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 4 of 60.
“Before I comment specifically on the amendments before us today, I welcome and acknowledge, on behalf of the Justice Committee, the engagement that has taken place with the Minister and departmental officials on those amendments and, in particular, the constructive and collaborative approach adopted to each of the amendments to clause 1, which take account of the Committee's concerns that the offences of upskirting and downblousing provided for in the clause are not currently adequately framed and could result in loopholes. The amendments also provide for a new offence of cyber-flashing. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the Committee's amendment Nos 1 to 10 to clause 1 and amendment No 45 to schedule 1. Clause 1 provides for new offences of upskirting and downblousing.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 13 January, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal of the statutory rule. The statutory rule was subsequently considered at the meeting of 17 February, where the Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had no comments to make by way of technical scrutiny and agreed to recommend that the statutory rule be approved by the Assembly. Enabling the use of remote hearings through the use of live video or audio links enabled courts and tribunals to continue to operate during the pandemic, and continued provision is the issue that is before the House.”
“Some of those who supported permanent provision noted specific reservations or issues needing improvement. The Department has advised that it will reflect on the responses and engage further with the stakeholders in the development of a Bill to put provisions permanently in place. <BR /> <BR />As well as extending the audio and visual links, the proposal for the statutory rule outlined the extension of provisions in the Coronavirus Act that allow a coroner to hold, without a jury, an inquest into a death in prison caused by natural injury. The coroner will consider the circumstances in each case and apply discretion on the utilisation of the provisions. The Department advised that the proposed extension of these provisions is not cross-cutting or controversial and that there is no intention that they be made permanent in the future.”
“Rather, its intention was to alert those justice stakeholders that had been identified as the main users of the provision to the decision that had been taken and to ascertain their views on the possible future introduction of legislative provision for similar facilities to be made permanently available for use in courts and tribunals. Stakeholders were also invited to provide user feedback on current practice or experience of the facilities. <BR /> <BR />The report on the exercise was provided along with the proposal for the statutory rule, which was considered by the Committee on 13 January 2022. The Department advised that only one of the 25 respondents was not supportive of the live links provisions being made permanent, but that all respondents supported their immediate extension as part of the recovery of the justice system.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 30 November 2021, the Committee considered the information provided by the Department of Justice, advising of a four-week targeted consultation on proposals to extend the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020, permitting remote hearings by live or audio links beyond the current sunset clause of March 2022. The Committee sought further information on this exercise and the details of any data collected on the use and impact of audio and visual links in the courts. <BR /> <BR />In its response, the Department stated that the targeted consultation was not a consultation in the sense that the decision by the Executive to extend the provisions beyond March was open to change.”
“The Committee had initially been advised, during its consideration of the legislative consent motion on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, that the Department was considering the inclusion of the live links provision in the Bill in the LCM. However, as the timescales within which this needed to be done proved challenging, a two-stage legislative approach was approved by the Executive, whereby the provisions would initially be extended by the subordinate legislation that is before us today, with an Assembly Bill to be introduced in the next mandate to make permanent provision for the use of audio and visual links.”
“As Chair of the Justice Committee, I will make a few comments, and my colleague Peter Weir will speak on behalf of the DUP. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has already outlined the statutory rule before us. It extends the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that allow courts and statutory tribunals to receive evidence through audio or visual links beyond March 2022, when they are set to expire. The rule will also enable a coroner to hold an inquest into a death in prison caused by natural causes without a jury, although an inquest can still be heard with a jury if the coroner considers that desirable.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she provide the Justice Committee with a copy of the 2021-23 work programme so that it can look at what is planned during that period? <BR /> <BR />Human trafficking is one of the most despicable crimes that we have seen in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. Minister, will you expand on the extent of the trafficking of victims across the border, the main forms of exploitation and whether discussions have resulted in additional actions, including in the modern slavery strategy and related action plans?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer and concur with his comment. Will he give the House an assurance that adequate training will be given at the fire stations of Northern Ireland, that every resource will be put in place to ensure that there is no liability to the fire officers and that training will be sufficient to ensure that that is done in a way that is professional and safe?”
“I thank the Minister for the information on the work that has been done by the Northern Trust to date. Will the Minister give an undertaking that there will be a rigorous assessment of the people who use the respite services, given the impact that COVID has had and the time that they have been away from the service provision, and that whatever additional support and help those individuals need will be provided, especially for their health and well-being?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that mental health is also a Justice issue, given the fact that the police are spending more of their time in wards and hospitals because the health system is not adequately prepared for or suited to dealing with those issues? The police end up in hospitals managing mental health crises when they should be doing other things.”
“<BR /> <BR />With those comments, as Chair of the Justice Committee, a Member of the House and a member of the DUP, I conclude.”
“<BR /> <BR />Although many talk about their commitment to law and order, their commitment to the peace process, their commitment to keeping our streets safe and their commitment to the police having all the resources that they need to tackle the various and very serious crimes that the House debates, the sad reality is that the PSNI is being left in a totally intolerable situation. The Finance Minister cannot continue to avoid that. <BR /> <BR />We have pressed the Justice Minister, and I have to say, in fairness to her, she has listened to us on the issue, and she has endeavoured to bring forward proposals that would help, but, given that almost 70% of the Justice budget is the payments for and delivery of the PSNI, it is certain that the Justice Minister cannot address the issue by herself.”
“That is held up as though, all of a sudden, we have the milk and honey of the promised land, but it is piecemeal. You can pick and choose whatever you want to do, and the rest you can ignore. <BR /> <BR />Let me make it clear: it is unsustainable for the PSNI to continue to be funded on the basis of what the Estimates process has given us and what the Budget process will give us. I will give you the reason for that. If you were to take funding for PSNI officers only from the baseline, you would have 6,200 officers in the PSNI. Today, we have just under 7,000 officers, and they are there simply because additional money has been made available, as I have outlined, but that money is not included in the baseline.”
“Although that bid was successful, the Department has previously flagged up its concerns on legacy, advising that it is not funded for such significant costs when they materialise and that it will need to look to the centre for funding. That is far from ideal, and the position will need to be carefully considered when the way forward on legacy is known. <BR /> <BR />I will make a few comments on the Estimates process as my party's spokesperson on justice. The prevalent concerns that I have outlined about how the PSNI is funded cannot continue to be ignored as they have been, despite all the glossy documents and the promises made by past Governments and by the Executive — would you believe it? — through the document called 'NDNA'.”
“Two million pounds was allocated in the June monitoring round, which was followed by an unsuccessful bid for the remainder at the October monitoring round. The Committee was advised that a further bid would be made in January, although the January monitoring position appears to have subsequently been revised. The requirement to bid for that funding in-year serves to highlight the difficulty faced by the PSNI in planning and managing headcount. Funding for officers and support staff comes not only from the baseline but from a number of other funding streams, including non-recurrent funding that often needs to be supplemented by in-year allocations. <BR /> <BR />Late in the year, a further significant pressure for the PSNI arose in relation to a legacy case for which a bid of £7·5 million was made at January monitoring.”
“The Department advised, however, that bids for T:BUC funding had been oversubscribed each year and that the Executive Office had confirmed that the easement declared had been repurposed within other T:BUC programmes. <BR /> <BR />The officials advised that the Department endeavours to redistribute easements internally where possible to maximise the use of its budget. Over the past number of years, the legal aid baseline has been insufficient to meet demand and has therefore received internal reallocations, though bids for legal aid have also had to be made at monitoring rounds. <BR /> <BR />The bids for additional funding during the year also included £5·7 million for the PSNI in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, as only £9·8 million of the funding to cover the cost of the 308 officers required had been allocated.”
“A significant proportion of the resource underspend related to COVID and was ring-fenced and could not be used for any other purposes. The ring-fenced resource funding that was returned included over £1·6 million for the Police Ombudsman for historical investigations, which was for a specific purpose and could not be reallocated internally. Those easements arose due to a delay in the preparation of a business case and, consequently, there has been slippage in the recruitment of staff, which will now be pushed into future years. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was also concerned to learn that Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) funding had been returned due to delays in a regeneration project on the Springmartin/Moyard interface in west Belfast.”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning to the 2021-22 spring Supplementary Estimates, in their oral evidence to the Committee on the June monitoring round, departmental officials advised that the opening baseline for 2021-22 left significant resource pressures of £27·7 million, excluding COVID pressures. Recent reports in the press that the Department returned somewhere in the region of £47 million to the Department of Finance were, therefore, of grave concern. On 20 January, however, officials clarified that the £47 million referred not just to returns from this financial year but to returns from the previous year. In addition, £33 million of that was capital funding, and the majority of the underspend was due to delays caused by COVID.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak as Chair of the Justice Committee in today's debate. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the year, the Committee has scrutinised the Department of Justice’s budget through the regular briefings and updates that it has received, both oral and written, on areas including in-year monitoring rounds, bids for COVID-19 funding and forecasting performance. In addition, the Department provided briefings on its planning for the multi-year Budget and the 2022-25 draft Budget, which the Committee also had the opportunity to discuss with the Minister of Justice.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate his concern, but, perhaps he could clarify where that concern was when, for three years — not three weeks — his party brought this place to its knees and we had no Assembly and no Executive. Will he explain the difference?”
“I thank the Minister for being honest and open on that issue. Sadly, the former Deputy Chair of the Committee Linda Dillon has left the Chamber, but I want to place on record my thanks for the work that she did and for her point about her current role with others on the Policing Board. What conversations can you have with the police, Minister, to ensure that, while this draft legislation will come into law and, I know, will be taken seriously, they will recognise the resourcing challenge that there will be for them? I think that Rachel mentioned that it will be resource-intensive, sadly, because of the magnitude of the issue.”
“That says it all about how victims see that we are not just coming here and merely engaging in politics but that we are bringing forward legislation that could have made, and that now will make, a difference to our citizens and those who have been subjected and who, sadly, will be subjected to stalking behaviour. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I am very pleased to support the Final Stage of the Protection from Stalking Bill, and I commend it to the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />This message to the Committee during the process was clear: as an absolute necessity, there should be legislation to provide the criminal justice agencies with robust tools to tackle stalking behaviour, that takes into account the patterns of behaviour over time and their insidious nature, that is comprehensive and workable and that fully addresses any gaps that exist. <BR /> <BR />I will end with the words that one victim said to the Committee:”
“Their contributions were invaluable to the Committee in understanding just how devastating an impact stalking can have on a person and their life, and they reinforced the need to have effective legislation in place to deal with the issue. <BR /> <BR />I also want to thank the Minister, and I am sure that she will not be surprised that the Committee wants to do that. She rightly said that this is a good news day for the Assembly, not for us as individuals but for those whom we are here to serve and, in particular, for the victims who have been subject to this heinous crime. I thank the Minister and her departmental officials for bringing the legislation to the Assembly, for the work that has been done and for the commitment that has been given to get the Bill to this stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />The work that was undertaken by the Committee enabled all aspects of the Bill and the range of amendments to be scrutinised in depth. It provided an opportunity for the statutory and voluntary organisations and, most importantly, those who have suffered stalking to have a voice in shaping the legislation. Again, I thank the members of the Committee for the diligence, time and effort that they put into the scrutiny process, and I again place on record the Committee's appreciation of all the organisations and stakeholders who contributed to our scrutiny by taking the time to provide written and oral evidence. In particular, I place on record our appreciation of the victims of stalking who shared their personal experiences despite the difficulties in reliving them once again.”
“They covered guidance, training, data monitoring and reporting, and they apply to the new offence and the new stalking protection orders and interim orders. The amendments, which were agreed by the Assembly, will, we believe, provide the basis for the effectiveness of the legislation to be monitored, assessed and reported on in a transparent manner. I thank the Minister for the way in which she engaged with the Committee on that issue. <BR /> <BR />Stalking has a profound and lasting impact on victims, who, through no fault of their own, very often have to change the way in which they live on a daily basis. That cannot be minimised in any way. The full and effective implementation of the legislation is vital, and the amendments initiated by the Committee are welcome and necessary enhancements of the Bill.”
“Many organisations and individuals indicated the need for a comprehensive, consistent and informed approach by the criminal justice agencies. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed with that position. For the legislation and, particularly, the new offence to be effective and achieve the desired result of better protection and criminal justice outcomes for victims, getting the implementation right — providing training to ensure that those involved in gathering evidence and in prosecuting and enforcing the new law have a clear understanding of the difference between harassment and stalking, as well as recognising the behaviours and dynamics of stalking and how it impacts on victims — is crucial, as will be the reporting on and monitoring of that implementation. <BR /> <BR />Four amendments were tabled by the Minister at the Committee's request.”
“To protect victims when there is immediate risk to them, stalking protection orders will enable the police to proactively intervene and disrupt stalking behaviours before they escalate. The stand-alone offence of breaching the order, which can attract significant penalties, is very welcome and provides a tool for the courts to act seriously when orders are not adhered to. <BR /> <BR />The legislation will provide hope for many victims of stalking. The criminal justice agencies will now have a suite of tools with which to properly deal with the behaviour and put protections in place. While there was widespread support for the Bill, one of the constant themes that ran through the evidence received by the Committee was the importance of how the legislation will be implemented.”
“During the first debate on the Bill, at Second Stage, the previous Chairman of the Justice Committee, Mr Paul Givan MLA, outlined the need for robust legislation to provide the necessary tools for the criminal justice agencies to tackle stalking behaviour, to take into account patterns of such behaviour over time and to bring the perpetrators to justice. That was abundantly clear from all the evidence that had been presented to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Stalking is fixated, obsessive, unwanted and repeated behaviour that often escalates quickly. It is insidious, it is terrifying for victims, and there is no place for it in our society. The new offence of stalking recognises and criminalises such behaviour, and rightly so.”
“They recognised the need for stalking legislation at that time, and the issue came to the fore of deliberations at Committee Stage of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Bill last year, when many organisations indicated that a clear legislative gap needed to be addressed.”
“I apologise to the Minister for not being in the House for the commencement of what she had to say. Business is moving more quickly than we anticipated. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the Final Stage of the Protection from Stalking Bill, and I am pleased to speak as the Chair of the Committee. The legislation has been long in the making, as the Minister said. I pay tribute to the previous Justice Committee — its Chairperson, my colleague Mr Paul Frew MLA, and the Committee members — and the previous Justice Minister, Claire Sugden MLA, who worked in collaboration to start, in 2016, the process that has resulted in the Bill. I am sure that they never thought that it would take this much time for the work to come to fruition.”
“I also received a text from a colleague in the Dáil to say how sad that he was to hear of the passing of Christopher Stalford. Colleagues, let today be an opportunity for us all to remember that, one day, it will be our memorial. One day, it will be about us. Will we leave the same legacy and the same epitaph that Christopher Stalford has left? I trust that we will, by the grace of God.”
“William and I would sit in the group meeting, and many's a time it was comical to hear Christopher wanting to defend a particular issue and William making a comment that would probably challenge it, but it was done in such a way that there was never hurt or insult, because he had compassion and a conviction in his heart. I believe, however, that the lasting legacy of Christopher Stalford will be this: that he had a personal faith and that he did not fear what the future would bring. When we come into the Chamber, the Speaker, rightly, asks us to stand in reflection for a period. Today ought to be a time of reflection for us all, because there is but a step between us and eternity. <BR /> <BR />I will say a word of thanks to colleagues from different parties who contacted us over the weekend. It is genuinely appreciated.”
“I always benefited from his ability to write press statements when he worked in party headquarters. It proves the point that we are not all as capable as people think that we are and that we always have to depend on someone else. He had a sharpness about what he wanted to say, or wanted you to say, on behalf of the party. <BR /> <BR />What will be the lasting legacy and memory of Christopher Stalford? For his family, it will be that of a devoted father, son, brother, uncle and friend, but, for us, it will be that of someone whom you knew was always with you.”
“If you go up to the third floor, you will find a room with Christopher's name on it: it is like a museum. I took one of my colleagues into the room to let them see some of the memorabilia that is in there. There are photographs of a very young Christopher Stalford, with his Orange collarette, being interviewed by a camera crew at the field in Finaghy. There is another one of a very, very young Christopher Stalford, which is signed by — and he took great joy in this — the late Lord Bannside, Dr Paisley. There is a whole array of books on Churchill and, yes, Margaret Thatcher, and others. That is a reflection of who he was.”
“So confident was Simeon that he held in his hands the one who was, to him, the joy of all Israel that he could, with confidence, say, "I can now make my journey. I can now depart with peace from the scene of time". <BR /> <BR />It is a joy to us all to hear the comments about our colleague and friend, Christopher Stalford. All that has been said about him, and much more, is true. The bit that worries me most is the comment about the dry Ryvita; that was probably said more about his colleagues than anybody else, because that is how he was.”
“I know that other parties look upon the DUP with some degree of suspicion. They are not sure exactly what makes us up and why we do certain things. Every morning, when we meet in the Building, we have the reading of scripture and the offering of prayer. This morning, I was given the privilege of leading our party group in that devotion. I quoted from a verse in Luke's Gospel concerning an old man named Simeon. He was passing away and, when handed the new Christ child in the temple in Jerusalem, said:”
“Little did any of us know, when we left the Chamber last week, that we would be brought back in the circumstances that we are in today. Sadly, it is not the first time that we, as an Assembly, have had reason to remember one of us who has passed away. Indeed, I was just thinking before I came into the Chamber of those, from parties right across the Chamber, who served as an MLA and are no longer with us. I could not help think of one of those dear friends who passed away 15 years ago: my dear friend George Dawson. Members, it is a reminder to us all that life is very short: for Christopher, it was only 39 years; for George, it was 47 years; for John Dallat and many others, it was a lot longer. The scripture says that our life is a vapour that:”
“It was interesting that the Government at Westminster recently acknowledged that those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months. I suppose that the point was made by my colleague: if that is applicable to victims in England and Wales, it is also applicable to victims in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I conclude my comments there. The amendments are before the House. As always, that will determine what the outcome of this piece of legislation will be at this stage, and we look forward to how we will finally shape the Bill at Further Consideration Stage.”
“I thank the Minister for that, although we still have a difference in our interpretations. I do not want to labour the point, because I do not want to give anyone the impression that, somehow, this is about anything other than ensuring that we make the best possible provision to meet the needs of those who find themselves in the horrendous situation of being trafficked.”
“Yes, I will; just let me make this point. <BR /> <BR />Contrary to the Minister's point, victims would not get more than they need at the expense of others who need more. I want Members, who will have to make a decision, to be clear on the intent: it is not just that we have put that in the amendment; it relates to section 18(5) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act 2015.”
“I want to stress that that support would be provided on the basis of assessed need, not because we say that but because of what is in section 18(5) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act 2015. The level of support will be proportional to what a victim needs.”
“I trust that we will be able to continue to work to ensure that we see delivery on the issues. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the other Committee amendments, namely amendment Nos 16 and 17. I welcome the support across the House for both of those amendments. They will, I trust, enhance protection, as described by Sinéad Bradley. They will provide the foundation stone for the STROs but also for other protective measures to be taken forward by the Department within a set time frame, given the delays that have been experienced in the provision of STROs to date. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude with a few comments as a Member of the House. I go back to the points that were made about the amendments that are tabled in my name. I want to address the Minister's comment about the support provided under amendment No 14.”
“That having been said, I want — I say this as a Member and not as the Chair — to assure other Members that this is not a party political issue and is not being done, as I said earlier, to try to undermine the Department or be in any way clever in playing with the Bill. It is genuinely to ensure — I will come to the Minister's comments in a minute or two — that support is given. I think that there is a consensus on that right across the House. The difference of opinion is on which amendment, whether amendment No 13 or 14, does that best. The House will decide that this evening. We will leave that with Members to decide. We will then look at the Bill as it progresses to Further Consideration Stage. As Chair of the Committee, I appreciate the support of Members and the Minister for the Committee's amendments.”
“In relation to the Committee amendments — amendment Nos 12 and 13 — and those tabled in my name and the names of my colleagues — amendment Nos 14 and 15 — there is a clear consensus among Members that victims should be provided with the support and services that they require and deserve. <BR /> <BR />I take the point that was made by Rachel Woods. It was probably just one of the reflections of the pressure of time that, when you get to this point in a mandate and this point with a piece of legislation of this magnitude, there is probably more that you could have taken time to explore further. However, that is just one of the indications of how we need to be cautious and careful in the way that we approach these things.”
“I thank Members and the Minister for their contributions to the debate on the group 2 amendments, particularly those who spoke in support of the Committee amendments, including the Minister. As I indicated earlier, the Committee is happy to work with the Department on any minor, technical or drafting amendments that it proposes for the Further Consideration Stage that improve the amendments that we have debated today, assuming that they are made. <BR /> <BR />It is worth remembering that this Part of the Bill and these amendments aim to provide support and assistance to some of the most vulnerable people in society, who have been subjected to some of the most horrendous crimes.”
“I do not think that there should be any confusion. It is to absolutely ensure that there is no unintended consequence and that, by using the term "less", we have a situation whereby people in need get the service and support that they deserve. I give the Member the assurance that there is no intent to be Machiavellian, cute or clever here; there is no intent other than to ensure that we have good legislation. We want to pass good legislation, not something that we may have to come back to and rectify at some stage. My colleague will give a particular example that highlights the need to ensure that this is done properly.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. This has come up on a number of occasions. By definition, anything in section 18 is conditional on the support that is provided on the basis of assessed need. Therefore, what, the Minister says, could happen is not as likely to happen, provided it stays within the confines of section 18, particularly section 18(5). That gives assurance. We are dealing with — my colleague will allude to this — individuals who have ended up in a dire situation. The numbers may not be as large as they are for some other crimes, but the impact is equally severe. The last Member to speak referred to the dramatic increase over the past year.”
“<BR /> <BR />I conclude those comments as Chair of the Justice Committee, and, as I referred to, my colleague Peter Weir will expand on the amendments that have been tabled in our names as members of the DUP. I think that, as with all legislation, we can always run the risk of unintended consequences. There is a concern about the amendment where there is the use of the phrase "or less", and I think that there is an opportunity for the House to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. I will leave my comments there, and I look forward to my eloquent colleague Mr Weir elaborating on that before I move the amendments.”