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 14 of 22.
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill will improve the treatment of and services available to victims and witnesses of crime, facilitate improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system and enhance measures aimed at protecting children and vulnerable adults. It is, therefore, very welcome. There is, however, much more that can and, indeed, needs to be done on how the criminal justice system operates.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendment made to Part 1 at Further Consideration Stage is much narrower in scope and effect but will enable the Minister, in our view, to make minor amendments to the Bill on the introduction of a single jurisdiction for the County Courts and Magistrates' Courts if necessary. That is the approach that the Committee suggested the Department should have adopted in the first place. I have no doubt that other Committees will wish to examine the position that the Justice Committee adopted and ensure that the Executive branch of Government have their powers curtailed when Committees feel it is necessary.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendments made to provide for a new offence of communicating with a child for sexual purposes, to change the existing offence of meeting a child following sexual grooming, to reduce the evidence threshold and to enable the joint conviction of members of a household who cause or allow a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm are also very welcome and will provide additional protections. <BR /> <BR />On what used to be clause 86, the Minister will, no doubt, be pleased that I do not intend to rehearse the Committee’s position on Henry VIII clauses, suffice it to say that the Committee was pleased that the Assembly backed its view that powers provided in Bills to make ancillary provision by way of subordinate legislation should be for an exact purpose, rather than widely drawn.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendments to provide for child protection disclosures and domestic violence protection orders are very welcome and will, undoubtedly, enhance the public protection arrangements already in place. I congratulate Mr Paul Frew and Mrs Dolores Kelly on instigating those. I think that it is also important to say that we welcome that the Minister and the Department decided to work along with both those individuals to ensure that the provisions that were proposed were got right and, in the case of Mrs Kelly, that they worked together to remove those amendments so that they were not moved on the day to make sure that we got the legislation right and provided the protection that Mrs Kelly sought for vulnerable women. It is a positive example of collaboration between Back-Bench Members and the Minister, and it should be commended.”
“When the Committee considered the original proposals by the Department to abolish preliminary investigations and mixed committals, members noted that, whilst the proposals aimed to streamline the procedure for moving business from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court, the primary driver was to reduce the impact on vulnerable victims and witnesses. The amendment made at Further Consideration Stage aims to reduce the likelihood of victims and witnesses experiencing the difficulty of having to give evidence twice. However, that situation could have been avoided altogether had the original proposals been supported, as agreed at Committee Stage. <BR />Nevertheless, that is the power of the Assembly — to amend legislation — and I suppose that is proof of that power in action.”
“The Committee particularly welcomed the provisions and amendments that seek to improve services and facilities for victims and witnesses, many of which originated directly from the findings and recommendations of the Committee's inquiry into the criminal justice services available to victims and witnesses of crime, which it completed in 2012. The principles of the final Bill remain the same and have been enhanced by a number of amendments made during its passage through the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the provisions regarding preliminary investigations and mixed committals. I am personally disappointed that amendments were accepted so that there is provision for preliminary investigations in some circumstances and in what have been described as the "interests of justice".”
“On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Final Stage of a Bill that was described at Further Consideration Stage as exciting. It has had its fair share of amendments and petitions of concern. There is little doubt that it has undergone extensive and detailed scrutiny and debate, at Committee Stage and during the lengthy debates at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. As the Minister said, that has resulted in a large number of changes. <BR /> <BR />As I have stated previously, the Committee supported the main aims of the Bill: to speed up the justice system and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of key aspects of it.”
“I note that the Minister visited her Welsh counterpart last week. Although the Welsh do not have to grapple with the difficulty of welfare reform, I wonder whether she learnt any lessons from them about novel approaches to budgetary issues. Do any of the other regions across the United Kingdom have different approaches from ours, and are there lessons to be learnt from them?”
“Can he assure the Assembly that full cooperation and information-sharing is taking place amongst all the agencies and organisations involved in tackling this crime to ensure that we get better results in the future?”
“The Minister has highlighted the work of the project advisory groups in promoting and supporting cooperation across the broad spectrum of criminal justice agencies and cited the example of the potential for further PSNI/an Garda Síochána cooperation on diversion in relation to young offenders, an issue in which he knows I have taken a keen interest. Can he provide further information on the extent of the cooperation to date and outline any areas of future cooperation? <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister also elaborate on the work that is being done to tackle fuel fraud in a meaningful way, given the scale of the problem and the lack of convictions in the past?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He will, of course, acknowledge some of the difficulties with enforcing a ministerial code of conduct because of the composition of our Government. The mechanism for ensuring that the ministerial code of conduct is adhered to is the court system, and we have seen Ministers who have breached the ministerial code of conduct being sanctioned by the courts. There is therefore a mechanism in place to enforce the code of conduct, but it happens to be the court system rather than within government.”
“It was unfortunate that the Environment Minister went on ahead with his code of conduct, rather than talking to the Committee on Standards and Privileges and trying to develop codes in parallel, which might have delivered much more clarity and a better system of conduct regulation at both council and Assembly level. <BR /> <BR />I recommend the code to the House.”
“language. That may be a challenge to some of us at times, particularly when Members say something that we do not like; but we have to recognise that they have the right to say it, and as long as their comments are lawful, they should be able to make them. <BR /> <BR />I conclude on two points. One of the difficulties we have faced in Northern Ireland is politically motivated complaints. We have far more complaints by MLAs against other MLAs than anywhere else in these islands. The most unfortunate thing is that a complaint by one MLA against another is nearly always accompanied by a press release. That is an abuse of the system and something we really need to get to grips with. <BR /> <BR />Finally, Ms Lo made reference to the councillors' code of conduct.”
“Indeed, as the Chairman of the Committee highlighted in his opening comments, article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the law governing freedom of speech, protects Members when using:”
“That will make it much easier for Committee members and the commissioner when determining whether Members have breached the code. As Mr McCann said, greater sanctions are now available. The opportunity to dock a Member's salary is something that we called for and has been delivered. It is also incredibly important. <BR /> <BR />Other aspects of the code are worth highlighting. The right to a private life has been mentioned. It is important that Members are enabled to have a private life. In most cases, the code would not apply to it, nor would that be in the public interest. Freedom of speech is also hugely important. When we talked to politicians in the US, they laughed at some of the complaints we receive here in Northern Ireland on comments that Members have made.”
“Look at the Nolan principles on public life, which are well known and used in nearly every jurisdiction around the United Kingdom: who could disagree with selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership? The difficulty for the Committee and indeed for the Commissioner for Standards is how to decide when a Member is being open or honest or objective. How do you know whether a Member is showing leadership? It is very difficult for Committee members or the commissioner to judge whether a Member has breached the code of conduct based on those principles. That is why I think that it is so important that the separation between the aspirational element and the enforceable element has been reinforced in this code.”
“In the United States, the debate tends to be around the ethics surrounding financial donations, because of the amount of money that they spend in their election campaigns. I listened to Mr Rogers make that point around lobbying. Because there is so much regulation around lobbying in the States, because Senators and Congressmen and -women are spending millions and millions of dollars on a campaign, that is just not applicable here in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />We have ended up with a new approach in the code of conduct. As other Members have said, it is a simplified code, boiling everything down to 21 rules, but I think that the most important aspect of this new code of conduct is the fact that there is a separation between the aspirational and enforceable elements of the code.”
“<BR /> <BR />We obviously spoke to our colleagues in the House of Commons, in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but of course clerks talk to each other all the time, and any changes that happen are usually quite incremental and will follow suit across these isles. However, I think that it is also important that we look beyond the British Isles. I gave evidence to the European Union for the GRECO report and we also engaged with the US House of Representatives Committee on Ethics, the Senate Ethics Committee and the State of Maryland legislature. Those areas deal with different difficulties to those that we face. The rest of Great Britain does not experience the political nature of complaints that we have here in Northern Ireland.”
“I want to record my gratitude to the Chairman of the Committee for acknowledging the work that I did in my time as Chair. I had the privilege of chairing the Committee from 2011 until December 2014, but I have also sat on the Committee since first entering the House in 2007. I approached the inquiry with some knowledge of the difficulties that there were with the old code of conduct and the opportunities that were presented to make a better code of conduct. The review of the code that was undertaken by the Committee was, as other Members have said, incredibly comprehensive. I want to record my thanks to Tom Walker from Queen's University, who, I think, focused the minds of Members on how we could get a code that is both practical and enforceable.”
“We need to capitalise on the success that we have had in sport and other areas such as 'Game of Thrones', which gives us recognition across the globe. Changing global perceptions, positive PR images and encouraging investors and tourism in Northern Ireland is hugely important. Our Budget should definitely look to ensure that we continue to be able to host those major events.”
“This all started back when the current Finance Minister went into DETI. There was the MTV Europe Music Awards, and we will now get the BBC Sports Personality of the Year. The list goes on and on and on. <BR /> <BR />As I said, it is a modest investment for a major return. It helps us to change global perceptions of what Northern Ireland is all about. It helps to get a positive image out there of what Northern Ireland is and what we are capable of doing. That inevitably helps people who would consider investing in Northern Ireland to see that we are a credible proposition for them. We really need to capitalise on our ability to host big events. We need to capitalise on the ability of our different agencies — the PSNI, our tourism agencies and the Executive — to come together and make those events happen.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am always keen to finish on a positive. I am also aware that what I am going to say is about spending priorities and areas of spend, but it is somewhere where we could spend a modest amount of money to get a much larger return. It is around our ability to host major events here in Northern Ireland. Not so long ago, we had the announcement that the Open Championship will return to Royal Portrush. We had the successful Irish Open in Royal County Down recently and two years ago in Portrush. Last year, we had the Giro d'Italia, which was a phenomenal success right across Northern Ireland. Yesterday, we had the Gran Fondo, which saw 3,000 riders, including me, take part in a big family event that, again, was a massive opportunity for positive PR about Northern Ireland.”
“If we are unable to do that and we lose the support of the business community in Northern Ireland, that would do our credibility a huge amount of damage, not just locally but with the global business community. We need to make sure that we keep a focus on that. <BR /> <BR />If the Sinn Féin position around welfare is that they want to protect the most vulnerable and they think that that will help their position in the Irish Republic, I really must suggest that voters in the Irish Republic will look at the position of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland and ask themselves whether they would really want Sinn Féin to be part of a Government in the Republic of Ireland when they cannot take tough decisions, will not take fiscally responsible decisions and could jeopardise some of the progress that we have made here.”
“As I said, the preference is certainly for that to be done on a UK-wide basis. <BR /> <BR />In the wider debate on corporation tax issues, we really have to consider what not just the public but the business community in Northern Ireland believe is happening in the Assembly. For the last decade, the business community has worked alongside not just the Enterprise Minister and the Finance Minister but the First Minister and deputy First Minister on moving towards a position where we can get corporation tax powers devolved to the Assembly and then lower that rate. Our party would like to see it at 10%, but 12·5% might be more realistic to get a consensus.”
“There are two types of air passenger duty, of course: one on long-haul flights, which we devolved to keep the flight to New York, and the short-haul air passenger duty. I think that it should be scrapped altogether. It is preferable, of course, to do that UK-wide because we need to have a cost-benefit analysis of whether the increased travel to Northern Ireland would be worth the amount that it would cost the Executive to get short-haul APD, so we would have to keep an eye on that.”
“This Budget is predicated on the fact that welfare reform goes through as agreed in the Stormont House Agreement. If agreement is not achieved on the Stormont House Agreement, we lose, by my reckoning, the opportunity to have the Civil Service exit scheme. We will get increased fines from Treasury, if it does not take over the power itself. All that puts at risk the opportunity to lower the level of corporation tax. It is very real in terms of the Budget that we are discussing today, and certainly in the actions that have to be taken by certain parties in the next number of months. Otherwise, we will not have any certainty over corporation tax, and we will certainly not be able to reduce it.”
“That is why corporation tax is something that we should keep our eye on. Looking to get it devolved is still worthwhile. <BR /> <BR />I am not opposed to devolving individual fiscal levers if they are to our benefit, but we have to be responsible. When you hear parties saying, "We need all of the fiscal levers at the Assembly", they do not tell us how they would use or pay for them. It does not appear that, if they were to pay for them through tax increases, for example, Members opposite would support that either. Even when we talk about the modest rise in prescription fees that would allow us to pay for a cancer drugs fund or an innovative drugs fund, there does not appear to be any support for that. Are they honestly being fiscally responsible in some of the rhetoric that they come out with?”
“Absolutely. It is not just corporation tax; we also advocated air passenger duty being devolved to the Assembly in order to keep our New York flight, which is good for business and tourism. We were able to pay for that. It is not just our party that advocates a cut in corporation tax; all the main parties, although a few individuals oppose it, are in agreement. Part of the Stormont House Agreement would allow us to pay for that. If we get the loan from Treasury, that would facilitate the Civil Service voluntary exit scheme. We would then make the cost reductions to allow us to afford corporation tax over the next number of years. In doing so, we would attract companies from overseas. It is not just government saying that; independent evaluators are saying that we have the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs in Northern Ireland.”
“How can the public take seriously a party that said — seriously — that it thinks that a way of helping out in austere times is to pay off people's credit card bills? It is absolute madness. If it wants to build up its economic credibility to get public support for devolving more economic powers, I suggest that that is not the best way to go about it. <BR /> <BR />There needs to be recognition of the level of subvention that we have here at the Assembly. We get £10 billion a year from Treasury and central government because we run at a deficit. There needs to be an economic realisation that the more economic powers we get devolved to the Assembly, the higher the cost to Northern Ireland. Either it comes off, and there is more public spending, or we get tax-raising powers and tax the public more to meet the cost.”
“We could all find projects if that is the case, but it is detached from reality. We do not have more money to spend. If the SDLP is going to suggest that more money should be spent in one area, at least it needs to say where it is taking money away from or where it is getting money to pay for it. <BR /> <BR />I listened to the Sinn Féin contributions last week and continually, in that debate and in press and media coverage, it talked about wanting to get more powers for the Assembly. It wants to have more fiscal levers available at Stormont and the full suite of economic powers, but the public will quite rightly ask: if you cannot be responsible with the powers that you have at present, why on earth would anybody support getting additional powers? It is a very real question.”
“However, when we hear some of the figures that are attached to the cost of implementing that legislation or of creating new public bodies, we have to ask ourselves whether that is the best use of money. We have to ask whether it will be implemented at all, given the current constraints on our Budget. We need to be smarter about the types of legislation that we propose and pass in the House. <BR /> <BR />Mr Farry mentioned the situation that we find ourselves in over the impasse on welfare reform and public finances. Listening to the debate last week, I was frustrated, particularly by SDLP Members, who seemed to make suggestions only about increasing spending in different areas. I have no doubt that their motivation is right, in that there should be more spending for here, there and somewhere else.”
“It seems to work OK in Texas and in other US states that have much greater economies than ours and, perhaps, a better success rate. Do we need to spend so much time on private Member's motions? Perhaps that is also a challenge. <BR /> <BR />We also need to examine some of the work that we do and some of the legislation that we pass in the Assembly, particularly legislation that has a high price tag attached to it. Earlier today, I chaired a meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Mental Capacity Bill, and I have no doubt that, if we do the Bill right, it will have better outcomes for people who live in Northern Ireland and provide better safeguards, particularly for our older population.”
“We have an agreement to reduce the size of the Executive, which is a positive step, but we also need to make real progress on reducing the size of the Assembly and the number of Members. I know that we are talking about fairly modest sums of money in savings, but, when we are making the point that we want to reduce the size of the Civil Service, we should be looking to reduce the size of the Assembly. The public would support that. If we wanted to be really radical, we could examine whether we need to sit all year round. Perhaps we should just concentrate on legislation and meet twice a year. That is really radical; I listened to Members who challenged me previously to be more radical in my suggestions, and that is something that we could do.”
“I go back to healthcare. The public do not really care who delivers the service. I will use the example of a bin. Most people like to put their bin out on a Monday, a Tuesday or whenever it is, and, as long as the bin is picked up, emptied and left back to them, they do not care who delivers that service. All they care about is that the service is good, happens routinely, weekly or fortnightly, and they do not have to pay through the nose to get it done. We need to be pragmatic on the issue and look at who delivers services and whether the public really cares who does that. That is something that we need to do. <BR /> <BR />We also need to be braver about reductions in the size of government here.”
“I know that there are those with an ideological difficulty with the independent sector delivering healthcare, but, if it is able to do it in a more efficient and cost-effective way, we need to give it serious consideration. Not only would it wipe out the waiting lists but it would save the public purse money. That is a challenge to some Members who have difficulties with private healthcare to examine the issue and explain why they are so opposed to it. <BR /> <BR />Now that we have had devolution for some time, we also need to examine seriously the role of government in society, not just the public's expectation of us but what we should be delivering to the public and the role that we have in people's lives. If we are pushing stuff out to the voluntary and community sector, the role of government could shrink. Who delivers services?”
“<BR /> <BR />It does not always find agreement from everybody, particularly those on the opposite side of the House, but, likewise, we need to look at other services to see how we can get best value for money. Not so long ago, I visited 3fivetwo Healthcare's facilities in Belfast. When you compare the cost of an operation that it provides with one provided by the NHS and the number of operations that it can do in a day compared with the NHS, serious questions need to asked about why it is that the private sector is so much more efficient in delivering operations than the NHS. That is a real question that we need to focus on.”
“<BR /> <BR />Time after time, we see examples. It is heartbreaking to see it, but you can identify a young person below the age of 10 and say that that person is more likely than anybody else to enter the criminal justice system and live a life of crime because of their surroundings, their family circumstances and where they grow up. If we allow voluntary organisations out there in the community greater access to early interventions, it could save us money in the longer term by ensuring that those young people do not end up in juvenile centres or in our prisons and do not end up taking up police time or the work of the Probation Board. Early intervention is absolutely key and some of the community and voluntary groups are best placed to deliver that.”
“If the Government tried to do it, it would inevitably go wrong and be much more costly than the way in which some of the voluntary sector organisations are able to do it. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that those organisations are able to sustain their work in the longer term. <BR /> <BR />As with NIACRO, there are many other organisations out there that we provide a modest amount of funding to that have really good outcomes. Many of them are involved in early intervention. I listened to Mr Farry's comments, and we have difficulty in shifting money away from dealing with the problem and moving it towards early intervention. In health, we say all the time that it is better to spend money on prevention than cure, but it is very difficult to shift that focus to early years. It is much the same in justice.”
“We have a very vibrant community and voluntary sector that is developing services in the community. Very often, it delivers services that have better outcomes than government could provide, and also at significantly less cost. Therefore, we need to look at how we spend money and judge that against the outcomes. <BR /> <BR />From my experience in the Justice Committee over the last number of months, I have looked at the work of organisations such as NIACRO, which is very involved with ex-offenders and their families and in finding them work programmes or employers when they are released so that they are less likely to reoffend. That type of work is invaluable and it is work that, in many cases, the Government could not do.”
“As a Government as a whole, we need to identify how we deliver services to the public, particularly at times of reduced budgets. The public's expectation of government is incredibly high, and it is perhaps growing at the same time as the amount of money that we have available to spend on public services is reducing. Therefore, we need to look at delivering services differently and perhaps pushing the delivery of certain services out to the community and voluntary sector or even the independent sector. <BR /> <BR />I know that the whole concept and idea of the big society is language that has now exited the political discourse in the UK since Steve Hilton left 10 Downing Street. Nevertheless, the big society concept is something that we in Northern Ireland have been doing for a long time and actually do very well.”
“During debate on the Justice Bill, I tabled an amendment that ensured that anybody who was released from prison early had to go into some sort of community work and repay their debt to society in that better way. It makes economic sense, as well as sense if we want to improve outcomes. <BR /> <BR />We also have to look at areas such as court listings and the delays in the system. Can we move to digital or online courts for the resolution of certain low-level cases, as is happening in the Netherlands and Canada? Let us look at those things and see if we can do them in Northern Ireland. There should also be a greater use of mediation when it is appropriate. <BR /> <BR />At times, we also need to be innovative and radical in what we do.”
“Prison is, of course, important for repeat or dangerous offenders, sexual predators, terrorists and people like that. For lower-level criminals and first-time offenders, there are alternatives to prison that we must look at, not just from an outcomes-based perspective, because it improves outcomes and lessens the reoffending rate, but because it makes sense economically. For the taxpayer to have to fund people in prison and then fund them when they exit and go on welfare is not a particularly good use of public finance. It would be far better to have some sort of restorative system for low-level offenders so that they enter into community work programmes and pay their debt back to society in a more productive way. Of course, that will help them to move on to find gainful employment after they have repaid their debt.”
“Unfortunately, that is the way that their life will continue to be. That is not something that we support. It is not cost-effective, and it is not good outcomes.”
“Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to shift of focus of funding in the short term, even though in the longer term that is something that people want to do. <BR /> <BR />When I talk about reform and saving money in the Justice Department, which is something that we are doing at present, it does not mean that we are compromising on outcomes. That is the important point to make. We had a focus in the last three or four months on youth justice. We have to recognise as a House — and I think the figures are publicly available — that it is more expensive to send a young person to a youth justice centre than to Eton. Yet the outcomes are not particularly good, because once a person enters a criminal justice system, it is more likely that they will enter the revolving door of going in and out of prison and the criminal justice system.”
“I totally accept that point. I know from when I was on the Employment and Learning Committee that Ministers often found themselves with reductions in-year when money was already committed or spent, and they found that incredibly difficult. I want to move on to the current position later on, because it does produce particular difficulties for Ministers. The lack of stability that the Member mentioned is very real, but I want to ensure that, at least in our contributions today, we keep our eye on the longer term. We do need to do things differently. There is an opportunity for savings and reform. We must at least get agreement on how we get to that point, even though I accept that in the shorter term it is difficult to do that.”
“When it embraced that efficiency and cut out the fat in its systems, it was in a better place coming out of that recession to capitalise on it. Governments, too, should be looking to use the constraints on public finances to make ourselves leaner and more efficient and to look at doing things differently, ultimately to improve outcomes.”
“There needs to be a recognition that resources are not infinite. We have difficulties in resourcing legal aid, therefore there must be savings found — and savings that have the least impact on access to justice, to ensure that people who need legal aid are still able to get it. <BR /> <BR />There are other priorities that I am keen to focus on. There is the idea of speeding up justice, getting better outcomes for victims, reducing reoffending and, of course, reducing costs in the system. The reduction in budgets for the Department of Justice — for all Departments — should provide the springboard that is needed for reform. I have said it before, and the Minister will be well aware of this from her previous role, but the private sector had to become far more efficient in what it did when there was a global downturn.”
“Quite often we have a debate, particularly around justice, on what is seen as being soft on crime or tough on crime, rather than on what works and what does not work. We need to have a focus on outcomes and a smarter justice system. <BR /> <BR />I am keen to continue the work we are doing on that. Later on this week, members of the Justice Committee will travel to London to meet the Civil Justice Council and the Centre for Justice Innovation, and visit the Supreme Court. I and the Deputy Chair of the Committee will travel to the Netherlands during recess to look at the idea of digital courts, legal aid and how we can speed up the system in that way. <BR /> <BR />Since I have taken over, and for a much longer time, much of the focus when it comes to budgetary matters within justice has, of course, been around legal aid.”
“<BR /> <BR />The last time I spoke in a Budget debate, Mr Alban Maginness, who is not in the House, expressed his disappointment that I had such a conservative approach to the Budget and was not being radical enough. Given that I took over as the Chairman of the Justice Committee in December, I hope that he will see that the approach that I have taken in that Committee is quite innovative, looks to deal with issues differently than we have done in the past and could, at times, be seen as fairly radical. That approach seeks to find reform, do things better and reduce the cost to the public purse. Through the justice seminar series, we have focused on greater collaboration between ourselves and stakeholders, greater innovation within justice and, most importantly, a focus on outcomes.”
“Therefore, I think that we have to ensure that, in our discussions today, we recognise that and have our debate in that context. Whilst we would love to have loads more money thrown our way in the block grant, thereby providing us with the opportunity to spend on things that we may wish to, that is just not based on reality. I must say that, having listened to the debate last week, particularly to Members across the way, it did not strike me that they had grasped the economic reality that we are living in. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, I think that what we need to do, and what would be useful in the debate, is get new thinking and have brave politicians who come up with new proposals. Ultimately, we need smarter solutions to the issues that we have to deal with.”