Simon Hamilton
Strangford · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I have emphasised to the Member and the House before, that, whilst I accept that those are not good enough — that is why we have been developing the plan — there are alternative technologies in place that can present opportunities for those who just cannot get acceptable speeds.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. There are some initiatives that I believe will help and act as a driver to improve broadband access. One such intervention is the broadband universal service obligation (USO), which is being taken forward by Her Majesty's Government.”
“I thank the Member for his question. However, he is conflating two issues. I wrote to his party leader, and indeed to all Assembly party leaders, before making the announcement that I did last week about wanting to publish the details of the businesses in receipt of the non-domestic RHI scheme. It was my intention to do that tomorrow.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Chancellor, in his autumn statement, made some more funding available for telecommunications, and my Department is studying that and seeking to avail itself of that to the fullest possible extent.”
“In addition, my Department is managing a contract for the delivery of the superfast rollout programme, which, by 31 December, will provide access to superfast broadband with speeds of at least 24 megabits per second to a further 38,000 premises, both business and residential, across Northern Ireland, including in the Newry and Armagh cons…”
“I signalled the intention to do this a few weeks ago. The Member and the House will know that inspections of all installations would have taken place over the 20-year lifetime of the RHI scheme.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,625 lines we hold for Simon Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 23 of 73.
“<BR /> <BR />Thirdly, such a tax could well be, as Mr Ross said, regressive and have the biggest impact on the poorest families, potentially exacerbating food poverty. <BR /> <BR />Fourthly, we have no understanding of what the impact might be on businesses, especially small businesses here in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Fifthly, we do not yet have any analysis of the level at which a sugar tax should be set. If it was a few pence, would that really dissuade people? I suspect that it would not. If it was higher, what effect would that have on less well-off families and, indeed, businesses? We have no analysis either of the cross-border implications that Mr McKinney rightly pointed out.”
“It might be logical that any reduction in the purchasing of sugary drinks might improve health, but food consumption and diet are very complex, and people may well substitute sugar with other unhealthy products, such as those that are high in fat or salt, which would beg another question: should we tax those products as well or tax them further? Some in the House may welcome that. Should we tax a lack of exercise, which is another contributory factor to the rise in our obesity levels? A sugar tax might simply displace rather than solve the problem, and we would need to undertake very complex economic modelling of its impact. This could take time to complete and would be a waste of resources if we do not have the power to implement such a tax.”
“On reading the report, I initially thought that, if any organisation was going to be in favour of a sugar tax, it was probably the BDA, but her comments were also cautionary. She warned against becoming "fixated" on a tax, saying that it was wrong to single out sugar when a bit of everything and not too much of anything remained the best advice. She went on to question whether it would make people lose weight, and her view was that it would not. <BR /> <BR />She said that there was no evidence that reducing sugar-sweetened beverages in adults reduced body weight.”
“Therefore, we need to be very sure of our legal position before we proceed. Otherwise, we could create expectations that this is an area that we can take action in, when that might not be the case. The Department is seeking further advice on the issue, but it remains crucial to the entire debate, and we simply may not have the powers to implement such a levy in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, it is unclear from the current evidence that such a tax would have the desired effect of improving health outcomes. To date, studies have simply shown changes in purchasing behaviours. At Second Stage, I referred to an article that appeared in 'The Times' a number of weeks ago, and I think that its points are worth repeating this evening. The report contained comments from Catherine Collins of the British Dietetic Association (BDA).”
“It brings together actions at government level and provides direction for implementation at regional and local level. The Making Life Better framework seeks to reduce inequalities in health and create the conditions for individuals and communities to take control of their lives and move towards a vision of a Northern Ireland where all people are enabled and supported in achieving their full health and well-being potential. <BR /> <BR />I am not convinced that we should act to introduce a so-called sugar tax at this time, and I urge caution on the amendment for several reasons. First, it is still unclear whether the Assembly has the power to implement a sugar-sweetened drinks levy or tax independently in Northern Ireland. This is an important issue because a decision to proceed is likely to come under very significant challenge.”
“As many Members said, poor diet is also linked to the prevalence of many conditions such as cancer, stroke, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. I accept that these are, in many respects, arguments for action, which is why my Department published 'Making Life Better 2012-2023', which is our 10-year public health strategic framework. The framework provides direction for policies and actions to improve the health and well-being of people in Northern Ireland, and it builds on the Investing for Health strategy, which ran from 2002 to 2012, and retains a focus on the broad range of social, economic and environmental factors that influence health and well-being.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health recently estimated that nearly 20% — one in five — children in Northern Ireland are now overweight or obese before they start primary school. We often bandy figures and statistics about, and we have done so in the debate so far and will continue to do so, but a statistic that says that one in five children, before they start primary school —not when they end primary school or move from primary school to secondary school — is obese or overweight is evidence of a deeply worrying trend that is not getting any better. <BR /> <BR />A recent health survey of Northern Ireland showed that there has been a 5% rise in the rate of obesity in adults since 1997.”
“In this job, I have often had occasion, when discussing the need to reform, change and remodel our health and social care system, to talk about the many challenges that face it as well as the broader societal challenges that we face now and into the future. Among those sorts of challenges that I often refer to, there is one that I have described as the "ticking time bomb" of unhealthy lifestyles. In their contributions this evening, many Members talked about the ticking time bomb of obesity in our society. It is not just in Northern Ireland; it is in the Western World, and many countries and states in this part of the world are suffering and experiencing the same problems as us, with growing levels of obesity and, particularly worryingly, childhood obesity.”
“I will, therefore, consider building in a requirement for a review in the regulations emanating from the Act, if the amendment is rejected this evening. If it passes, I will give consideration to the possibility of an amendment to make it operative after the commencement of the regulations as opposed to the commencement of the Act. <BR /> <BR />In short, I support amendment No 1 but oppose amendment Nos 2, 3 and 5 in the group.”
“I am not against the principle behind the amendment, although I am not massively in favour of it either for reasons that are more practical than of principle. It is stating the obvious that it would take some months to draft regulations under Part 1 of the Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and to consult on them. Therefore, even with the best will in the world, it is unlikely that any new measures to ban smoking in cars with children will be commenced until early 2017. For the impact of the legislation to be properly and comprehensively assessed, a commitment to carry out a review three years after the regulations have come into force, rather than three years after the commencement of the Act, would make more sense and be more effective.”
“For those reasons, my Department would prefer a dual enforcement approach similar to that adopted in England and Wales, where a ban has been in place since 1 October 2015. In practice, that would mean that a fixed penalty notice could be issued by the Police Service of Northern Ireland or a district council. It is my intention that a dual enforcement approach would be set out in any regulations drafted in relation to smoking and the use of nicotine products in cars where children are present. Therefore, I oppose amendment No 3. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 provides:”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 would place the enforcement duty in relation to smoke-free private vehicles in which children are present solely on police constables. Members may be aware that existing smoke-free legislation on places or work vehicles is carried out by authorised officers of district councils. Therefore, councils have years of experience in dealing with similar tobacco control legislation. However, as district council staff do not have stop and search powers equivalent to those available to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, issues have arisen with obtaining the driver information required to issue fixed penalty notices for offences relating to smoking in work vehicles.”
“Whilst I am prepared to support amendment No 1 at this stage, I may seek to tighten it further via an amendment at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to other amendments in the group. The second part of amendment No 2, in the name of Mr McKinney, relates to raising public awareness, which is, I agree, an important part of any change in the law on the use of tobacco or nicotine products in vehicles carrying children. In advance of the commencement of any new legislation that could result in a member of the public committing an offence, it is standard practice to raise public awareness of that offence. I do not necessarily believe that that needs to be stipulated in primary legislation.”
“I understand that, in the past, there were incidents about the enforcement of smoke-free work vehicles, where, to avoid paying a fixed penalty, offenders claimed that they were using an e-cigarette and not a tobacco product. While it could be argued that a ban on both products will assist enforcement of the legislation, there has been a considerable shift in the popularity of e-cigarettes in the last two years from the early products that resembled cigarettes to the later generation devices that do not. This argument, therefore, may soon be no longer relevant. However, the inclusion in the Bill of a power to ban the use of e-cigarettes in cars when children are present will future-proof the legislation and allow my Department the flexibility, at a later stage, to make regulations, if sufficient evidence is available.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not believe that there is any evidence at present to justify banning the use of e-cigarettes in enclosed spaces for health protection reasons. The latest report published by Public Health England in August last year concluded that e-cigarettes:”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1, which is in the names of Ms McCorley, Mr McKay and Ms McLaughlin, goes further than the amendment that I had intended to table, in that it also provides powers for banning the use of e-cigarettes in cars carrying children. I am, however, prepared to support this amendment. I listened to the debates at Second Stage and this evening, and, in my view, the case for banning smoking in cars when children are present is clear. Children are particularly vulnerable, as many Members said, to the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. For Mr McCallister, I clarify that I described those who smoke in cars with children as "idiots". It was as strong as that — he suggested that I was much more sensitive in what I said — and that view is held, maybe not in quite such strong terms, across the Chamber and in wider society.”
“The offences would be very similar to those for work vehicles under the Smoking (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and relate to smoking in a smoke-free vehicle and failing to prevent smoking in a smoke-free vehicle. <BR />Unfortunately, I was unable to secure Executive agreement in time to allow my amendment to be tabled for Consideration Stage. I will pick up on a point made in the discussion back and forward between Mr McKinney and Mr McCallister: it was a timing issue as opposed to any outright objection at Executive level, and I expect that further amendments, as required, which I will mention later, will secure the support of the Executive and be able to be tabled at Further Consideration Stage.”
“I will talk to you later about that, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I thank Members for their contributions to the debate, which has been quite good. To pick up on one of Mr McCallister's latter points, Members will no doubt recall that, during the Second Stage debate, I expressed my support for legislation banning smoking in cars when children are present. It was my intention to table an amendment on that issue, and a draft of my proposed amendment was shared with and subsequently supported by the Health Committee in its report on the Bill. <BR /> <BR />In summary, my amendment would have introduced a clause to provide my Department with regulation-making powers to allow for the creation of offences on smoking in private vehicles where under-18s are present.”
“The additional amendments tabled to the offences, clauses and warrant powers, I hope, address the concerns raised by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Committee again for its scrutiny of the Bill and the stakeholders who raised issues during the Committee's deliberations. I hope that the amendments ensure that the relevant clauses are now technically sound. Again, I thank Members for their contributions, not so sweet as they were, but short as they were. In this, my last contribution to the debate this evening, I thank everybody, particularly the Chair and members of the Ad Hoc Committee for all the good work and effort that they have put into the relatively smooth passage of the Bill through the House.”
“Patients who are difficult to manage are present in all hospitals and psychiatric hospitals in Northern Ireland. As I said before, every effort is made to look after those patients in Northern Ireland. However, some patients require to be in a high-security facility or to access treatment that we are unable to provide in Northern Ireland. I therefore believe that the amendments to Part 11 are very necessary to ensure that patients in our criminal justice system in Northern Ireland get the appropriate treatment. <BR /> <BR />Similarly, the amendments to the offences that are in Part 13 strengthen protections that are provided to vulnerable individuals by broadening their scope to include individuals lacking capacity who are detained in our criminal justice system.”
“I am confident that, as a consequence of the proposed amendments, the relevant clauses and Parts of the Bill will be improved. I am, therefore, pleased to commend the amendments to the House.”
“However, some patients may require care in a high-security facility or access to specialist treatment that is not currently available in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I believe that the amendments to Part 11 are necessary in order to ensure that patients in the criminal justice system always receive the appropriate treatment. The amendments to the offences in Part 13 strengthen the protections that they provide to vulnerable individuals by broadening their scope to include individuals lacking capacity who are detained in the criminal justice system. The additional amendments tabled to the offences clauses and warrant powers address concerns raised by the Ad Hoc Committee and by stakeholders as well as ensuring that the relevant clauses are technically sound.”
“Amendment No 321 is proposed to ensure alignment with the consent requirements for offences by bodies corporate, as set out in section 20 of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, and minimises the potential for vexatious prosecutions. Finally, I turn to amendment No 347, which allows an approved social worker to accompany a constable, as well as a medical practitioner, when entering premises following the issue of a warrant under clause 278. The amendment was requested by the Committee and supported by a number of stakeholders. <BR /> <BR />Patients who are difficult to manage are present in all psychiatric hospitals in Northern Ireland, and every effort is made to look after those patients locally.”
“Although clauses 259 and 260 have been substantially redrafted as a result, no other change in effect is intended.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 314 and 317 will also amend clauses 256 and 258 to ensure alignment with the consent requirements for the equivalent offence under article 121 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 and minimise the potential for vexatious prosecutions. Amendment No 317 also clarifies that the offence of unlawful detention does not interfere with the common-law offence of false imprisonment. Amendment Nos 318 and 319 will amend clauses 259 and 260 to address a concern about the mens rea required for the offences in those clauses. The amendments provide that a person can be guilty of an offence under the clause only if they know that the person whom they are assisting is liable to be detained under the Bill.”
“All the amendments are technical in nature to ensure consistency of drafting in Part 11. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the amendments relating to Part 13, which contains the offences specific to the Bill. Amendment Nos 312 and 316, which will amend clauses 256 and 258, are designed to include persons subject to the criminal justice provisions in Parts 9 and 10 within the scope of the offences of ill treatment or neglect and unlawful detention. The amendments will provide an equal level of protection for all individuals who lack capacity and who are detained under or are subject to interventions in the Bill.”
“The powers are akin to those currently available under existing legislation and will allow for greater flexibility when managing the treatment of patients in the criminal justice system. <BR /> <BR />I intend to oppose clauses 252 and 253 and instead insert by way of amendment Nos 309 and 310 new clauses 252A and 253A. Amendment No 309 will create new clause 252A, replacing clause 252 with a new version that takes account of the insertion of new powers in relation to Part 10 transfers from Northern Ireland. Amendment No 310 will create new clause 253A, replacing clause 253 with a new version that takes account of the insertion of new powers in relation to Part 10 transfers to Northern Ireland. Amendment No 311 will create new clause 253B, which has been drafted to provide definitions of certain terms for the purposes of Part 11.”
“Amendment No 303 will create new clause 249A, which provides the Department of Justice with the power to transfer certain persons detained under Part 10 to England and Wales for treatment. Similarly, amendment No 304 will create new clause 249B, which provides the Department of Justice with the power to transfer certain persons detained under Part 10 to Scotland for treatment. Furthermore, amendment No 307 will create new clause 251A, which provides for how persons who have been transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland will be managed under Part 10. Amendment No 308 will create new clause 251B to provide for how persons who have been transferred from Scotland to Northern Ireland will be managed.”
“The amendments will ensure that persons in the criminal justice system are afforded a similar level of protection to everyone else. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment Nos 300 and 302. The first two amendments in the group make changes to clauses 248 and 249 that are designed to improve the drafting of the clauses. Amendment Nos 305 and 306 make similar changes to clauses 250 and 251 in order to provide greater clarity as to their meaning. Several additional technical amendments are proposed to other clauses as a consequence of the changes to Part 11, including amendment Nos 354, 389, 481 and 489. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 303 and 304 will create new clauses concerning the transfer of patients in the criminal justice system between jurisdictions for the purpose of receiving treatment.”
“In other circumstances, the family or friends of patients may also request that they be moved elsewhere, or a patient may require specialist treatment for a rare condition that is best provided in another jurisdiction. The amendments proposed by the Department of Justice to Part 11 are, therefore, vital to ensure that all patients in the criminal justice system can receive appropriate treatment in all circumstances. <BR /> <BR />There are also amendments included in the group to the offences in Part 13. While some of the amendments are technical in nature, amendment Nos 312 and 316 are designed to include persons subject to the criminal justice provisions in Parts 9 and 10 within the scope of the offences of ill treatment or neglect and unlawful detention.”
“It is important to note that the transfer powers available in the new clauses are equivalent to and will replace powers currently available under the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. Patients in the criminal justice system may require treatment in other jurisdictions for several reasons. The foremost reason is the absence of a high-security treatment facility in Northern Ireland. In these circumstances, where a patient is too violent or dangerous to be treated in this jurisdiction, they will be transferred for treatment to the State Hospital at Carstairs in Scotland until their condition improves to the point at which they can be managed in a less secure environment in Northern Ireland.”
“Amendment Nos 302-312, 314, 316-319, 321, 347, 354, 389, 481 and 489. <BR /> <BR />I never thought I would say that I was glad to get to a debate for a bit of a break. Part 11 will give you a far more deserved break than me, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. <BR /> <BR />Part 11 deals with powers to transfer patients between jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, along with a number of technical amendments, of which amendment No 300 is one. Part 11 has been amended to insert new clauses concerning the transfer of patients within the criminal justice system between Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales for the purpose of receiving treatment.”
“Parts 9 and 10 of the Bill, as amended, will provide the criminal justice system with an important framework to compassionately and appropriately manage persons lacking capacity. On behalf of Minister Ford and me — we are starting to sound like a married couple — I commend the Committee for its positive contribution and I thank Members for their various contributions this evening. There is a lot of support for the amendments in this group. Again, I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate and I commend the amendments in this group to the House.”
“That being said, we understand the motivation behind the amendments and accept that, if it is the will of the Assembly, they may be made. <BR /> <BR />I am very glad to say that that concludes my opening remarks on this group of amendments.”
“These amendments relate to clause 154 of the Bill, which sets out the annual records and statistics to be collected by the Police Service of Northern Ireland regarding persons detained at places of safety. The proposed amendments would place specific obligations on the Police Service of Northern Ireland to record statistics on the use of place-of-safety powers in relation to young people and on the ultimate disposal of the young person. Along with Minister Ford, I am opposing those amendments on the grounds that they are unnecessary, given that the PSNI currently collects data relating to the age of persons detained at a place of safety and it is not anticipated that that will change once the Bill is introduced.”
“<BR /> <BR />Several of the amendments to Part 10 of the Bill, specifically those in relation to the definition of "serious harm" and the proposed new clause 207A, have been drafted following interaction between the Department of Justice and the Committee. In addition, I am of the view that the new provisions in Part 10 and new schedule 7A relating to supervision and assessment orders will provide the courts with an important disposal to manage offenders suffering disorders in a community setting. Therefore, on behalf of Minister Ford, I commend these amendments to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude by speaking to amendment Nos 173 and 174, which have been tabled by the Chair of the Committee.”
“With this new approach in the Bill as introduced, together with the amendments moved today, it is fair to say that we can be confident that we have created, or will create, a scheme that promotes the well-being of people at a time in their life when they most need help. It ensures that we respect their autonomy to make decisions about whether to be taken to a place of safety, if they can make that decision. The scheme is clearly in line with the principles of the Bamford review, and I commend these amendments to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, I believe that Part 10 of the Bill will be significantly improved as a consequence of the amendments tabled today. On behalf of Minister Ford, I once again commend the Chair and the Committee for their positive engagement with this Part of the Bill.”
“This amendment makes provision for an appeal against a hospital direction that is made by the Magistrates' Court. <BR /> <BR />Parts 9 and 10 of the Bill, as amended, will provide the criminal justice system with an important framework to compassionately and appropriately manage persons lacking capacity. The power of the police to remove a person from a public place to a place of safety is an important one. When a person is in a vulnerable state and in need of assistance, this power allows him or her to be taken to a safe place where medical expertise can be accessed. It is a power that can save lives.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 265, 266, 267, 271, 272, 276 and 277 to clause 219, relating to the transfer of other detainees within the criminal justice system from prison to a healthcare setting for treatment, make equivalent changes to that clause. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 233 amends clause 198(2) by including reference to the powers to apply to the Sentence Review Commissioners under the Northern Ireland (Sentences Act) 1998. This has the effect of ensuring that a prisoner who is subject to that Act can apply to the Sentence Review Commissioners to have his or her sentence considered, regardless of whether they are in hospital rather than in custody at the time of the application. <BR /> <BR />Finally, amendment No 296 inserts a new clause 242A.”
“Amendment No 224, however, inserts a new provision that does not require the Department to exercise that duty if a new intervening reason for a person to remain in hospital arises, despite there no longer being authority for the hospital direction to continue in effect. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 228 is a technical amendment and has the effect of omitting "where A is detained" in clause 196(3)(c), as the words are superfluous. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 229 is another technical amendment and refines clause 196(4) to 196(6). <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 253, 254, 258, 259 and 260 relate to clause 213, on the Department of Justice's power to transfer a civil prisoner or immigration detainee to hospital for treatment.”
“Therefore, amendment No 249 creates a new clause 207A, which amends articles 7 and 7A of the 1997 Order to address the lacuna identified by the Committee. That concludes the substantive policy amendments to Parts 9 and 10 of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the remaining amendments, which primarily concern criminal justice powers relating to detention in hospital. Amendment Nos 223, 224, 228 and 229 all amend clause 196 of the Bill. Amendment No 223 places a duty rather than a power on the Department of Justice to direct that a prisoner be returned from hospital if he or she can no longer be detained there.”
“Moving on, amendment No 249 will insert new clause 207A, which amends article 7 of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997, referred to henceforth as the 1997 Order. The Department of Justice has brought forward this amendment to the Bill following discussions with the Committee. The Committee asked the Department of Justice to consider whether restraining orders under article 7 of the 1997 Order are available to the court following a determination of unfitness to plead. Legal advice confirmed that a restraining order was not available following a finding of unfitness and that carrying an amendment to the 1997 Order in the Mental Capacity Bill would be within its scope.”
“The Department of Justice has also decided to rename the order to call it a "supervision and assessment order", and amendment Nos 243, 245, 294, 295 and 298 are all technical amendments to reflect that change in terminology. Regarding the detail of the scheme itself, amendment Nos 239 to 242 have the effect of providing for a new schedule to the Bill that contains the detail of the supervision and assessment order, as renamed. Related to those amendments, amendment No 470 inserts new schedule 7A into the Bill. It provides the detail of how the supervision and assessment order scheme will operate. That includes how the orders will be made and their effect, as well as the procedure if an order is breached.”
“In the Bill, there is a regulation-making power for the Department of Justice to make provision for a community disposal that would be available if a person were unfit to be tried and had done the act with which he or she had been charged. The supervision and treatment order was provided for in clause 205(8). It was never the intention of the Department of Justice to make provision for those orders in secondary legislation. That was a pragmatic decision taken to allow for the progress of the Bill. The Department of Justice has therefore proposed a series of amendments that would make provision for a community disposal in the Bill.”
“Amendment Nos 193, 203, 208, 215, 227, 257, 270 and 275 all make comparable changes to clauses in Part 10. The remaining amendments relating to the definition of "harm" in Parts 9 and 10 are amendment Nos 359, 390 and 391. Amendment Nos 390 and 391 amend clause 292, which defines particular terms for the purposes of the Bill. Those amendments will change the definition of "harm" in the clause to reflect the changes made in Parts 9 and 10. All those amendments are a consequence of the amendments to clause 166 that I mentioned previously. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the remaining amendments in the group that relate to Part 10.”
“Amendment No 182, for example, amends clause 163(1)(a)(ii), clarifying that, when it is considering remanding a person to hospital for medical treatment, a court must be satisfied that failure to provide treatment would result in serious physical or psychological harm to that person. Amendment Nos 195, 251, 263, 279, 288 and 292 make similar amendments to disposals and powers in Part 10, in order to clarify that consideration must be given to the risk that failure to provide treatment to a person as an inpatient in a hospital would be more likely than not to result in serious physical or psychological harm to that person. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 191 and 192 amend clause 167 by clarifying the meaning of "harm" in clause 167(1) and (2)(c).”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendments relating to Part 10, which deals with criminal justice matters. Once again, it is important to highlight that those matters fall within the responsibility of Minister Ford and the Department of Justice. I thank him for the great deal of work that has been undertaken to ensure that the Bill contains a package of criminal justice measures that adequately reflect the Bamford review recommendations. <BR /> <BR />I will deal first with the remaining amendments tabled in order to clarify what is meant by "harm" in certain clauses in Part 10.”
“Amendment No 151 also simplifies the current drafting of clause 143 but does not affect its meaning. The final departmental amendment to Part 9 that I will speak to in this group is amendment No 172, which amends clause 153(c) of the Bill. The effect is to ensure that article 56(12)(a)(iii) of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 does not apply if a person who is detained in a place of safety is subject to an intimate search. Article 56(12)(a)(iii) allows a custody officer to seize and retain any item found during an intimate search of a person, if that person may use the item in question to interfere with evidence. That is not a provision that has relevance in a place of safety context, and therefore the amendment disapplies it.”
“Amendment Nos 142, 149 and 151 have all been tabled in order to simplify the drafting of the clauses for the benefit of the reader. Amendment No 142 simplifies the current drafting of clause 137(2)(b) but does not change the effect of the provision, which is designed to limit the circumstances in which the power can be used. Removal of the person from a public place by the Police Service must still be proportionate to the likelihood and seriousness of the harm caused, either to the person or to others. Similarly, amendment No 149 amends clause 142(2)(b) by simplifying the draft; however, that amendment does not change the effect of the provision, which requires the detention of a person in a place of safety to be a proportionate response to the likelihood and seriousness of the harm caused to the person or other people.”
“<BR /> <BR />As a consequence of the proposed changes to the criteria for a public protection order in clause 166, in much the same manner as amendment No 141, the Department of Justice has chosen to clarify the meaning of "harm" in Parts 9 and 10 through a series of amendments. In respect of Part 9, I also highlight amendment Nos 147, 148 and 150, all of which propose similar changes to clauses 141, 142 and 143 in Part 9 in order to clarify that the harm in question may be physical or psychological. In addition, there are 19 further amendments in the group to amend the definition of harm for certain clauses in Part 10. <BR /> <BR />I will speak to the remaining "harm" amendments shortly. First, however, I would like to address the remaining amendments tabled to Part 9 and the police place of safety power.”