers for confidential information in the Bill rather than in regulations.”
“The Department has been assured by the Home Office that a copy of the consultation documentation and updated draft code will be provided in advance of the public consultation and that the final text will capture relevant feedback from either the Department or the public consultation. The Department’s briefing paper also confirmed that the Executive have given their support for a conditional LCM to be taken forward for those provisions. In that regard, the Minister, as she outlined, will consult with the Assembly on the code following completion of the public consultation and the commencement of the provisions will not be agreed without the consent of the Assembly.”
“The Committee noted that, whilst significant progress had been made on the draft code of practice, concerns remained for the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General. The Department had shared those concerns with the Home Office, indicating that it would require all relevant concerns to be addressed as far as possible, prior to the provisions of the Bill coming into force in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Department informed the Committee that it was unlikely that the code would be amended further before the Bill receives Royal Assent. However, potentially extensive amendments are expected as a result of the public consultation, and the Department advised that it will continue to work with Home Office officials until the proposed time for the commencement of the provisions.”
“<BR /> <BR />Subsequent correspondence from the Minister of Justice on 1 December 2021 requested the Committee’s views on the proposal to proceed with an LCM on the basis that the data extraction provision would extend to Northern Ireland but not commence until the code of practice had been finalised and not without the agreement of the Assembly. The Committee noted that correspondence at its meeting on 2 December, which also advised that the Minister was seeking Executive approval in relation to the LCM. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered a further departmental written briefing paper on 3 February 2022, which provided a list of changes and amendments relevant to Northern Ireland that had been made to the code to date as well as a comparison of the original and amended provisions of the draft Bill to be read alongside the code.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department confirmed on 15 November that the views of the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General had been copied to the Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP, Minister of State for Crime and Policing in the Home Office, and advised that a further iteration of the code from the Home Office had also been provided to both of them. The Department also informed the Committee that the Minister was exploring whether the provisions could be included in the Bill but not commenced in Northern Ireland until any outstanding issues with the code had been resolved.”
“The commission indicated that it had responded to the Department, stressing the benefit of further consultation and engagement, and called for more detailed guidance on the application of the human rights legislation to decision-making. It also recommended that the code be drafted to reflect the best trauma-informed practice and include practical advice to prevent, or at least mitigate, the secondary victimisation that can result from such data extraction. The Committee agreed to seek assurance from the Department that the commission’s views would be conveyed to the Home Office and seek the details of the other stakeholders that had been consulted on the draft code of practice.”
“On 27 May 2021, the Committee agreed to forward the Department’s response to the Human Rights Commission for further views and comments. However, subsequent correspondence from the Department on 16 June advised that the Executive had not agreed to the inclusion of the data extraction provision in the LCM, but may return to the issue once the related code of practice had been consulted on. The Committee, therefore, continued to follow that matter up separately, following the completion of its report on the other provisions included in the previous LCM for the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Human Rights Commission wrote to the Committee on 28 September to confirm that it had received a copy of the draft code of practice.”
“In its response, the Department advised that it had consulted the Home Office and that it was considered that the issues raised by the Attorney General were capable of being addressed in the code of practice. The Department also provided the response from the Home Office to the Human Rights Commission’s recommendations in respect of engagement and consultation on the code of practice, specific matters that should be included in the code and clarification of the oversight arrangements for authorised persons with jurisdiction to exercise the powers in Northern Ireland.”
“In their responses, the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General drew attention to issues in the provisions regarding the extraction of data from mobile devices, which the Committee forwarded to the Department for comment.”
“The data extraction provision aims to address a recommendation by the Information Commissioner's Office that the legislative framework be strengthened to ensure clarity for victims, witnesses and offenders in order to address inconsistencies between forces and to clarify the lawful basis for data extraction. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed to ask the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People for their views on all the provisions that are to be included in the initial LCM, including their compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee for Justice in order to outline the Committee's consideration of the provisions that are to be included in the supplementary legislative consent motion for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. <BR /> <BR />During its consideration of the provisions that were included in the LCM, which was previously agreed by the Assembly, the Committee was first advised on 17 February last year that consent would be required in order to allow for the powers to extract information from mobile devices.”
“This is not my swansong, I assure you. I just seek clarity on that point. We will withdraw our amendment, but will the Minister confirm that the provision of support for confirmed victims of modern slavery under section 18(9) of the HTEA, as amended by amendment No 32, will apply to all victims who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision, in line with the Justice Committee's intentions?”
“I am delighted that the legacy of that legislation is set to continue with the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Bill. <BR /> <BR />Without going into all the issues that we have rehearsed in the House on many occasions, it is our intention not to move amendment No 33 in my name and those of my colleagues Mr Peter Weir and Mr Robin Newton. The Minister, by tabling amendment No 32, has added to the assistance and help that victims of that vile crime will receive. They will know that Northern Ireland is a place where they will get much-needed support and help. With those brief comments — they were a lot briefer than the first ones — I support the amendments.”
“We have to come back to a sense of reality. We can be jovial about the issues, but the issue of human trafficking is not jovial. It is an issue that has caused grave concern. Sadly, even when we see the awful circumstances that are taking place in Ukraine, there are still those who, despite all that is taking place in that part of the world, are still prepared to be involved in that most heinous of crimes. I am pleased to be part of an Assembly that has already led the way with the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which was championed by my friend and colleague Lord Morrow. We place on record our thanks to him for all the work that he did on that legislation.”
“That is not because the Alliance Party, in the guise of the Minister of Justice, has made nugatory the DUP; it is the reverse. We tabled our amendment because we felt, after consulting organisations such as Care NI, that the Minister had not adequately addressed the issue in the Bill. She will be glad to know that Care NI supports our view. Given that the Minister has moved to our ground on the matter, we very much appreciate her graciousness. That is probably the first time that that has been said about the Minister of Justice.”
“Yes, I am a very gracious individual. I will let the Minister judge that in a minute or two, after I have finished. <BR /> <BR />As Committee Chair, I will address amendment Nos 31, 32, and 34 to 41. As I outlined to the House earlier, the Minister advised the Committee that some technical and minor drafting issues would need to be addressed at Further Consideration Stage. As the Minister has set out, amendment Nos 31, 32 and 34 to 41 tidy up clauses 19 and 21. Having been provided with the text of the amendments by the Department, the Committee is content that they do not change the intention or effect of the clauses. <BR /> <BR />The Minister will be glad to know that I will not move the DUP amendment No 33, which is in my name and that of my colleagues.”
“I have outlined the reasons for the need for amendment No 20 — it is needed in light of no further widening of the scope of the abuse of trust provisions — and I commend it to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I also wish to place on record my appreciation to the staff of the Bill Office and the staff of the Justice Committee. Without their labours, we would not be able to perform here this afternoon. We appreciate all the time and effort that they put into ensuring that we are able to do our work.”
“It also gives the Department the power that is to be exercised in relation to article 29A(4) of the 2008 Order, and the House will make its decision on that. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I wish to place on record my thanks to the Deputy Chair of the Committee for Justice and the Committee members, who have worked very hard in the short time between Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, including holding an additional meeting this morning to ensure that we reached an agreed position with the Minister on the amendments to clause 1, to provide for an offence of cyber-flashing that reflects her and the Committee's concerns and to come to as proportionate a position as possible on the abuse of trust amendments.”
“Earlier, the Minister made a comment about the competence of the Committee in its operations. It is not a matter for the Committee but for the courts to determine. We are tasked to make the best legislation possible, and Members are not to be, in a sense, constrained into second-guessing the law. I think that we adopt a respectful view of the work of our law officers and of the separation of powers. We also have to keep that in mind when we come to any of these issues. <BR /> <BR />Despite the arguments that have been made, it is still our intention to hold with amendment No 20, as I am mandated to do by the Committee. It is still the view of the Committee that amendment No 20 gives us the outcome that we desire.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention and for her recognition that I am a gracious individual, although I have to say that there are times when the Minister pushes the limits of my graciousness.”
“One Committee member outlined in Committee and on the Floor where that has already taken place, so we need an assurance that we have covered every possible avenue and taken every possible opportunity not to make bad law but to improve on the current law.”
“What happens if something takes place in those settings and we then discover, when we come back to look at this issue and there is a forensic examination of it, that we had the ability to do more on the basis of information provided to us by the NSPCC, the Children's Commissioner and Barnardo's? The public would seriously question the competency of the Assembly, not whether or not the provision was article 8 compliant or whether or not we had sought legal advice. This can sound like a very legislative, academic and procedural process, but we are talking about potential abuse of trust in those settings.”
“Given the concerns — I thank the Minister for taking an intervention on this — that were raised by the Children's Commissioner, the NSPCC and Barnardo's, which have campaigned tirelessly for the scope of abuse of trust to be widened, and the limited approach adopted by the Department in including only some activities in sporting and religious settings in the Bill, the regular review is crucial. <BR /> <BR />Something else needs to be said. I listened to what the Minister said about engaging with the other organisations that do not fall within the scope of the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />I appreciate the Deputy Chair's comments on amendment No 20, and I also note the accusation that is levelled at the Committee that while amendment Nos 14 to 18 are too wide, amendment No 20 is too constraining. We need to have an acceptance, and I think that the Minister now accepts that, ultimately, the House will determine whether it will choose amendment No 19 or amendment No 20. I accept that the Minister has maybe decided that, if amendment No 19 is made, she will not divide the House on amendment No 20. There is clearly an intent. <BR /> <BR />There is another issue.”
“I thank the Minister. Amendment No 20 is drafted with a view to informing the power of article 29A(4), so it would be a very narrow reading that would find the provisions for sport and religion fall short of its intended effect as a result of the actions mandated by an amendment and not trigger the power in 29A(4) to add or remove an activity as a result. The amendment provides for an annual review to inform whether the power in article 29A(4) is exercised, and the amendment in no way prevents the Department from reviewing tuition and youth activities. It can review anything at any time. The issue is the regular annual reviews.”
“The importance of article 29A(4) has sometimes been missed during the debate on the review, because:”
“In its evidence, the Department clearly indicated that that is the provision that gives it the elasticity to add other categories at a further point, as needed.”
“It is another example of us being able to reach an outcome when we work collaboratively. Sometimes, I am concerned that some Members express a dismissive attitude to amendments that are tabled by other Members. The House is a place where we can debate amendments and make our arguments and points rather than, as can be the case, being dismissive. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments to clause 3, which relate to the abuse of trust provision. As previously outlined, the Committee will not move amendment Nos 14 to 18. I note the comments and views of the Minister on the Committee's amendment No 20. The Committee is satisfied that there is already provision in article 29A(4) of the 2008 Order:”
“First, I thank all the Members and the Minister for their contributions to the debate on the group 1 amendments. I do not want to take up much more time. Therefore, I will make some general remarks rather than respond to everyone's contributions. However, that does not mean that they were any less appreciated in the House. <BR /> <BR />I am particularly pleased at the support across the House for the amendments to clause 1 and those that provide for a new offence of cyber-flashing. The Committee proposed those amendments with the support and assistance of the OLC, and I again place on record the Committee's appreciation of the OLC. The amendments aim to strengthen the legislation and to ensure, as far as possible, the protection of victims from that type of degrading and offensive behaviour.”
“Other Committee members can speak more definitively on this, but, during the passage of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill, there was a discussion with the previous Attorney General, who raised concerns about the introduction of that legislation. Amendments were made, the Bill became law and those fears have not been realised. There has been an attempt in the House today to say that, somehow, because the Attorney General, whose office we respect and whom we respect, has expressed a view, we cannot have a different view in the House on the legal advice that comes before Committees.”