Alastair Ross
East Antrim · Democratic Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“Over the weekend, she supported an independent investigation into everything that is going on in the RHI scheme. She has been working with the Economy Minister to try to make sure that we have something in place in early January to stop the costs of the scheme and reduce the cost.”
“There is no doubt that it has been an incredibly difficult time over the past two weeks for anyone involved in politics. It is quite clear that the public are, quite rightly, angry about a scheme that, with hindsight, was poorly designed and badly administered.”
“I know that, for some individuals, the old habit of asking questions rather than trying to answer them, dies hard, but what we had was not an opposition-driven policy or an attempt to hold the Executive to account; it was a media-driven thing, and some of the opposition parties tried to jump on the bandwagon.”
“Again, I hear the leader of the Alliance Party chirping away in the background. I listened to her contribution, and she must have had 10 or 11 questions she wanted answered.”
“That is why some of the hyperbole that has been around today is hard to stomach. <BR /> <BR />What we heard from my colleague Joanne Bunting was a thoughtful and considered first contribution to the Assembly, and I think that it was one that shows that she will be a valuable asset to the Chamber.”
“They abandoned their seats, and they failed to discharge their duties or ask the questions that their voters might, quite rightly, want them to ask. The public care very little about procedures, points of order or Standing Orders.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,064 lines we hold for Alastair Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 22.
“Presumed consent and deemed consent is exactly the same thing. In law, it is exactly the same thing. I listened to the Member and some of her supporters say that the Bill would not have deemed consent or presumed consent. It does have deemed consent, which is presumed consent, and everybody, I think, acknowledges that. Other Members have used that phrase as well. <BR /> <BR />I will try to make some progress. I support organ donation — hopefully I have articulated those views — and I think everybody does. However, I think that there are ethical and moral issues around this Bill. Moving towards a system of presumed consent will put more pressure on families and medical staff in what are already incredibly difficult circumstances.”
“That is not my position, and I challenge the Member to find a transcript of any radio interview in which I said that. We did try to have a meeting. As I recall, a number of dates were provided, and none was suitable to the Member to meet. Let me make the point to her, and this is not in any way an attack on Mrs Dobson, but she is intent on introducing a system of presumed consent for organ donation in Northern Ireland. I am absolutely opposed to introducing a system of presumed consent. Therefore, in my view, there is nothing in clause 4 that would be bettered through amendment, because you would be going against the very principle of the Bill.”
“I genuinely hold the belief that Second Stage is about principles, and the principle of the Bill is presumed consent.”
“The Member makes an interesting contribution. Other Members have raised the point about the importance of letting the Bill go to Committee Stage for it to be investigated further. I view the principle of the Bill, and Second Stage is about a Bill's principles. The principle of the Bill is not the importance of organ donation. The principle of the Bill is introducing an opt-out system — a presumed consent system, or a deemed consent system — for Northern Ireland. On that basis, I am opposed to the principle of introducing law to make presumed consent the reality in Northern Ireland. On that basis, yes, I am opposed to supporting the Bill at Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />I accept that I am very much in the minority. However, that will not stop me advocating my own concerns around the issue.”
“That makes decisions that are ultimately taken by our surviving relatives easier in what are almost always incredibly difficult circumstances. As I have said on many occasions before, and I will say again to the House, one of my real concerns about passing a Bill of this nature is that we will have less rather than more certainty in the system. <BR /> <BR />Consider a family being called to a trauma unit in a hospital following a tragic accident involving a loved one. It could be a family that have never discussed organ donation and have no idea about the wishes of their loved ones. Under the Bill, that individual would be considered in law a willing organ donor, even when he or she has not been asked or never considered the issue.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am also quite sure that the amount of media attention around the proposals in the Bill will have prompted people to have the conversations that I mentioned and let their loved ones know what their wishes are. I think that it is something with which everyone in the House and outside it with an interest in organ donation will agree on: that the most important thing that we can all do is discuss with our family what our wishes are for when we die. If I have learnt one thing over the past number of years from taking a particular interest in this area, it is that what we want in our system is certainty and clarity when it comes to organ donation. <BR /> <BR />In my view, the only sure way of achieving that clarity and certainty is to make an informed decision during our life and to share that decision with our loved ones.”
“I heard other Members give equally powerful and emotional testimonies from their own constituency and about people in their constituency who have benefited from organ donation. I have spoken to many families who have had loved ones sadly pass away but were able to save up to six or seven other lives because of the fact that they were organ donors. It is hard not to recognise the powerful nature of those arguments. <BR /> <BR />However, I gently remind and appeal to the House that, as well as being mothers or fathers, brothers or sisters and sons or daughters, we are legislators. It is our job to look at legislative proposals and scrutinise them in depth. We must look at evidence from elsewhere in the world and not get carried away with the emotional argument, because it is important that we fulfil our role as legislators.”
“I listened to the opening arguments from Mrs Dobson, and it was clear that, as a mother and a campaigner, she is incredibly passionate about organ donation. She made a powerful emotional argument about why, in her view, the Bill should be passed.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Bill has been a long time coming. We have had debates over the last number of years about its general themes. I have expressed my concerns about it, and I still have the same concerns. Whilst I remain of the view that legislating in the area is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive, I, of course, recognise that getting legislation to the Floor is, in itself, no easy task. Therefore, I genuinely congratulate Mrs Dobson on all her efforts over the last number of years to raise public awareness of organ donation. <BR /> <BR />The truth is that, until four or five years ago, many people in Northern Ireland probably did not think about organ donation, let alone have a conversation with their loved ones or families about their wishes for when they died.”
“Is he not concerned about that, and does he not recognise the PHA consultation as opposed to the consultation carried out by Mrs Dobson?”
“I thank the Member for giving way on the consultation. That consultation, which Members have also seen, is from the PHA. That consultation is, I think, much more in line with other consultations around the United Kingdom around presumed or deemed consent laws, which indicated that the population is much more evenly split: around 50%. What is interesting in the PHA document that Members have had sight of, and hopefully, particularly Health Committee members have had sight of, is that it shows that the more that people learn about the system of deemed consent, the less likely they are to support it.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. To provide absolute clarity; when the Member talks about "negativity", that negativity is not about organ donation. I do not think that I have heard anybody say that they have any problem with organ donation. Indeed, the aims of the Bill's proposer are laudable ones that we all agree with. The difficulty is around the method used to arrive at that solution. There are genuine concerns around the issue of consent. I think it important to point out that, when the Member talks about negativity, we are not talking about negativity around organ donation; it is about the way in which we deliver the outcome that everybody wants to see.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I have heard from a number of Members that moving to a system of opt-out will produce more organs available for transplant. Will the Member tell us where she gets the evidence for that? The evidence from around the world is incredibly sketchy and there are many areas that operate systems of opt-out which produce a much lower level of organ donation than we have in the UK or Northern Ireland.”
“The Member has been on the Health Committee and has been a health spokesperson for some time. Does he share the concern that the Bill would make the absence of an objection to being considered as an organ donor equal to somebody who has expressly said that they wish to be an organ donor? Is he not concerned that silence on the issue is going to be deemed as consent? As I asked the Chair, earlier; is he aware of anywhere else in medicine where consent is presumed or deemed by any member of staff?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I have listened intently to what she said. She mentioned consent being raised as a concern by some Members. The Health Committee has looked at this Bill and at a range of other Bills in which consent is an issue. Is she aware of any other area of medicine in which silence from an individual on an issue is deemed as their consent to do something to their body?”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. She highlights some of the opt-out countries where there has clearly been success, though I would contend that that success is to do with other mechanisms in their systems, rather than just the opt-out. She would, of course, acknowledge that there are other countries, such as Sweden, Brazil, Chile and a raft of others, that have moved to an opt-out system and their rates are worse than those we have in the United Kingdom and far worse than those in Northern Ireland. So, there is no real correlation between whether you have an opt-in or opt-out system. It is more to do with other issues, such as public awareness and experts in hospitals.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, the report talks about significant failures in leadership, ineffective relationships between senior management and staff and a worsening in conditions since they last reported on Maghaberry in 2012. The report makes it abundantly clear that, during the three years that the current director general has been in post, Maghaberry has got significantly worse, rather than better. Given that that is the case, how can the Minister assure the public that they can have confidence in the leadership at the top of the Prison Service and, indeed, at the top of the Department of Justice?”
“He again said that on 26 September 2014, when he issued a statement titled 'Ford highlights progress on drugs at Maghaberry'. Given that the report talks about the prevalence of illegal drugs — it states that they are more widely available than had been the case at the last report and, indeed, that prisoners have said that it is easy to get hold of illegal drugs — will he acknowledge that his previous statements were wrong? <BR /> <BR />In relation to segregated prisoners, the report advocates radical thinking because that part of the prison is sucking resources away from other elements. Will the Minister inform the House what his radical thinking is on that?”
“First of all, over the last few years, colleagues and I have repeatedly raised our concerns about prison officers' safety in Maghaberry. As well as describing the prison as "unsafe" and "unstable", the report details sustained, serious and credible threats against staff, a significant rise in assaults on staff since the last report and describes circumstances in which staff did not receive sufficient support to carry out their duties. Did the Minister take the concerns of the House seriously enough? What did he do when those concerns were raised? Why has there not been an improvement over the last number of years? <BR /> <BR />Secondly, on the issue of drugs, the Minister said, on 28 June 2012, that he was assured by the Prison Service that robust measures were in place to tackle the problem of illegal substances.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your confirmation of the latitude given to the Chair. I will do my utmost to make the most of that latitude. <BR /> <BR />The CJINI report is a damning verdict on the state of Maghaberry Prison, highlighting failures of leadership and a regime in which prisoners are not engaging in purposeful activity. Most worrying of all, it cites a failure to keep prison officers and prisoners safe within the prison walls. It is alarming on an unprecedented scale when we hear inspectors describing the prison as being in "crisis", as "unsafe" and "unstable", and as the "most dangerous prison" in Europe. Despite the Minister's best efforts, there is no gloss or positive spin that can be put on this report. <BR /> <BR />Let me specifically deal with a few issues raised in the report.”
“Finally, will the Minister tell us what level of contact Colin Stutt had with the judiciary, the Law Society and the Bar Council prior to publishing the report?”
“I further ask the Minister to provide an assurance that the consultation exercise will not be used to slow down and frustrate justice reforms that are absolutely necessary, and to outline the areas to which he believes this statement in the report refers:”
“Does the Minister agree that such systems have significant potential to speed up the system; support through their justice journey citizens who cannot access legal aid or afford legal representation; and have the added advantage of reducing cost to the public purse? Will he give a commitment to take forward work in this area, including any recommendations prioritised by the Committee? <BR /> <BR />I also ask the Minister whether he intends to prioritise any of the areas covered in the report, particularly in the 150 recommendations. Will he seek views on what areas should be given priority during the consultation process?”
“Access to justice is fundamental to any democratic society that values the rule of law, but there is little doubt that the current financial pressures mean that there are challenges to such access. It is therefore incumbent upon us to look at innovative approaches to protect access to justice while reducing cost. That is precisely why I initiated the seminars on innovation in the criminal justice system earlier this year. <BR /> <BR />To that end, I particularly welcome the modest acknowledgement in the report that online dispute resolution systems could offer a potential solution. This is an area that I have personally promoted and that the Committee is keen to explore further.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also apologise to the House for leaving before the conclusion of this matter, but, in addition to chairing the Justice Committee, I chair the Ad Hoc Joint Committee on the Mental Capacity Bill, which is currently meeting, and I mean no discourtesy to you or the House.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the statutory rule before the Assembly today at two meetings in September, and, as I have outlined, the Committee welcomes the regulations that will bring the Department of Justice’s victim charter into operation and, therefore, supports the motion today. <BR /> <BR />If I may, I will add, in a party capacity, that the DUP has, for many years, campaigned for the introduction of a victim charter. We very much believe that victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system, and today marks a positive day for putting the rights of victims central to the justice system here in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />It was the Committee’s view then and remains the Committee’s view now that the introduction of a statutory charter is necessary to redress the balance in the system and ensure that the criminal justice agencies place appropriate priority on providing the services that victims and witnesses require and should be entitled to receive. It was also a recommendation of the Committee that these entitlements should be made available to bereaved families, and, again, on behalf of the Committee, I welcome the provision that has been made to ensure that bereaved families are entitled to receive the services set out in the charter. The Committee also looks forward to considering the Department’s witness charter, which is under development.”
“<BR /> <BR />During our inquiry, issues around the status and treatment of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system and the need for them to be treated with dignity and respect became a recurring theme in the evidence that the Committee heard from individuals outlining their experiences and treatment by criminal justice professionals. Victims and families frequently described how they felt like a by-product, that the business and interests of the court centre on the perpetrator and the needs of the court not the victim, and that they were not treated on an equal basis with defendants, particularly in relation to access to information.”
“On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I firmly welcome the introduction of the regulations to bring the Department of Justice's victim charter into operation on a statutory footing. <BR /> <BR />As has been outlined by the Minister, the victim charter gives effect to a key recommendation in the Justice Committee’s inquiry into the criminal justice services available to victims and witnesses of crime in Northern Ireland. The inquiry was one of the first significant undertakings by the Justice Committee during this mandate, and we are, therefore, pleased to see the recommendations of the Committee’s report being implemented by the Department.”
“First, I commend the Minister for her work in her current and previous roles to help us get to the point at which the devolution of corporation tax powers is a reality. The Minister will know the expectation that there was in the business community and the frustration at the failure of some to implement the Stormont House Agreement, which potentially jeopardised the possibility of getting corporation tax powers. I agree with the Minister that hopefully the talks process that is ongoing at the moment will help us get to the point at which we can realise the potential of lowering the rate of corporation tax. <BR /> <BR />Can the Minister tell the House whether the cost to devolve corporation tax and of lowering it to the level that we had talked about previously has reduced as a working-out of that Budget announcement on 8 July?”
“Others may spend their money on feeding other habits. Unless we also address the cause of where they are spending their money or the cause of the crime as well as punishment, they will inevitably reoffend. So, I take his point, but it is important that we frame discussions about justice on what works and does not work, have evidence-based proposals and very much focus on the delivery of positive outcomes.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. It is not an attack in any way on him personally, but perhaps one of the issues in justice, and I have said this before in my justice innovation seminars, is that perhaps we always frame justice issues on whether we are seen as being soft or tough on crime. How we should actually frame these discussions is on what works and does not work. <BR /> <BR />Particularly in this area of alternatives to short prison sentences, look at the example in the United States, particularly around New York, where they have introduced problem-solving courts. We can see quite clearly that this benefits the community because it reduces reoffending and makes a positive difference. That is particularly so in areas around those who cannot pay, which some Members have mentioned.”
“The Committee can take some heart from the fact that the Department has clearly received the message that it was given by the Committee that we want to ensure that we have maximum scrutiny of legislation and that such clauses are unhelpful in that scrutiny process. I welcome the fact that the Minister has committed to do that. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, I support the principles of the Bill and look forward to getting into the detail of it at Committee Stage.”
“Given the pressing need to improve the system of fine enforcement and collection and the limited time available until the end of the mandate, the Committee has agreed to make the scrutiny of the Bill and the completion of Committee Stage, assuming it passes Second Stage today, a priority in our forward work programme. We will, however, wish to take the necessary time to ensure that the legislative proposals for a new fines collection system fully address the deficiencies that have been identified. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, I also welcome the fact that the Minister has given a commitment this morning to propose an amendment on what has commonly been referred to as the clause 86 issue.”
“However, I think that, towards the end of a mandate, a Bill such as this attracts Members from all parties, including my own, who table amendments that he may consider unhelpful.”
“My view, which is shared by other members of the Committee, is that, if the Minister wanted to avoid the often unhelpful situation in which MLAs can table amendments on a range of issues that are not particularly related to the content of the Bill, due to its wide scope, he should perhaps have considered tabling two separate Bills rather than including everything in what is effectively a miscellaneous provisions Bill. I accept that it perhaps provides an opportunity to mop up some other areas towards the end of a mandate. Indeed, in the last Bill, the Minister brought forward provisions regarding human trafficking legislation, and if he intends to bring forward some amendments on firearms issues in this Bill, Members will welcome that.”
“The Committee has received written and oral briefings and has had the opportunity to consider the key policy content of those provisions. Putting the Prisoner Ombudsman on a statutory footing is something that the Minister mentioned in his opening speech. The practical outworkings of that may not be significant, but I think that it will assist him in fulfilling his key functions. The Committee will also welcome the provision to extend the offence of possession of extreme pornography to include depictions of rape. As the Minister said, the proposed change will provide the same protection in law in Northern Ireland as is the case in England and Wales and Scotland. <BR /> <BR />I do, however, want to express some concern regarding the open nature of the Bill and the fact that it covers a mix and match of policy areas.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee has considered a research paper on the fine enforcement mechanisms in other common law jurisdictions to assist its scrutiny of that part of the Bill, and we are interested in exploring further the possibility of providing some offenders with the opportunity of satisfying a fine by undertaking appropriate treatment, such as mental health, drug or alcohol treatment, as an alternative to community service or unpaid work. Indeed, the whole area of problem-solving courts is something that I have mentioned in recent weeks, and I know that the Committee will explore that in our justice innovation seminars in the coming months. <BR /> <BR />I turn briefly to some of the other provisions.”
“Areas that the Committee explored in this regard with departmental officials during a briefing on the principles of the Bill included the estimated cost savings of the proposed new system; the estimated cost of the civilian-based collection service; the potential difficulties for fine collection officers in accessing relevant information and how that could be addressed; how the proposed system of deductions from benefits would work in practice; and the standard of proof required in determining whether a person is wilfully or deliberately defaulting on a fine. I have no doubt that we will wish to return to those issues and discuss them with key stakeholders during Committee Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I have illustrated, it is clear that urgent reform of the fine enforcement and collection mechanisms is required and, indeed, is long overdue. Having received written and oral briefings on proposals to change the system as far back as 2011, the Committee welcomes the Bill. We will, however, wish to scrutinise the provisions in detail, particularly those in relation to fine collection and enforcement.”
“We have heard pleas from NIACRO about the Drug Arrest Referral and Harm Reduction Service and from the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and the Safety Centre Alliance's Risk Avoidance and Danger Awareness Resource (RADAR). All those areas need funding and have been unable to get it. That £7·335 million of outstanding money, whilst it would not cover all those issues, could at least help out some of those projects. <BR /> <BR />The costs associated with enforcing the current system are also significant. It takes up substantial police time and results in a large number of very short terms of imprisonment with the associated costs to the prison system. That is an issue that I have raised in recent weeks.”
“The Committee has also requested and considered regular updates on developments following the judgement delivered by the Divisional Court in five judicial reviews relating to the arrangements for imposing and enforcing fines and other monetary penalties. <BR /> <BR />Figures provided by the Department to the Committee earlier this year indicated that the total outstanding debt at 31 March 2014 was £22·684 million, of which, it estimated, £7·335 million was impaired and unlikely to be collected. In these times of financial constraint, those are wasted funds that could be put to very good use, and that is totally unacceptable. The Committee meets many groups from across different communities in Northern Ireland and hears of their struggles to get funding and of funding being cut.”
“In its report, published in January, on the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service trust statement for the year ended 31 March 2013, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) highlighted that the value of unpaid financial penalties was significant and the Comptroller and Auditor General had raised concerns about the fine collection and enforcement measures and the system for dealing with fine defaulters. The PAC found that, despite the significant levels of outstanding debt, the Department of Justice had failed to coordinate a joined-up approach to fine collection and that, as a result, governance arrangements were unacceptable. That has contributed to a number of failings including 6,682 paper warrants with a value of £1·1 million going missing and suspected fraud.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Justice Committee is well aware of the problems associated with the current fine default and collection scheme.”
“I am pleased, as Chairman of the Committee, to speak briefly on behalf of the Committee during the Second Stage of the Justice (No. 2) Bill. As the Minister said, it comes hot on the heels of passing the Justice (No. 1) Bill. The Minister may be accused of many things, but coming up with catchy titles for his legislation cannot be one of them. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister outlined, the Bill is designed to address a range of key areas, including fine default and the system of collecting financial penalties. Whilst much of the attention may be further down the hill, this is important legislation that the Committee has been calling for for some time. It can have a real impact in the community and be reforming legislation as well.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I think the context that he has built is useful for the Assembly, but does he also find it odd that the Committee would bring forward a motion like this today, one week after a new code of conduct was passed by the Assembly that not only enshrines freedom of speech for Members, citing article 10, but that separates out the aspirational principles from the enforceable rules because the Committee recognised that the Nolan principles are almost impossible to define and to come to a conclusion about? Is that not a bit odd? Does that not strike the Member as odd?”
“I sought and am very pleased to have received the support of the Assembly for my amendment, which provides for a scheme to enable prisoners released early under the conditioned early release scheme to undertake community service whilst on early release. <BR /> <BR />I hope that, in future, justice Bills will see greater use of alternatives to prison for suitable offenders and a greater use of restorative sentences when appropriate.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will conclude my comments on behalf of the Committee by again thanking the members of the Committee for their commitment and diligence in carrying out the scrutiny of the Bill, as well as the departmental officials who assisted the Committee in answering questions. I also thank the Committee officials who ensured that members were well informed of the issues that we had to discuss and for their assistance at various stages of the Bill. I also place on record again the appreciation of the Committee to the organisations that contributed to the legislative process by taking the time and effort to submit written and oral evidence at Committee Stage. <BR /> <BR />I will speak very briefly in a personal capacity.”
“Next week, I and the Deputy Chairman will travel to The Hague to look at online dispute resolution as an example of where technology can be used to improve the justice system. Indeed, I note that a senior official in the Department of Justice has asked whether he can tag along, which is very welcome indeed. <BR /> <BR />With the current Budget position as it is, there is an opportunity and the stimulus to identify and adopt more innovative working practices, which will provide for a more dynamic, efficient and effective criminal justice system. I and the Committee intend to make recommendations to be taken forward as part of the next Programme for Government and future justice Bills.”
“I and the Committee have been spending a lot of time and focus in recent months considering and discussing with key stakeholders, including the Lord Chief Justice, legal professions and voluntary organisations, new and innovative ways of working that could be introduced in Northern Ireland, including the greater use of digitisation, online dispute resolution for certain types of low-level cases and new approaches to interventions and diversions, particularly for young people. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister is aware, the Committee held three justice innovation seminars and undertook a recent visit to London to meet the Civil Justice Council, the Centre for Justice Innovation and Sir Brian Leveson, who has completed a review of efficiency in criminal proceedings in England and Wales.”