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 15 of 22.
“<BR /> <BR />I think that today's debate on the Budget must take a different tone if it is to be of any value and if the public are to take us seriously on the issues that we discuss. Over the last five years, the national Government have been reducing public spending at a significant rate. We have seen that the amount of money that we have in our block grant for public spending has also been reduced. <BR /> <BR />I think that anybody with any insight at all would recognise that, over the next five years, the budgetary situation is going to get more difficult for the local spend here in Northern Ireland and that the national Government will continue to reduce the levels of public spending right across the United Kingdom.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I certainly did not expect to be called quite so early; nevertheless, it gets it out of the way, I suppose. <BR /> <BR />I have been a Member now since 2007, and I have found that Budget debates often prove to be little more than Members standing up and providing a wish list of spending priorities for their constituencies or issues that they are involved in. Indeed, I have perhaps been guilty of that in the past, although given that the A2 and A8 road projects are now near completion, I could be forgiven for it. If the Supply resolution debate is anything to go by, I think that some Members used it as an opportunity to do little more than ask the Minister to spend more money on this, that and the other without ever actually providing the House with any information on how they would find the money to do that.”
“After years and years of disagreement, departmental officials and the PSNI indicated that, following a further meeting with stakeholders' groups, a way forward on the bands and conditions had been reached and that agreement had also been reached on the firearms licensing fees. <BR /> <BR />It therefore appears that the amendments in the names of Mr McGlone, Mr Frew and Mr Poots have been successful in focusing minds and getting closer to a conclusion. Given the length of time these matters have been under consideration, the Committee is obviously pleased that a consensus has been reached between the Department and key stakeholders on at least two of the three main issues, and I look forward to the Minister confirming later in the debate that that is the position.”
“I had one of those feelings last Thursday: the sun was shining, the birds were singing and Mr Frew entered the Committee room with a skip in his step and a twinkle in his eye. I could have sworn that Mr McGlone was humming along the corridor as he came in — I do not know whether it was a Spice Girls song he was humming, but perhaps something from the Glasgow heavy rock band Gun would have been more appropriate to sing. Although Mr Poots was not there, I had a sense that, no matter where he was, there was a smile on his face. And so it came to be that, when officials took their places to brief the Committee on the latest position, harmony broke out.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst I have taken some time to set out the scrutiny that the Committee has undertaken in relation to the firearms issue, as I said, it is worth providing that background for the record. The Committee has spent considerable time on these issues over the last three years without a satisfactory resolution from the Department. The frustration of members with the delay in resolving those issues was clearly apparent, with some taking the opportunity to propose amendments to the Bill in an attempt to bring matters to a conclusion. Following the postponement of the debate on this matter last week, there was a further opportunity for discussion between the main stakeholders before this debate. <BR /> <BR />And so we arrived at the Justice Committee meeting last Thursday.”
“The work was due to be completed shortly and another workshop would be convened with stakeholders, following which, final-fee proposals would be presented to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received requests from several of the key stakeholders to brief the Committee on the Department’s proposals, and those briefings took place on 28 May. During the briefing by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), the Gun Trade Guild NI and the Countryside Alliance Ireland, the Committee was presented with alternative proposals on the firearms licensing fees, the banded system and the age of young shooters. The Committee agreed to refer the proposals to the Department of Justice for its consideration.”
“Once that work was completed, it would be the subject of discussion at a fees workshop planned for October 2014. <BR /> <BR />In March 2015, departmental officials provided an update on the current position, which included the Minister’s final proposals on the age of young shooters and the banded system. It was also the first time that I was introduced to Mr McGlone's rather intimidating large book, which is full of information on different calibres, cartridges, muzzle energy and velocity and everything else that one could think of. <BR /> <BR />With regard to the fees proposals, the officials indicated that, following a workshop with stakeholders, further work on a number of aspects, including the number of visits, travel times and the role of firearms enquiry officers, was being carried out.”
“<BR /> <BR />After the briefing, the Committee wrote to the Minister expressing its concern and frustration regarding the lack of progress in resolving the issues and requested further information on how the proposed cost of granting or renewing a firearms certificate had been arrived at. The Committee also asked for information on how the Department had engaged with the key stakeholders and planned to engage with them moving forward. <BR /> <BR />The Minister subsequently responded providing additional information and indicated that the firearms fees proposals were being reassessed by DFP consultancy service, which would include putting the process map in a form similar to that used by the Home Office.”
“<BR /> <BR />Discussions with officials centred around lack of consensus with the key stakeholders on the proposals, the further work undertaken to assess the fee required to achieve full cost recovery, including the following: the work carried out by DFP consultancy services; the processes carried out by firearms licensing branch on how efficient the firearms licensing process really was, and why the Department did not adopt a consultative model that included proper discussions with the key stakeholders who are involved in the trade and, therefore, understand best how it operates.”
“The Department proposed to introduce an interim fee for licences, which would be reviewed to secure full cost recovery in about 18 months, with a commitment to involve the shooting associations and other key stakeholders at all stages of the review. Proposals for a banded system had also been developed on which the Department intended to consult the shooting organisations.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee advised the Department to engage with the key stakeholders to achieve a collaborative way forward on fees and on the introduction of a banded system for firearms. The Committee also indicated that, in its view, supervision should be the key element in relation to young shooters, and the criteria should be based on that, and highlighted that the Assembly had already taken a position on the issue in the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. <BR /> <BR />Departmental officials returned to the Committee in June 2014 with revised proposals for fees and other firearms issues.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is worthwhile to give a brief background and timeline to the issue in order to inform the House and perhaps give it a flavour of why so many members of the Committee have become increasingly frustrated about the lack of progress on the issue. In October 2013, having considered all the evidence it had received, the Committee advised the Minister that it viewed the level of the proposed fee increases to be too high and unrealistic, and, therefore, would not support them. The Committee was also very concerned about the lack of communication between PSNI firearms licensing branch and the key stakeholder groups, and the apparent breakdown in relationships between the two.”
“<BR /> <BR />Nevertheless, over the last three years, since May 2012, the Committee has taken a wide range of written and oral evidence on the proposals from departmental and Police Service of Northern Ireland officials and from all the key firearms stakeholders, including the following: the British Association for Shooting and Conservation; the Gun Trade Guild Northern Ireland; the Countryside Alliance Ireland; the Deer Society; the Northern Ireland Firearms Dealers and Shooters Association; the Ulster Clay Pigeon Shooting Association; and the Northern Ireland Federation of Shooting Sports.”
“The Committee first considered proposals by the Department of Justice to increase the firearms licensing fees and make other miscellaneous amendments to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, including the age of young shooters, in May 2012. However, disagreements around firearms go back, under the Committee chairmanship of Lord Morrow, as far as the devolution of policing and justice powers to the Assembly in 2010; and during an intervention, my predecessor Paul Givan mentioned the difficulties there were when he chaired the Committee as well.”
“I am glad that that is the case. He said that it was useful, and, as a Committee, we would be interested in working with him and the Probation Board in the future to work up some of the detail. I certainly think that there is merit in it. I am pleased that there has been support from all sides of the House for the amendment, and, at the risk of losing any support, I shall stop there, and we can proceed to the votes.”
“I will ensure that I never wear it in the House again, if that is the comparison that is being made. <BR /> <BR />Ms Sugden talked about the policy being progressive. Some people are perhaps uneasy with that terminology. I think that it is a progressive policy, but the value in the amendment is that it ensures that prisoners have to see out their entire sentence. That gives confidence to the community, who could be concerned that prisoners will be released early from prison without having to see out their sentence. It also transitions an offender into normal life in a managed way, and, of course, the increased value is that the taxpayer does not have to pay for that. It is a progressive policy, and most people in society will see value in it. <BR /> <BR />The Minister talked about this being the easy amendment to deal with.”
“Indeed. With my red tie, I have clearly been inspired by Mr McCrea.”
“We are having a proper discussion that every other Member sees value in and views as a progressive policy that is tackling a real issue, yet the Member tries to bring in such spurious points. Of course, Mr McCrea is not opposed to uniforms: I remind the House that this is the man who wore a red tie as a uniform for about three or four years when he was first elected, so he knows something about it. <BR /> <BR />The contribution from Mr McCrea really was of little value to the House. If he had wanted to make a proper contribution on amendment No 6, he should at least have tried to inform himself on its detail.”
“The Minister suggested that it was unusual for the DUP to look to the Irish Republic for a model, but I can assure the House that I will look anywhere in the world where I think there is an innovative approach to justice issues. If it is something that, I think, we can replicate in Northern Ireland, I will certainly give consideration to it. I will furnish the Member in the corner with that legislation as well. <BR /> <BR />The Member also made a rather bizarre intervention in which he tried to envisage a scene from 'Cool Hand Luke' in which there were people in chain gangs having to do work in, I think he said, easily identifiable uniforms. Bringing it down to that level adds little value to the debate.”
“The amendment is offered because the Probation Board has said that it is something that, it thinks, would be valuable in the future. <BR /> <BR />The second document that I draw the Member's attention to is a report of the Thornton Hall project review group, which is also available on the Internet. Again, it is not some sort of secret document. It goes into some detail about the Irish scheme, which is called earned temporary release into community service. The report talks about the reason that you would have such a scheme. It goes into detail on what the scheme would look like and some of the conditions that would be attached to it. I will furnish the Member with that as well. <BR /> <BR />The third document is the legislation in the Irish Republic.”
“I draw his attention to three documents, the first of which is the Hansard report of the meeting that we had with officials on the issue. It is not some sort of secret document; it is on the Internet and is available in the Library, should he have wished to consider the matter further. I draw that to the Member's attention, and I will furnish him with the documents after the debate, if he wishes. I draw his and perhaps other Members' attention to a part of the transcript in which we dealt specifically with the Probation Board. Mr Doran, responding to a question that I put to him about the requirement for some sort of community service, said:”
“It is important that we consult the people who know what they are doing. The point that he tried to make on amendment No 7 was that we should not interfere with the judiciary because they know better than we do: why does he not see the same merit in amendment No 6, through which we will talk to the Probation Board because it has on it the people who know best and are there to monitor offenders? I think it entirely appropriate that the Minister and Department consult the Probation Board to ensure that the conditions of any early release are absolutely watertight. <BR /> <BR />The Member also said when addressing amendment No 7 that we should not be prescriptive yet criticised the lack of prescription in amendment No 6. That is not particularly consistent. He then said that he did not know anything about the amendment and what it would do.”
“There is an old saying that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, and Mr McCrea certainly tried to demonstrate his little knowledge when it came to amendment No 6 and, of course, in other contributions that he made during interventions. He said that the amendment did not do very much. At present, there is a gap under article 19 of the Criminal Justice Order 2008. There is no provision in it for the Department or the Probation Board to ensure that somebody who is released early from prison has to do something productive. That is why the amendment was tabled, and, rather than doing very little, it is a significant change that informed Members have supported this evening. He talked about a lack of detail on what it actually does. He mentioned the need to consult the Probation Board and asked "Why?".”
“That is the very point that we are trying to make with this amendment: it is a way of transitioning offenders back into normal life in a way that is managed by the Probation Board and allowing offenders to repay their debt to society in a meaningful way. He then went on to discuss some of the other articles of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. Article 26 is about curfew and article 30 about recall. It was the discussion that we had on those articles that inspired the amendment in the first instance. <BR /> <BR />We then had a contribution from Mr McCrea in the corner.”
“He talked it being a restorative approach, and I think that it is probably right to ensure that the end of a sentence can be carried out in the community, but still paying back that debt to society and still seeing out the full term of the sentence, which is important. He talked about the need for collaboration; that is hugely important no matter what we do. In this instance, we need to see collaboration between the Department, the Probation Board and the Prison Service, and that is exactly the type of model that I will be proposing. <BR /> <BR />Mr Sammy Douglas talked about the strict licence conditions and how we should get low-risk offenders back into society by transitioning them.”
“He said that it was a positive contribution and he talked about the need for examining alternatives and different means of punishment and sentencing. In the justice seminars that we have been running over the last number of months, the idea of looking for suitable diversions, if the offence is of a low enough magnitude, has been discussed. Alternatives to prison are something that may be appropriate for very low-level, first-time offenders. It is an interesting area that, undoubtedly, the Justice Committee will look at again in the future: what works best for outcomes and what is most cost-effective for the taxpayer as well. <BR /> <BR />Mr Dickson, in his support, talked about the early release conditions, and that is something that we will have to work out.”
“I think that Members across the House want to see that to ensure that there is rehabilitation, as well as punishment, for offenders. Alban Maginness also spoke in support of the amendment and talked about the opportunity that there is for employment. That is a point that Mr Douglas made as well. What we want to see is people who have served their time in prison being able to get out and go into meaningful employment. None of us wants to see them living on welfare at the taxpayers' expense. We want to see them be productive, turn their lives around and get into work. That is something that Members across the House support. <BR /> <BR />Mr Elliott called the amendment "interesting", which always gives me a little bit of concern, but I think that he was generally supportive.”
“In my opening comments, I said that I was always cautious around minimum sentencing, but I will make this point: some of those who waxed lyrical today about opposing minimum mandatory sentences on principle should, perhaps, be invited to examine their own voting records on other Bills, just to see whether they have been entirely consistent in their approach. <BR /> <BR />I move on to address some of the comments made on amendment No 6, which is the amendment in my name. The Deputy Chair, Raymond McCartney, gave his support to amendment No 6, for which I am grateful. He talked about the amendment being required to fill the gap that there is in allowing for community service. He talked about it being productive in allowing for rehabilitation.”
“Just to save the blushes of Mr Allister, in his contribution, Mr Elliott got somewhat confused between the Member for East Antrim and the Member for North Antrim, but I think that we all understood what he meant nevertheless. <BR /> <BR />I do not intend to respond to all the points that have been made by Members in relation to amendment No 7, not least because a petition of concern has been lodged against it, and also because Mr Givan has adequately addressed some of the criticisms that have been made against it. All I will say is this.”
“The Member may view it as a minor change, but, actually, it is a significant change. It is something that the Probation Board wants to see, and that is why it is important that it works up the detail of the amendment with the Minister. It is also something that I think can benefit wider society, and certainly benefit those of us who wish to see reoffenders be rehabilitated.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Perhaps if he had still been a member of the Justice Committee he would understand better that article 19 of the Criminal Justice Order currently gives the power to the Minister. The Minister at present is able to allow prisoners out on early release from prison. He has this power at present, without any recourse to the Committee or to the Assembly. Most Members who are coming at this amendment from an educated position have appreciated that there is a gap in the legislation. That gap is being filled by an amendment that will allow the Minister to ensure that people who get early release from prison still serve out the remainder of their sentence in a more productive way, whether that be through community service or through getting paid employment, as some Members pointed out.”
“I am sure that the Minister would commit to consulting with the Committee as the detail of this is worked out. However, I think that the principle of this is something that everybody should be able to support.”
“I thank the Member. He is explaining very well the rationale behind the amendment and its importance to someone who has been released from prison. We are talking about very low-level people who have had model behaviour in prison but who have the opportunity to turn their lives around and contribute to society. He is absolutely right on that point. <BR /> <BR />The other point is that the flexibility that the amendment offers is important. It allows the Probation Board, which is ultimately the organisation that is responsible for monitoring offenders, to work with the Department to ensure that the detail on this is adequate. I think that it is important that we allow the Probation Board, the Prison Service and the Department to work together to bring that forward.”
“It is my understanding that the district court would not be able to deal with these issues, so that would not be appropriate, but, as I said, the amendment is not in my name. Perhaps the individuals who tabled the amendment will wish to elaborate on that for Mr Allister. I have made general comments on it from my point of view, but I suspect that Mr Poots will address that in more detail when he moves the amendment in his name.”
“I will give way. I was just about to sit down.”
“It makes sure that there is some comfort for elderly members of the community who are very nervous about being attacked in their own home, and it sends out a strong message to those who would target the vulnerable that those issues are taken very seriously. It provides a framework for the judiciary as well. However, as I said, there is a petition of concern on it. That is unfortunate, but we will listen with interest to the contributions from Members explaining why they are opposed to it.”
“What is clear from the amendment is that it is almost like a starting point. The legislation on minimum sentences, including that in Great Britain, has a starting point. It is the legislature saying that, because of the type of offence that we are talking about, there is a public concern, and this is a sentence that the legislature thinks appropriate. However, I also firmly believe that there needs to be discretion for the judiciary to allow for certain circumstances, and that is the point that I made. For Members concerned about a minimum sentence, I think that the inclusion in the amendment of discretion for the courts is a responsible one that should ease concerns that there would not be such discretion. <BR /> <BR />A clear message is being sent out that we take attacks against the elderly very seriously.”
“That discretion means that a judge can take into consideration the personal circumstances of the alleged offender when handing down a sentence. In circumstances in which a person was abused by someone now over the age of 65, whom he confronts, leading to a physical alteration, the context of the altercation is fully taken into consideration. <BR /> <BR />I know that Members who tabled a petition of concern this evening will argue either that they are opposed to mandatory minimum sentences in principle or that they believe that seven years is too high, but I would have thought that they would at least acknowledge that Mr Poots and Mr Givan, in the wording of their amendment, have addressed the unintended consequences that could flow from the —”
“It is clear that, as public representatives, we have a responsibility to act on behalf of the wider community, and I have no doubt that most members of the public will support the motivation behind this amendment. However, I also respect the separation of powers, which respects the independence of the judiciary when determining appropriate sentences, and, for that reason, I am always cautious of the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences by a legislature. <BR /> <BR />This amendment, however, in many ways, seeks to find a middle ground between the expectations of the public and the independence of the judiciary. Most Members should at least acknowledge that this evening. Clause 89A(2) provides the discretion for the courts that I believe is fundamental to ensuring that justice is served. It states:”
“I am sure that all of us, at some stage in our work, have had to visit elderly constituents who have been attacked in their home or robbed on the street close to their home. Indeed, I recall visiting one elderly woman in Monkstown who had been mugged for only a few pounds and a gold necklace and was terrified to leave her home in case she was attacked again. The public are quite rightly outraged at this type of attack against vulnerable members of our community and want action taken against those who perpetrate such despicable acts. This undoubtedly motivated the two Members to bring forward their amendment. <BR /> <BR />I believe that violent offences should carry a heavy sentence, and anyone who attacks people incapable of defending themselves deserves to be put behind bars for a significant period.”
“There have been two levels of contact. First, in Committee, when officials briefed the Committee, and I raised the issue with them directly — they said that they were interested and were certainly supportive of a move towards a scheme similar to that in the Irish Republic — and, secondly, informally, through discussions that I have had with members of the Probation Board, who also support it. The Minister is also generally supportive, although it would take time to work out some of the detail. Those whom I have spoken to about this scheme have been very supportive. <BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 7, in the names of my colleagues, which deals with violent offences against older people. I am aware that a petition of concern has been lodged against this.”
“Whilst reducing the prison population should not be the primary motivation, there could be modest cost savings from the scheme. I appeal to the House to support amendment No 6 to ensure public confidence in the requirement for prisoners who are eligible for early release to see out their sentence in the form of community service and to help to transition low-risk offenders into the general population.”
“That report, amongst other things, noted the powers of the Irish Government to release a prisoner early to reintegrate that prisoner into society and suggested that, as a positive step, the Justice Minister should introduce a form of earned temporary release with a requirement for community service to prepare prisoners for release on completion of their sentences. The introduction of community service orders, therefore, required an offender to perform an activity in the community, such as unpaid work, which allows offenders to repay their debt to society and to pursue reform, rehabilitation or reparation in the community. <BR /> <BR />Evidence suggests that this is a successful programme that reduces reoffending rates and is a more cost-effective way to rehabilitate offenders.”
“Conditional early release is not in itself a novel concept and is utilised in the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, in the Irish Republic. In fact, the model that I propose is similar to that operating in the Irish Republic. Officials here have already indicated that they and the Probation Board are keen to examine the possibility of introducing the scheme to Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Irish Republic's scheme came about following the report of the Thornton Hall project review group in July 2011.”
“First, I hope that it will ensure that those who are sentenced to a period in which they lose their liberty see out that sentence but, secondly, that it will allow for the end of their sentence to be in the form of a community service, with a graduated return to normal life. That not only ensures that those successful in getting conditional early release must still pay back their debt to society in a more meaningful way but transitions them into normal life and work and, importantly, ensures that the taxpayer does not have to keep them in prison unnecessarily.”
“Although the current law allows for prisoners who are deemed to be low risk, with excellent behaviour while in prison, to apply for early release, the way in which the order is currently drafted means that, although attendance at AA or anger management meetings can be applied, the Prison Service, the Department of Justice or the Probation Board cannot, as part of the early release scheme, compel individuals to see out the remainder of their sentence in a community service scheme or unpaid work programme. Although I am personally open to the idea of looking at alternatives to custodial sentences for low-level first-time offenders, I also believe that, if individuals are sentenced to a particular length of time, they should serve out that period. <BR /> <BR />I therefore offer amendment No 6 to the House in the hope that it does two things.”
“Whilst it is unlikely that the types of offences that we are envisaging under the scheme will have resulted in any direct victims as such, if the offender committed a crime in which there was an individual victim, that victim should be fully informed and, indeed, be part of the process. <BR /> <BR />Articles 26 and 30 of the order are commenced at the same time as article 19 and provide for individuals to be subject to a curfew and recall during the early release period.”
“That includes perpetrators of serious crimes such as violent or sexual offenders; those with terrorist convictions or who are in prison for an extended custodial sentence; a prisoner who is subject to a hospital order or a transfer direction under the Mental Health Order 1986; a prisoner who is liable for removal from the United Kingdom; or a prisoner who has been released on licence under the article and recalled subsequently during the currency of the sentence. However, if we are of the belief that prison serves the dual role of punishment and rehabilitation, we should recognise that, in limited circumstances, the Department may consider it appropriate to provide for a conditional early release of a prisoner.”
“<BR /> <BR />By way of background to my amendment, on 28 May, at my request, Department of Justice officials briefed the Committee on the commencement of articles 19, 20, 26 and 30 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008. That followed similar briefings received by the Committee back in February and May of 2012, at which Committee members considered the consequences of commencing the named articles. <BR /> <BR />Article 19 provides the Department with a wide-ranging discretionary power to release prisoners early if it were so minded, without the need for any recourse to the Assembly or the Justice Committee. I think that it is prudent to establish that the bar is set very high for those prisoners who would meet the criteria and that any prisoner who is in any way a risk to society will not be eligible.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I have said many times before, just as the global downturn forced private-sector organisations to improve their levels of efficiency and look at doing things differently to ensure that outcomes improve, so too should government and the public sector use the environment of public-spending reductions as a springboard for reform and innovative approaches to policy. I am keen to look at how we can deliver better outcomes in justice through being more cost-effective, ensuring that rehabilitation reduces the chance of reoffending and ensuring that victims and the general public are content that offenders are punished appropriately for the crimes that they commit.”