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 16 of 22.
“I noticed that Mrs Kelly spoke about how excited she was about the first group of amendments. Given that she is not here now, perhaps she does not find the second group quite as exciting. Perhaps she will make an appearance later on. <BR /> <BR />I will speak to amendment No 6 in my name and make some general comments on amendment No 7, which stands in the name of my colleagues Mr Poots and Mr Givan. As the Committee will know, since taking up post, I have been keen to examine how we can take a more innovative approach to justice, making the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland quicker, fairer and more accessible and, ultimately, one that makes us safer by protecting the public and rehabilitating criminals.”
“Members explored how both schemes would operate in practice and play a part in protection. We were also reassured that account has been taken of lessons learnt from the operation of such schemes in other jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 was not discussed at the Committee, although I am quite sure that Lord Morrow will say that it will make his great Bill even better by ensuring that charities that are registered in Great Britain will still be able to provide the services required. Perhaps it would be useful if the Minister would provide some clarity over whether that means that internationally based charities would also be able to provide similar services or whether it would be limited to those within the United Kingdom. <BR /> <BR />I will make no further comment and support the amendments in the group.”
“From its inquiry into the criminal justice services available to victims and witnesses, the Committee is fully aware of the concerns raised and the difficulties experienced by victims and witnesses in relation to having to give evidence twice. Members are therefore supportive of the principle of those amendments. Given that they are mutually exclusive, I assume that agreement can be reached about which will be moved at the end of the debate. <BR /> <BR />Finally, turning briefly to amendment No 5, which relates to child protection disclosures and the amendments that introduce domestic violence protection orders and notices, the Committee recently received from departmental officials and the Police Service of Northern Ireland a very useful briefing on the purpose and intent of both schemes.”
“<BR /> <BR />Moving on to amendment Nos 2 and 3, which have been brought forward by the Minister, and amendment No 4, which has been brought forward by Mr McCartney, these aim to provide additional protection to vulnerable victims and witnesses and avoid the necessity of them having to give evidence twice, following the Assembly's decision to retain of PIs. When the Committee considered the original proposals by the Department to abolish preliminary investigations and mixed committals, it noted that, while the proposals aimed to streamline the procedure for moving business from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court and were expected to result in some improvement in efficiency, the Department’s stated primary driver was to reduce the impact on vulnerable victims and witnesses.”
“<BR /> <BR />While I am sure that the Minister will not agree with me, I believe that the scrutiny the Committee brought to clause 86 and the debate that we initiated has been useful and, hopefully, will serve to ensure that all Departments fully consider the scope of the powers that they require and the justification for their inclusion in primary legislation rather than including provisions that provide very wide-ranging powers. I have no doubt that other Assembly Committees will pay much more attention to what are often termed "technical provisions" in Bills in the future.”
“The wording of amendment No 1 is significantly limited in scope and effect compared to the original clause 86. It also only relates to Part 1 of the Bill. On that basis, the Committee agreed that it is content with the amendment. When we were considering clause 86, members recognised that Part 1 was the area of the Bill that might require some minor amendments once the legislation was passed, given the volume of other legislation that is affected by the introduction of the single jurisdiction. Indeed, when officials attended to discuss clause 86, the Committee suggested that the Department should narrow its scope to cover only those parts of the Bill that it believed were most necessary. That is now the approach that seems to have been adopted by the Minister and the Department.”
“Part 1, which deals with single jurisdiction for County Courts and Magistrates’ Courts, covers a large number of pieces of legislation, some of which date back to the 1840s and, as the Minister has outlined, is the part of the Bill that the Department is most concerned may need minor amendments later on if relevant pieces of primary legislation are identified that have not been covered in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Minister stated that the intention was for an amendment to provide narrowly defined powers linked only to Part 1, and we agreed that if the Minister provided further information on the proposed amendment the Committee would meet to consider it. The Minister subsequently provided the rationale for and the text of the proposed amendment, and he attended the Committee on 9 June with his officials to discuss it with members.”
“First, I will address amendment No 1. The whole House will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that we had when we decided to remove what used to be called clause 86 from the Bill. Suffice it to say that the Committee’s rationale for its removal was accepted and supported by the entire House. I am sure that most Members will feel that it was a useful exercise of the Assembly's ability to question and scrutinise the power of the Executive. <BR /> <BR />Following Consideration Stage, the Minister requested a meeting with myself and the Deputy Chairman of the Committee to discuss the matter, at which he outlined his belief that some mechanism was required to deal with Part 1 of the Bill and mitigate the risk that losing clause 86 has created for the Department.”
“The Minister will be aware that the perception in the rural community is that the situation is getting worse. I appreciate the Minister saying that the relationship is good, and that is something that can be worked on. Does she believe that the existing structures for communication between rural communities and their local police force and, indeed, at a higher level are adequate to address the issue? Could any improvements be made to increase confidence in rural communities that the issue is being taken seriously by the police?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I know we are at Second Stage and are talking about broad principles, but, on a similar theme, an area that we, as a Committee, identified is that where a person is deemed to lack the capacity to make a decision that may then harm them, and is brought to a place of safety, that person has the right to seek legal advice. However, the assumption is that they will have regained their capacity in order to make that decision. The Committee may feel that it would be valuable for legal advice to be given as a matter of course as opposed to being something that people have to request. It very much relies on the individual having the capacity to take a decision that might be in their best interests.”
“We take seriously our responsibility to scrutinise what is the probably the most complex piece of legislation ever to come in front of the Assembly. Equally, we expect both Departments to work with us and to provide us with all the information that we require in order for us to produce our report on the Bill for the Assembly. Most of all, the whole House wants to hear whether there is a genuine possibility of getting the Bill into law, given the huge financial pressures that we are under at present and the estimated cost of enacting the legislation.”
“Others have come at the issue more in terms of the practical impact of under-16s who have mental health problems not being able to access certain safeguards that the Bill will provide for adults who lack capacity to make certain decisions. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Health has attempted to address some of those concerns by proposing a range of amendments to the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, which will still apply to under-16s. While some of the concerns may have been addressed, there is little doubt that this will continue to be a contentious issue as we move forward, and the Committee will look closely at the provisions in the Bill and how they impact on children and young people. <BR /> <BR />To conclude, the Committee does not underestimate the task that it has in front of it in the coming months.”
“Those types of practical outworkings of the Bill and how they will impact on the public will require the Committee's careful consideration, as will the higher-level concepts around the principles of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to children and young people. There are a range of concerns about how the Bill will impact on children under 16 and on young people aged 16 and 17. A range of organisations have questioned the fact that the majority of the provisions in the Bill will only apply to those aged 16 or over in terms of presumed capacity. Some people have suggested that a lower age could be used, although I think that it is fair to say there is no consensus on what that age would be. Some organisations that advocate a lower age have not made any specific proposals.”
“Organisations such as the Law Society, which held a very useful briefing in Parliament Buildings last Wednesday which I attended, have pointed out that the making of a lasting power of attorney could cost a person in the region of £500, compared to the £100 that it currently costs to make an enduring power of attorney. If the ability to make an enduring power of attorney is done away with as is proposed under the Bill, the fear is that people will be put off making a more expensive lasting power of attorney because of the cost. <BR /> <BR />The Law Society posed this question: why can we not offer people the choice of whether they wish to have an enduring power of attorney, which could be extended to health and well-being, or a lasting power of attorney, which is a more expensive model?”
“They have suggested that the focus on substituted decision-making and best interests in the Bill has the potential to impose discrimination against people with disabilities and advocate a move towards a legal capacity support model. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, right from the very start of the Bill, from Part 1, we, as a Committee, will consider a whole spectrum of views, ranging from those who wholeheartedly endorse the principles to those who have some reservations and those who oppose them outright. <BR /> <BR />There are also concerns coming forward from the legal community around the practical outworkings of the Bill in terms of things such as lasting powers of attorney, which will replace the enduring powers of attorney provisions.”
“However, in instances where it is determined that a person does not have the capacity to make their own decision about a matter, the principle of best interests governs the course of action that is decided on, on behalf of the person who lacks capacity. <BR /> <BR />The principles of the Bill are not without controversy, particularly around the concept of "best interests", which some stakeholders believe conveys an unhelpful sense of paternalism. Other stakeholders have referenced the emerging impact of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was ratified by the United Kingdom in 2009.”
“Will we end up rushing through a piece of legislation that could end up not being commenced until a number of years down the line, if at all? <BR /> <BR />I now want to address some of the key aspects of the Bill itself, beginning with the principles upon which it is based. The Bamford review recommended that any new legislation should be based on agreed principles, which should be explicitly stated on the face of the Bill. There were four principles outlined by Bamford; namely autonomy, justice, benefit and least harm. The Departments’ approach has been to take autonomy as the leading principle, in that the fundamental premise of the Bill is the presumption that all adults have capacity to make their own decisions unless the contrary is proven.”
“While the Committee will, of course, wish to challenge the robustness of those costings and whether they are accurate figures, it needs to be concerned at the order of magnitude we are talking about and whether that is where the Executive's priorities — and indeed where the Justice and Health priorities — will be in the next number of years. <BR /> <BR />Even the lower estimate of annual costs, at around £70 million, represents a significant pressure on the budgets of both Departments, which seems unattainable at this juncture. Given the current financial climate, and the likely financial climate in the next four to five years, the question genuinely arises as to whether Northern Ireland will be able to afford the implementation of this piece of legislation. If we cannot afford it, what happens?”
“The lack of detail, coupled with the fact that stakeholders have not had much time to examine the current draft Bill will, in turn, add to the task of the Committee in trying to come to a position on issues that really, to date, have been consulted on only in a very broad sense and at a very late stage in the day. <BR /> <BR />If we look beyond the detail of the Bill itself, there are major question marks around how and when this piece of legislation will be implemented. The Departments have estimated that between £75 million and £129 million is required in year 1, and between £68 million and £102 million for recurrent costs on an annual basis. I will repeat that: the outworkings of the Bill could cost the Executive an additional £100 million each and every year.”
“However, given that the first time stakeholders will have seen the detail of the clauses proposed to deal with the three key issues was last week, when the Bill was introduced, it could be anticipated that those will generate a lot of discussion and debate when we reach Committee Stage of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />There also appears to be an over-reliance on regulations and code of practice in the Bill. Those have not yet been consulted on and will be introduced through regulation, without the same level of scrutiny by the Committee or the Assembly and, of course, without the ability for the Committee or Assembly to amend. Given that other Bills have faced similar criticism of late, this is something that both Ministers may wish to consider.”
“Instead, the Department of Justice provided its proposed policy approach for those subject to the criminal justice system, covering the following three key areas: first, police powers to remove persons from a public place to a place of safety; secondly, court powers to impose healthcare disposals at remand and sentencing, or following a finding of unfitness to plead; and thirdly, the powers by which the Department of Justice can transfer prisoners for inpatient treatment in a hospital. <BR /> <BR />The Departments' analysis of the responses to the public consultation on those issues indicated a range of views, some supportive and some expressing reservations or opposition to particular proposals.”
“In May 2014, the Health and Justice Departments launched a public consultation providing draft clauses in relation to how the Bill will relate to civil society. Stakeholders therefore had the opportunity to make comments about specific clauses relating to things such as the principles of the Bill, protection from liability, safeguards, the role of independent advocates, lasting powers of attorney and so on. However, on the justice side, draft clauses were not provided as part of the public consultation.”
“While the Committee fully understands and accepts its scrutiny responsibilities, it is concerned about the short space of time it has been left with to complete its task. There are also concerns about the level of consultation that has taken place on some aspects of the Bill prior to its introduction to the Assembly.”
“I therefore think that it is a legitimate question whether the introduction of the Bill in this mandate was the preferred option for both Departments and whether it will result in the best outcomes for the legislative process. <BR /> <BR />However, as is often said in these parts, we are where we are, and the Bill has been introduced nine months before the end of the mandate. The Committee will need to report on it by the end of January at the very latest to allow the completion of the other legislative stages before dissolution. When we take out the recess periods, that allows only about four months for scrutiny of a Bill with, as the Minister said, 295 clauses and 11 schedules to it and that aims to create a legislative framework that is so complex and so controversial that the rest of the world has decided against doing it.”
“<BR /> <BR />Given the complexities of the issues, and the fact that there is nowhere else in the world where this type of legislation has already been introduced that we can look to as a model, there are genuine concerns around the timescales associated with the Bill. It has been introduced in the Assembly for scrutiny during the fifth year of what was originally to have been a four-year mandate. Since the start of this mandate, the timescales have continually slipped back. At one stage, the Health and Justice Committees were informed by their Departments that the Bill would be introduced no later than December 2013. We are now 18 months past that date.”
“The difficulty that it encountered was in coming to a position on whether having separate mental health legislation amounts to unjustifiable discrimination against people with a mental illness or whether it in fact constitutes a special measure for the benefit of people with a mental illness. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, it is important to note up front the complexity of the task that we are facing in fusing mental health and mental capacity legislation, given that it will bring about a fundamental change to the way in which people with a mental illness receive treatment. Indeed, it strikes me that the decision, made by the Health and Justice Ministers, to be the first in the world to try that approach might be described by Sir Humphrey Appleby as a "very courageous decision, Minister".”
“For example, while England brought in the Mental Capacity Act in 2005, it does not cover the treatment of mental illness. England has maintained two distinct legislative frameworks. The closest that anywhere in the world has come to contemplating the approach that we are moving ahead with is in Victoria in Australia. Its legislature considered the issue of bringing together mental health law and mental capacity law in 2012 and produced a report on the issues. However, it decided not to proceed further and concluded that it was a matter for ongoing debate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mental health law is broadly concerned with the reduction of the risks flowing from mental disorder to the patient and other people, while mental capacity law is designed to empower people to make decisions for themselves wherever possible and to protect people who lack capacity. <BR /> <BR />The key purpose of developing a single legislative framework to cover both mental ill health and mental capacity is to attempt to reduce the stigma and inequalities that sometimes flow from having specific mental health legislation. However, the production of such legislation is in no way a straightforward task, and, as the Minister acknowledged, Northern Ireland is the only place in the world to attempt such an approach.”
“As the House is aware and the Minister has just said, the Ad Hoc Committee, comprising members of the Justice Committee and the Health Committee, has been established by the Assembly to consider the Mental Capacity Bill. The Committee has met on five occasions so far, and we began our work by taking introductory briefings from both Departments on the various aspects of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />As many Members will be aware, the background to the Bill is primarily the Bamford review, which, in 2007, concluded that there should be a single legislative framework to reform the existing mental health legislation and introduce capacity legislation to Northern Ireland for the first time.”
“These are substantial costs that are currently not budgeted for and that will, even at the lower end of the estimates, represent a significant pressure on the budgets of both Departments, both in the first year of implementation and then on a recurring basis. In my view, the magnitude of the cost is concerning, particularly given the pressures already being faced by both Health and Justice and the other competing priorities that they face. It would be remiss of me not to highlight that at this stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now want to speak very briefly as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee on the Mental Capacity Bill and highlight the cost that will need to be met if this Bill becomes law. We will have the Second Stage of that Bill tomorrow, and I hope that Members will significantly interrogate the costings that would be required if we were to pass it. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and the Department of Justice have estimated that somewhere between £75 million and £129 million will be required in the first year to implement the legislation, with the associated annual costs estimated at between £68 million and £102 million.”
“<BR /> <BR />Other examples include reductions in staff in youth justice services, and the operational capacity of the Probation Board is being affected, which will have a direct impact on its delivery of front-line services including the supervision and monitoring of offenders. <BR /> <BR />The Justice Department is facing substantial budgetary pressures during 2015-16 that will have to be carefully managed to ensure that key priorities and targets continue to be delivered to the required standard. As I said earlier, this does, however, provide a driver and a challenge to look at doing things differently and more innovatively. The Committee intends to play a key role in doing just that.”
“A failure to find resolution to the legal aid issue will result in impacts on the funding for front-line areas such as the Prison Service, the Court Service and the Probation Board. <BR /> <BR />Turning very briefly to the Department's savings delivery plans, it is clear that a wide range of savings have had to be made, many of which will impact on the service provided to the public. One example is the relocation of the tribunal hearing centre to the Royal Courts of Justice. Given that the dedicated tribunal centre provided an informal environment for appellants who are often unrepresented and vulnerable and that the Royal Courts of Justice presents a very formal setting that is not in keeping with the original ethos of tribunals, this is far from ideal.”
“Despite the fact that the Department increased the baseline for the Legal Services Agency by using some of the Executive's 2015-16 allocation and implementing larger-scale reductions to other budget allocations, a legal aid pressure of approximately £20 million is already being forecast. The Minister of Justice, when he appeared at the Justice Committee meeting on 28 January, indicated that the key risk to the Department being able to live within its budget is legal aid spend. At that time, he stated that he would be proposing a range of further reforms to manage the pressures on an in-year basis, and it is clear that action is required to address the cost of legal aid on both a short-term and, crucially, a longer-term basis.”
“The creation of the Legal Services Agency and the associated transfer of staff from the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) to the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS), and the costs associated with the transfer of Youth Justice Agency staff to those two schemes, are also creating pressures, although the extent is not yet clear. There is also the potential for a very significant pressure in relation to fine default imprisonment, depending on the outcome of test cases which the Department has indicated it cannot fund within existing resources. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, yet again, the main pressure faced by the Department, even at this early stage of the financial year, centres on the cost of legal aid.”
“<BR /> <BR />While the Committee will carefully scrutinise the Department’s budget and spending plans, as I have outlined, we also intend to identify possible new approaches that, if adopted, could assist in delivering efficiencies in both the short term and, crucially, the longer term. <BR /> <BR />Specific in-year pressures that have already been identified by the Department include a range of potential pressures in relation to pensions, including increased employer contribution rates for the main unfunded public service pension schemes from April 2015, for which the Department intends to bid for £7·4 million in the June monitoring round.”
“The Committee is also considering initiatives being taken forward in other jurisdictions and will undertake a visit to London before summer recess to meet the Lord Chief Justice, the Centre for Justice Innovation, the Civil Justice Council and Sir Brian Leveson, who has completed a review of efficiency in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. The purpose of the visit is to explore innovative ways to speed up the justice system and make it more efficient through increased use of digitisation in areas such as court listings, online courts and online dispute resolution. The Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland has welcomed the approach that the Committee has taken in these areas.”
“Three more will take place in the autumn, covering early intervention projects and other initiatives that we believe could be implemented here in Northern Ireland. The seminars bring together key representatives in the justice system — the judiciary, the PSNI, the Department, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency, the legal professions and, of course, voluntary organisations — to discuss areas for improvement and new initiatives. We, as a Committee, intend to assess the information gathered and identify ideas and new ways of working that could be implemented in the justice system here to deliver more efficient services whilst maintaining the standards that we require.”
“<BR /> <BR />Whilst it is clearly difficult to live within reducing budgets, the Finance Minister will know from her previous role that, much in the same way that the private sector used the financial downturn to make its businesses more efficient and look for innovative ways in which to do things so that they are in better shape coming out the other end, reductions in public spending should be used by government as a springboard for change. We should look at how we do things and whether new, innovative approaches could be brought forward to save money and improve outcomes for service users. <BR /> <BR />That is why I instigated a series of Justice Committee seminars that looked at approaches that could be adopted here in Northern Ireland. The first three seminars that we hosted focused on youth justice issues.”
“I previously highlighted the Committee's concerns regarding an approach to cutting spending that does not include a cost-benefit analysis or an analysis of the impact on and cost to other areas of the criminal justice system or other Departments, such as Health. The Committee still has concerns that, by reducing funding to projects that aim to prevent offending and rehabilitate offenders, such as those provided by NIACRO and other voluntary organisations, it will increase costs in the longer term for not just the police but the Courts and Tribunals Service and, ultimately, the Prison Service, thus negating, at least in some part, any savings that may be made in the short term.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was also very concerned to learn from officials that Treasury has indicated that the £53 million that was intended to be carried over, under end-year flexibility, for the Desertcreat community safety training college is not available and that, assuming that the college goes ahead, the entire funding will have to come from the block grant. The Committee is of the view that, the sooner a decision is made on how and, indeed, whether it should proceed, the better for all concerned. <BR /> <BR />In respect of the 2015-16 Budget and some of the key pressures that the Department of Justice is facing, the Minister has had to prioritise funding allocations to protect the delivery of front-line services. The result is severely reduced budgets in many areas of the Department.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee fully expects the Department to work more closely with the PSNI during this financial year to ensure that there is transparency and adequate information around its budget, which accounts for over 60% of the overall Justice budget, and spending plans to identify any emerging pressures or easements so that action can be taken to quickly address those issues. The Committee has also advised officials that the Department must proactively identify and manage all emerging underspends to ensure that the budget allocated is fully utilised to support the delivery of its objectives and priorities.”
“Whilst there are a number of explanations for the underspend, including legal aid challenges, the cost of which did not materialise during the 2014-15 financial year, and the actions that the PSNI has taken to reduce costs, which focus on planning for the longer term, it is disappointing that such underspends occur and were not identified and declared earlier to enable the money to be used, if not by the PSNI then elsewhere, particularly when there are clear budgetary pressures on front-line services in other parts of the Department.”
“In relation to the 2014-15 provisional out-turn, the Department's non-ring-fenced resource DEL underspend of £18·3 million represents 1·7% of the budget, or 0·9 % if PSNI underspend is excluded. The capital underspend of £4·9 million represents 7·8% of the budget. <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed the underspends with Department officials, particularly the PSNI underspend of £14·9 million, given the very clear budgetary pressures that the Police Service is facing, as were articulated not so long ago by the Chief Constable on a number of occasions.”
“The Minister had a reputation for pushing through reform in his previous role, and I hope that he will be able to continue that in this role. Given the constraints on public finances, more than ever we need to have innovative approaches to old problems. I ask him, in that vein, what assessment he makes of the approaches taken in Antrim Area Hospital, in the measures it is taking not only to reduce the pressure on the emergency department (ED) but to improve the patient experience when they go to the hospital.”
“Following discussion with the Minister and agreement with the Committee, the amendment is not moved.”
“Following discussion with the Minister and agreement with the Committee, the amendment is not moved.”
“It is important that we also put on record that those are important amendments; ones that we actually have agreement on in this group. It is disappointing that perhaps we did not lend enough time during the last few hours to discuss those important issues. <BR /> <BR />I suspect that, irrespective of what I say in my winding-up speech, nobody would change their mind on this issue. I suspect that everybody will vote in the way in which they intended when they came in. To move things forward, I think that it is probably best that we just proceed to the vote now.”
“At least, there seems to be agreement on something at last, after two hours. <BR /> <BR />Eleven Members have spoken in this debate. Most Members did moderate their language and spoke in a respectful way. Whilst I understand and acknowledge that amendment No 34 was clearly the big-ticket item within this group of amendments, I do think that it is disappointing that, with the exception of Mr Poots, nobody talked about some of the other amendments in this group. Amendment Nos 41, 42, 48 and 71 introduce safeguards for children living in Northern Ireland against sexting and grooming and ensuring that there is legislation in place to allow joint convictions of those who would potentially abuse children or vulnerable adults.”
“Given that it is 12.40 am, I suggest that no Member would thank me for a long-winded winding-up speech.”