Basil McCrea
Lagan Valley · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I carried on that work on the all-party group on science and technology, and, when I am gone from this place, I hope that those who are still here will take up the challenge of science and technology, because that is where the jobs are and that is where the future is.”
“I rise for the last time to address the Assembly. I thank the people of Lagan Valley for the privilege of representing them over the past nine years. It seems like only yesterday that I first got here, awestruck by the names on the doors of people that I had seen only on television, and, yet, here we are.”
“— what matters is to have the courage to go on. I will go on. I will leave this place with my head high, with my colours flying, with my dignity intact and with all conviction about what is good for Northern Ireland. In conclusion, two roads diverged in the woods, and I took the road less travelled. That has made all the difference.”
“Despite the heckling from the man in front of me, I shall ask a question of the Minister in two parts. First, would the Minister care to tell us what was his personal favourite of the many events at the Northern Ireland Science Festival?”
“I am grateful to the Member for the explanation, and I have no doubt that her efforts to draft the amendment were well-intentioned. Maybe she can help me on this, if it has come up in the discussions.”
“Actually, when I read it, I understood it to be the other way round. However, I am happy that it is a more general stance and is not limited to single acts. <BR /> <BR />As regards amendment No 2, I approached the concept in a sympathetic manner, but I am not convinced that we can properly define an imbalance of power.”
The complete record
Every one of 747 lines we hold for Basil McCrea, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 15.
“It wanted to take the opportunity to state — Mr Poots brought up this issue — that the following principles applied: the starting point for robbery of households where violence is used should be 10 years — not seven years but 10 years — and this would increase depending on the age, vulnerability or infirmity of the occupiers. This would increase the sentence to approximately 15 years, which would not be regarded as excessive. There is this notion that we should introduce seven years: why are you being so lenient? Why are you seeking to reduce this? Do you not care about the elderly and infirm? Do you not want to see the full rigour of the law against those who perpetrate violence on vulnerable people? Why are you identifying only some sections of the community?”
“After that process was gone through, what was the statement? What did the Court of Appeal say?”
“— not a 65-year-old woman but a 58-year-old woman —”
“That is the point. I am in agreement with that. I do not support the view put forward by Mr Givan about some cultural warrior wearing a wig in a courthouse, nor do I support the view of Mr Wilson that judges are out of touch. Judges are an essential part of our democracy. There is a balance between legislation and the judicial system. We look at that situation with the full rigour of legislation, but to try to say that we do not need the judiciary or some type of group of people who can take all the facts together is frankly appalling. <BR /> <BR />I do not know whether the signatories to amendment No 7 looked at this issue, but I looked at a decision by the Court of Appeal on 15 January 2015 regarding one Edward Stuart Cambridge. I will read out what the offence was:”
“If I take it that there is some consensus forming around the amendment, there is no point in me going on about it, but I do think it is important that at least some people stand up and say, "Are you sure about this?". <BR /> <BR />Let me move on to a point about which I was also disappointed. It concerns an area in which I am in agreement with Mr Allister. The thought that our justice system should abolish the judiciary and end up with this group of people making decisions fills me with horror. The idea that Mr Givan and Mr Poots are going to legislate for mandatory sentences for everything is appalling. I heard Mr Maginness say that judges sometimes get it wrong. Fair enough, but there is the Court of Appeal. There is an entire process in which people go through and review what the situation should be.”
“I am grateful to the Member for clarifying the position. As I said, I am happy to listen to the viewpoint that he puts forward. The point that I was making is that such matters should not come forward uninformed or unchallenged. We will take a position that it is enabling, I guess. Therefore, let us see whether we can do something with it in future. My concern when I saw the amendment was around whether we had looked at the implications and thought them through. I did not know, because it has not been stated in the debate yet — perhaps it was earlier, and I missed it — that the Probation Board was asking for those changes. Those are matters that we have to take into consideration.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are so many caveats to amendment No 6: "the Department may", "having consulted" and "may be required". It is so open, we can just give it a by-ball and have a look at the departmental policy when we get it, as Mr Dickson said. However, I have to say that there are areas that are fraught with danger. The whole issues of probation and how we manage prisoner release and reintegration into society are important and not to be taken trivially.”
“I certainly would not call Mr Allister a liberal — I am sure he will be pleased about that — but I did listen, as I do to all his contributions, and his argument was cogent. It appears to me that these amendments are for the optics. They are a stunt. They change relatively little — in fact, nothing. <BR /> <BR />I give Mr Ross the benefit of the doubt, because I know, having inquired, that he raised these matters at the appropriate stages in Committee, and perhaps there is some merit in amendment No 6. But I was disappointed, I have to say, when I heard learned Members in the SDLP and the Alliance Party eulogising an amendment that gave no detail. I think that you should look at the detail in these cases. If we are going to pass legislation, then we ought to know what it means and what we are going to do with it.”
“When I was on the Justice Committee, there were discussions about community service, and suggestions were made that people should wear clothing that is easily identified. Does the Member think that that is an area that we ought to be going into? Do we need to look at that in more detail?”
“It is interesting that the Member is supportive of amendment No 6. Will he outline some of the detail behind it?”
“I thank Mr Elliott for giving way. On his point about leniency and how the public are not happy, does he agree with Mr Wilson that judges are a bit out of touch with the rest of society, or does he take a different view?”
“Just before you move on to amendment No 7, I am interested in your thought processes regarding the permissive nature of amendment No 6. It seems that these terms are quite loose: that people "may be required". If it is such a good idea, should we not be a wee bit more exacting in the matter? Why does the Member favour that form of the amendment?”
“I am interested in the argument that the Member has put forward, but the amendment, with so many caveats in it, seems to be meaningless, in that there are so many exceptions. If he supports the amendment, can he tell us why and what difference it will actually make?”
“Will the deputy First Minister support Minister Mark H Durkan's desire to bring forward a climate change Bill? If so, how will he convince his Executive colleagues to support it?”
“Since we are talking about tolerance, you did not give way the first time. So, if we are going to play pat-a-cake, that is where that goes, Mr Speaker. Is he saying that, if he could get regulation and openness and transparency, and if he knew the numbers that were going on behind Marie Stopes, that it would be OK? Or, is he making it clear to the Assembly that, no matter what information was provided to him, he would still be opposed to that organisation?”
“That means that this amendment is dead in the water.”
“These people are in distress, and they need help and guidance. With the right help and guidance, they may make a decision that people here may be happier with. I will tell you what does not help: leaving them alone, abandoning them and forcing them on to a boat to England. That is appalling. We need to address this issue absolutely properly. We need a proper debate in the House. Only then will we get to the bottom of it. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude by paying tribute to Mr Agnew. It is a bit of a toss-up between him and me as to which of us is mentioned as having signed a petition of concern. For the record, we both did, and I am pretty sure that every single time this comes forward, unless we have a proper debate with a proper set of proposals that can be discussed in a rational way, we will continue to sign a petition of concern.”
“When it comes to the issue tonight, and it is late, Mr Lunn was not the only person to sign a petition of concern for the first time. I also put pen to paper for the first time tonight, and I did so not because I had to. By the time I signed the petition of concern, it already had its 30 signatures. I could have sat here and decided not to debate the issue. I could have decided to sit in the shadows and watch it all go by in a quiet way so that it does not happen, but that is not the right way — that is not the way in which we should be debating this issue. <BR /> <BR />I respect that people have different points of view. I am happy to hear their points of view and engage. However, I come back to the fact that at the heart of this philosophical, legalese debate that we are having are human beings.”
“This is your job: this is what the courts tell you that you have to do.”
“That really is what is missing. That is what I find really disappointing about people who have been Ministers of Health and have failed to bring things forward.”
“Before I address the substance of what Mr Allister said, I will acknowledge that he is a learned man, a barrister skilled in the arts of taking words, putting them in a slightly different way and saying that that is what you really meant. Is that not right? This is his profession. It is not a proper debate. It is legalese. <BR /> <BR />The issue is that the proposition has been brought forward as an amendment to a Justice Bill. This should not be a criminal justice issue. The idea that you will criminalise women and medical professionals who try to act in their best interests is frankly not correct — it is obscene. We should be trying to mitigate the worst excesses of the debate. We need regulations, guidance and some form of certainty so that our medical professionals can know how they can operate safely within the law.”
“I agree with Mr Lunn. Actually, it turns the debate on its head. The truth is that this is an excuse. It is about people who do not want to take on a proper discussion on the matter. That is what is wrong with the debate.”
“You want regulation: bring it in. You want some form of guidance: do not take 10 years over it. Do not sit here —”
“So, now, since we have had it said from a couple of people on this side of the House, at least he is being honest and truthful and putting it out. My argument, Mr Wells, through you, Mr Speaker, was that there are those who tried to say, "This is all about regulation: it does not matter whether you are pro-abortion, pro-life or pro-choice; it does not matter; what we need is regulation." That is my argument. That is not sensible. That is not an accurate representation of what is going on here. <BR /> <BR />By all means, people can put their arguments forward, as Mr Wells has just done. I will debate them. I am happy to do that, but do not pretend that it is somehow some legalese and a case of, "If only we had better regulation". Mr Lunn was taken to task on all those things. Do not pretend that that is what it is about.”
“It is about people who are fundamentally opposed to Marie Stopes saying, "This is how we will get them". All your weasel words will not change that fact.”
“I understand how difficult it is for every single person who goes through that trauma, but I do understand that there is something fundamentally wrong when people from this part of the world, many of them on very low incomes, find themselves in a really traumatic situation and who, sometimes with no help from their partner, have to cross the water to get something done. You talk about openness and transparency: people do it in privacy because they are afraid of the assault on their person that will come from those who disagree with their choice. That is not the right thing to do. That is not the right way to go forward. <BR /> <BR />People have tried to put forward arguments that it is about regulation, but that is balderdash. It is an attempt to close down Marie Stopes by the back door. It is not some highfalutin talk about human rights.”
“If you truly want to regulate and reduce the number of unplanned, unwelcome pregnancies, the way in which to do it is with better education, better sex education, talking to people at earlier ages and the better provision of contraceptives. <BR /> <BR />The arguments that are coming from the opposite Benches would be much more cogent if you were prepared to accept that there are things to do other than give us some form of moral lecture. I do not support abortion on demand.”
“I thank the Member for clarifying what my argument actually is. Maybe if he listens, I will tell him what my argument is. When people try to make abortion illegal, it does not stop abortion. It does not make it go away. It does not fix anything. What you get is backstreet abortion or, if you want the modern equivalent, people buy drugs on the Internet that will induce labour at any stage; in other words, a miscarriage. Already, in our hospitals, we see women presenting with just those symptoms. <BR /> <BR />You can talk all you like here about the whys and wherefores. Meanwhile, people who are presented with unplanned pregnancies make their own decisions.”
“<BR /> <BR />An argument was made by Alban Maginness earlier in the debate. By the way, I regret the fact that the SDLP has not spoken more on this issue. I would like to have heard what those Members had to say. I did not want to hear just one contributor; I wanted to hear what people had to say. The point that Mr Maginness made was that it is inconsistent if you support termination in cases of fatal foetal abnormality because you cannot then change your mind and say that you do not accept it in the case of rape, incest or any other issues. There are circumstances — terrible, horrible circumstances — where abortion is the correct choice for people.”
“I have seen the trauma that they have gone through; good people who were denied help in this jurisdiction. People opposite have made claims that you would get whatever help you need and there would never be a question in the NHS or whatever. That was not their experience. Those of you who know that story will know how appalling it is. I have to say on this issue that I support those families in their decision, but I absolutely regret that they had to go to England to get anything sorted out. It is absolutely appalling that people who are in a traumatised state and already suffering a bereavement due to a fatal foetal abnormality have to go to England; they know not where; they know not how. No one will give them any support or help. It is inhumane. We need to find a way to address this issue.”
“A number of people have said to me, "Don't take too long about this. We want to get home". It is just approaching midnight, and I have to say that we should have had the debate not at this time but earlier in proper, full plenary. These are life issues that we have to deal with, and, when it comes to making arguments, I do not need people to make snide remarks from a sedentary position: I will take it straight on. I will happily debate the issue. <BR /> <BR />Let me make it clear where I stand on fatal foetal abnormalities. I have spoken to families that have faced that predicament.”
“I am interested to hear your argument about failing regulation. I wonder whether you will express an opinion on failing guidance because that could help the situation as well.”
“In particular, if there were 4,700 applications for notification, and 700 of those resulted in notification, what would happen with the other 4,000? We need to consider how we will manage this. I take it on board that what this is really saying is that, ultimately — I think that Lord Morrow said this — we have the right to request but only the PSNI has the right to inform. We need professional management of this, and we need to take the opportunity to send a message to the public that the situation with managing sex offenders or violent offenders, if you want to include them in this, is under control and is being managed properly and that people can rely on the system to work.”
“I am desperately trying to conclude, but I am in agreement with Mr Ross on that. That is the way in which I would interpret it. I will have a look at it to see how it might work. <BR /> <BR />The issue that I am concerned about is this: if we make this into a huge situation and get people worried about a situation, how much harm are we doing to our society? The PPANI operation works really well. As Mr Frew said, it has been inspected and found to be exemplary. In fact, I think that he said that it is probably the best in the United Kingdom. This is a really good, working system, and I commend it. We have looked at what developments we might look at with the amendment at Further Consideration Stage. All that I have done is raise concerns that I have heard when listening to people.”
“We have probably had enough exchanges across the Chamber. My concern in all of this is efficacy. I was familiar with PPANI, I look at MASRAM and I have seen how people manage these situations. I have also seen negative outcomes when people made allegations that led to the wrong people being identified.”
“Maybe I got it wrong, but I thought that the proposer was saying that one of the key attributes of this amendment was that it would stop gossip in the pub — I think that that is what he said, but I am not sure so will have to check Hansard — or general chit-chat and that there was a more appropriate way of dealing with these matters. If I got that wrong —”
“<BR /> <BR />I will conclude my remarks by saying that I am not convinced of the effectiveness of public naming and shaming, the 'News of the World' publishing photographs and saying whatever, or the pinning of names and addresses on noticeboards with the words, "You should be concerned about this person". It is not right, it is not effective and it leads to really bad outcomes. Having a controlled environment where —”
“I believe that the Member's instincts are correct in this. I certainly support it, but I encourage him to understand that this is part of the solution, not the whole solution. This is a tough message to get out. If you are going to do the positive things and say that this will give some protection, you also have to explain to the general public that they cannot go around accusing people willy-nilly because you do not like them. A responsible attitude needs to be taken. The reason why I labour this point is because, when we write generalities into an amendment, there is sometimes a temptation for other Members to interpret it as they think they see it, which may not be the way that the original proposer intended.”
“I am grateful to the Member for clarifying the position. We do not always see eye to eye on things, but that is not necessarily bad; it is just an exploring of different positions. He mentioned a pretty tragic situation in his constituency, which also happens to be my constituency. One of the issues that I had to deal with was a family breakup, where certain allegations were made. Eventually, the family got back together again, which is a good thing. You just hope that the allegations do not come out because they would have caused more of a problem. When people are highly emotional, things can be said. <BR /> <BR />The issue in all this is to try to handle it sensitively and appropriately.”
“The reason why the Minister of Justice and Lord Morrow are in agreement but are slightly embarrassed may be that the amendment is fairly modest in its ambition. There are some things to be considered about what the consideration means. There are issues about when it is necessary for a particular member of the public to protect a particular child. I am not sure that I have the same interpretation as Mr Givan, but I accept that I could be wrong, about whether you can say, as a generality, "Look, there is a problem with this person in this area". All that I am saying is that it requires further work. <BR /> <BR />I conclude —”
“My request is that, when those who care about these issues are on the media, they do not give the short-term phrase, "We're going to really stamp them out and kick them out" and whatever, but that they say, "This is a complicated issue that people manage pretty well", as the report said, and, "but we need you to understand that it's not just as simple as being really hard on people, even though I understand that anybody identified in that way would, naturally, attract public opprobrium". <BR /> <BR />You will gather that this is not always my way, but it is about looking at the tweaking that needs to be done on this particular amendment. In fact, it applies to the other amendment as well.”
“One of the more difficult things that I had to do was to ask for more money because there was a lack of funding for houses in Belfast where sex offenders were housed. People said, "What on earth are you giving money to that for?". The simple fact is that if you do not manage a situation, if you do not know where people are and if you do not have some way of dealing with the situation properly, you drive it underground and you cannot deal with it.”
“Of course, he is totally free to ignore me, but it is really good to get someone of his status in society trying to explain the more difficult things about how we manage sex offenders. The reason for bringing in amendments such as his is that we are able to manage in a wider framework.”
“I am grateful to Mr Frew for clarifying that. I think that his instincts are correct, and I agree with him on many of the issues that he brings forward. I am not in any way trying to put down what he is attempting to do on this issue.”
“When I was on the Policing Board, I went to Carrickfergus and saw how the network operated when a particular situation arose. I do not know if these numbers are correct now, but there were 10 category 3 offenders, the most serious offender category, in Northern Ireland at the time. There were 1,200 general offenders, let us say 60% of whom were category 1 and 35% of whom were category 2. The really serious ones were category 3. If a person whom we know to be dangerous goes missing, the question for the authorities is this: do we alert the public and tell them that that person is no longer under our control, because that will cause panic, or do we try to manage the situation? I bring that up just to show that there is a pretty fine line in how we move forward on this.”
“We talked about some other issues, including the story of the poor doctor who was forced out of her home because people misunderstood the description of her. The whole issue of vigilantism is really important. <BR /> <BR />I am not being critical, but as I drove into Stormont this morning, I listened to Frank Mitchell's show on U105. He was taking people's views, and one particular person thought that we should round all the offenders up and send them off to an island somewhere to deal with the issue. Lord Morrow is not in his place, but this is the point that he raised when the police were talking about this. If you want to manage these situations, you must not drive things underground. I asked a question about the PPANI categorisation.”
“I thank the Member for the information. We need to look at the idea of an early warning system and consider how that might work. I gave Mr Frew a mark of only 80% because he started out so well talking about why this amendment was not going to deal with vigilantism, getting things wrong or putting out inappropriate information. That is the thing that needs to come out from this debate. <BR /> <BR />I have in front of me a piece of paper that says, "Does Sarah's law work?". I am rehashing some things that have been said by different people, including Mr Ross. It cites the appalling case of a Mr Ebrahimi, a disabled Iranian national who was subjected to a sustained campaign of victimisation and attacks because he was wrongly branded as a paedophile. He ended up being murdered.”
“There was a suggestion that it would be good if PPANI noted that there were suspicions about that person or whatever, but that would indicate to me that there would be some sort of a register of the number of times that an inquiry had been made. Is that what is envisaged under this rule? I am happy to take any clarification on that point. Maybe it is not the right time.”
“That is probably just one of the things that we will tease out as we move forward to Further Consideration Stage. I asked about a couple of issues. To whom do we should disclose the fact that an inquiry has been made? If a parent has a concern about x, they will go forward and ask whether x is a problem. The answer that Mr Frew gave me was that that is absolutely right, that happens already and that if x is a problem he should rightly be talked to and it would be taken forward. The question that I was not sure was addressed and that maybe ought to be addressed is what we do if there were 4,000 people making an enquiry but x was not a problem and the inquiry produced a negative result. Do we build up the fact that lots of people had asked about x?”
“<BR /> <BR />I will move on to a number of points on Sarah's law and Clare's law. I asked Mr Frew some questions on that issue, and I am grateful for the information that he provided. I want to say something about the way that this started off in my thinking. Mr Ross will probably not like this, but I thought that he gave a very good and balanced position. I was concerned about issues of improper disclosure, vigilantism and all those issues. He dealt with all those issues, and I thought that that was what was really good about the debate. <BR /> <BR />I then listened to Mr Frew going on. I was right there with him 100% on 80% of what he said, but I was not just so sure towards the end when he started to deal with who would have access to the information.”