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 4 of 22.
“That has significantly strengthened the Bill and strikes a better balance between the rights of the person who lacks capacity and the rights of the public to be protected from those who pose a serious risk. <BR /> <BR />Another key amendment that came about through Committee discussion was on the use of restraining orders in cases where the individual is found unfit to plead. The law at present does not allow for a restraining order to be made in those circumstances, which the Committee believed was a loophole. The Department responded to that concern by bringing forward an amendment to allow the courts to sentence an individual to a restraining order where that individual has been found unfit to plead.”
“The Committee supported the view of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that the key issue was whether the harm was serious, irrespective of whether it was serious physical or serious psychological harm. <BR /> <BR />As a result of the Committee’s focus on the issue, the Department made a range of amendments to the Bill so that reference to "psychological harm" is inserted where appropriate, provided that it is of a serious nature. In effect, this means that the detention conditions for a public protection order include the potential of the individual to create a risk of serious physical or psychological harm to other persons.”
“The idea behind public protection orders is that, if these people pose a danger to the public, they cannot be released, even though they are not culpable for their actions. However, public protection orders can be used only if the detention conditions are met. In the Bill as introduced, the detention conditions required a risk of serious physical harm to other persons if the offender was not detained. <BR /> <BR />The Royal College of Psychiatrists advised the Committee that the criteria for making a public protection order might not be met in the case of a person found to have committed a rape that did not result in serious physical harm to the victim, the implication being that the person might be given an absolute discharge.”
“This amendment will provide reassurance to stakeholders who were concerned about how advance decisions were treated in the Bill, as it means that advance decisions remain a live policy issue in the Department and will be re-examined down the line. <BR /> <BR />Another set of amendments that deserves mention is that made to Part 10 as a result of the Committee’s scrutiny of public protection orders. One of the criminal justice provisions in the Bill is that public protection orders are being introduced for people judged not culpable enough at the time of committing an offence to be deserving of a prison sentence; for people who are unfit to plead; and for people who are guilty by reason of insanity.”
“The Department’s rationale for relying on common law was that there needed to be wider public debate and that key policy issues remained to be determined, such as whether the rules should be the same for all types of treatment. However, in response to the Committee’s concern that an issue of such significance would be left to the courts to determine, the Department proposed an amendment to provide for a review-and-report clause. <BR /> <BR />The Bill now contains a requirement for the Department to review the law on advance decisions and produce a report to be laid before the Assembly within three years of the Act coming into operation.”
“<BR /> <BR />I will now turn to amendments made by the Department at the request of the Committee. The Committee was concerned about how the Department was approaching the matter of advance decisions. Clause 11 recognises effective advance decisions, but it does not codify them. In other words, the Bill does not set out the rules on what constitutes effective advance decisions or how people can go about making them. Instead, the Department left those issues to common law. <BR /> <BR />The Committee’s view was that this reliance on common law had the potential to create confusion for people who wish to make an advance decision and for healthcare professionals.”
“The Committee supported these powers but agreed with the view expressed by many stakeholders that the use of a police station as a place of safety for young people should be the exception rather than the norm. The Committee therefore tabled an amendment to allow the close monitoring of that situation. The amendment requires the PSNI to record specific statistics on the use of place-of-safety powers in relation to young people and on their ultimate disposal. We were concerned that, if separate statistics were not collected on young people, there would be a risk that such statistics could not be routinely or easily sourced. The amendment was supported by the House and will allow the proper monitoring of how police powers of safety are used in relation to young people.”
“It therefore tabled amendments to require the prevention of harm condition to be met where a person resists treatment so that the same standard is required as when a nominated person objects to treatment. At Consideration Stage, the House supported these amendments, which provide an additional level of protection for the person who lacks capacity. <BR /> <BR />Another aspect of the Bill improved through Committee amendments relates to police powers to remove a person to a place of safety, which comes under Part 9. As introduced, the Bill permits the police to remove a person of any age to a hospital or police station in situations where the person is in need of immediate care or control and where failure to remove them would create a risk of serious harm to them or others.”
“I turn now to Committee amendments, and the Assembly supported proposals to strengthen the additional safeguards relating to treatment with serious consequences, which are dealt with in Part 2. The Bill as introduced allowed for the nominated person to object to any proposed treatment with serious consequences. In the event of such an objection, the treatment could proceed only if the prevention of serious harm condition was met. This condition is that the failure to provide treatment could create a risk of serious harm to the individual in question or a risk of serious physical harm to other persons. However, if the individual who lacks capacity resisted the treatment with serious consequences, that would not trigger the prevention of serious harm condition. The Committee was of the view that this represented a discrepancy in the Bill.”
“The Committee took the view that the more sensible approach would be to allow the current EPA system to run alongside the new lasting power of attorney system created by the Bill. We believed that that would provide people with more flexibility and accessibility in planning for their future needs. The Bill will now permit EPAs to be made. The Committee's view is that that has significantly strengthened the legislation and will help people to make preparations for how important decisions should be made when, unfortunately, they no longer have the capacity to make them.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee was concerned that that approach would significantly limit the options available to people who wished to plan for how decisions relating to their health, welfare and finances should be made when the time came when they were no longer able to make those decisions for themselves. We heard from stakeholders, including the Law Society, that there were serious drawbacks to a system that permitted only the making of lasting power of attorney and excluded the making of EPAs. <BR /> <BR />Experience from England and Wales has shown that making a lasting power of attorney is a lot more expensive than making an EPA, at around £700 compared with £100. That means, in effect, that a lasting power of attorney is simply not an affordable option for far too many people.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill has been significantly improved because of the amendments that the Ad Hoc Committee proposed and those that it persuaded the Department to bring forward. I thank the Minister for his cooperative approach and for taking on board the majority of the Committee's recommendations. <BR /> <BR />A number of amendments deserve mention because of their importance. The first issue relates to enduring power of attorney (EPA). As a result of the Committee's scrutiny, clause 110 was removed at Consideration Stage. That clause would have prevented further EPAs from being made once the legislation came into operation. As introduced, the Bill proposed that EPAs be replaced by a system of lasting power of attorney.”
“As Members will be aware, it has been in development for more than 10 years and emerged as one of the recommendations of the Bamford review, which concluded that there should be a single legislative framework to reform existing mental health legislation and to introduce capacity legislation to Northern Ireland for the first time. <BR /> <BR />This was a complex task, sometimes for simple minds. As the Minister said, Northern Ireland is the only place in the world to have undertaken this approach. The number of amendments made at Consideration Stage is evidence enough of the challenges associated with drafting such a wide-ranging and technically detailed Bill that cuts across the responsibilities of the two Departments.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, can I also add to those who are wishing you a happy retirement, lest I forget at the end of my speech? I trust that you will enjoy the freedom that that brings. <BR /> <BR />It is important to note that both Ministers responsible are now in the Chamber: The Health Minister was here, and the Justice Minister has now entered. That shows the unique nature of the Bill in that it was brought forward by the two Departments. That could have brought additional complexity to an already complex task, but the Departments and officials worked pretty well together. That was certainly the experience of the Committee. <BR /> <BR />On behalf of the Committee, I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill.”
“Ulster University has relocated much of its product to the city centre and will be very much part of the project and how it moves forward. I think particularly about the safety of students who will want to cycle to the campus or even walk from the surrounding area. Will that be part of the project developed by her Department?”
“I, too, congratulate the Minister on her term of office, not least because everybody else has, and I would not want to seem discourteous to her.”
“It is a great improvement on where we started off from and will make a difference to the lives of people in Northern Ireland.”
“There are pressures put on the Justice Minister that other Ministers do not face, and there has been a big impact on his life from such a difficult portfolio. Not always over the last six years have my party and he agreed, but I want to put on record that, during my time as Justice Chairperson, I found the Minister to be incredibly courteous. I think that we have demonstrated how, when Committee and Minister work together, we can improve legislation and bring about really positive change in Northern Ireland. I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do, or wherever he chooses to go, in the next 12 months. <BR /> <BR />I shall leave it at that. I look forward to listening to other Members' contributions. Again, I thank everybody involved in putting the Bill into the form that it is in.”
“He has made an invaluable contribution to the Committee over all his years on it. His knowledge of, and expertise in, the legal system has been of great value to all members. I want to put that on record. <BR /> <BR />I have enjoyed my time as Chairperson of the Committee over the last 15 months. We have played a very constructive role in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. We have, on a collegiate basis, come up with a number of absolutely achievable recommendations that we believe should be part of the next Programme for Government. It is particularly pleasing that we have managed to get a level of consensus in those areas. <BR /> <BR />I know that the Minister will not be seeking renomination in May. I think that he has one of the most difficult jobs in the Executive.”
“I put on record my thanks to my Deputy Chair and the other members of the Committee for the work that we have engaged in during my time as Chairman. I mention in particular Ms Bronwyn McGahan, who is standing down and not seeking re-election, and Mr Alban Maginness, who is retiring after a lengthy time as a public servant.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee has undertaken an impressive workload that has contributed to the development and improvement of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, not least through the recent report that we completed on justice in the 21st century, which makes a series of recommendations regarding innovative approaches that could be adopted in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister and his officials for working closely and constructively with the Committee during the passage of the Bill. On behalf of the Committee, I am pleased to support the Final Stage of the Justice (No. 2) Bill, and I commend it to the House. <BR /> <BR />This is the last occasion on which I will speak to the House as Chairman of the Justice Committee, certainly in this mandate.”
“The recent case of animal cruelty to a family pet, which Mr McCarthy mentioned in an intervention to the Minister, illustrates the necessity of the legislative changes that we have included in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I place on record again the appreciation of the Committee to all the organisations and stakeholders who contributed to the legislative process by taking the time to provide oral and written evidence at Committee Stage. I also thank Members for their diligence, commitment and scrutiny and for their contributions at Committee Stage.”
“The Committee looks forward to early progress being made on all those areas with the new Minister. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also welcomes the changes made to the firearms legislation, which have been long awaited by the key stakeholders. It also welcomes the increases to the statutory maximum penalties for a range of animal cruelty offences under the Welfare of Animals Act, which provide some of the toughest penalties for animal cruelty offences of any jurisdiction in these islands. We also welcome the enhanced protection for ambulance staff and paramedics responding to emergencies, for which I congratulate my colleague Mr Frew. The incident that occurred on 4 March in Ballycastle, when a paramedic was badly bitten, highlights the all too common dangers faced by paramedics when they attend calls.”
“Those measures would improve online protection for children and include an amendment to the current law so that children or young people under 18 who take, make, distribute or possess an image of themselves will commit no criminal offence unless it is done with malicious intent. <BR /> <BR />Another change would be an amendment to existing law, or the creation of a new law, to deal with the aggravated impact when an individual or individuals use the anonymity provided by the Internet and/or the ability to create multiple online accounts to harass another person. There could also be the creation of a new law to prohibit an individual of 18 or over from masquerading as someone below that age and engaging online with an individual whom they know or believe to be under the age of 18.”
“The new offence will assist the police and the Public Prosecution Service in tackling that obnoxious crime, send a clear message to perpetrators that such behaviour will not be tolerated and, hopefully, provide some reassurance to victims that that type of crime is being taken seriously by legislators. <BR /> <BR />That is an example of the Committee and the Assembly recognising emerging threats from changing technologies and moving quickly to ensure legislation is up to date and able to meet such challenges. We also appreciate the undertaking given by the Minister to consult on possible legislative changes considered by the Committee, following our very successful conference on justice in the digital age.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee also welcomes the fact that the Minister took on board its views regarding clauses such as clause 45 and indicated his intention at an early stage to remove that clause from the Bill and replace it with a power to make ancillary provisions under more restricted circumstances limited to the fine collection and enforcement provisions. He was supported by the Assembly in doing that. <BR /> <BR />Turning to the new provisions in the Bill, the Committee was particularly pleased to gain the support of the Assembly for its amendment that creates a new offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress, commonly known as revenge porn.”
“That proposal represents the problem-solving model of justice and should be helpful to the Department's stated aim of addressing offending behaviour and reducing reoffending. <BR /> <BR />The Bill also places the Prisoner Ombudsman on a statutory footing. The Committee's detailed scrutiny resulted in a range of issues being raised and discussed with the Department. The amendments that have been made that provide the Prisoner Ombudsman with the power to initiate investigations on his own volition and place a duty on the Minister of Justice to request that the ombudsman conduct an investigation in cases of near death have, in my view, strengthened the arrangements.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee has also recommended to the next Justice Committee that it should monitor the implementation of this legislation and, in particular, its impact, whether the expected benefits materialise, and the progress made by the Department to take forward the work in response to the Committee’s proposal to provide the court with powers to require offenders to satisfy a fine by undertaking appropriate courses to address the causes of offending behaviour, such as treatment for drug or alcohol addiction or mental health treatment as an alternative to supervised activity orders, which the Minister gave an undertaking to do at Consideration Stage and which he acknowledged had the potential to enhance the fine collection and enforcement arrangements.”
“<BR /> <BR />While concerns were raised about the potential impact of the options available to secure the payment of fines through deductions from benefits, attachment of earnings orders, interim bank account orders and bank account orders, and, in particular, the potential impact on dependants and families of fine defaulters, I believe that the Bill, as it stands today, has achieved an appropriate balance between providing methods of enforcing financial penalties and providing safeguards to mitigate any adverse impact and ensure sufficient protection for vulnerable individuals or dependants. The additional clarification given by the Minister at Consideration Stage should also reassure Members who continue to have concerns.”
“The anticipated benefits, as outlined by the Department to the Committee, include an increase in the current level of payment rates, savings in police resources, and a reduction in the committal rate to prison due to non-payment of fines with the resultant cost savings that that will bring.”
“On behalf of the Committee for Justice, I welcome the Final Stage of the Justice (No. 2) Bill. The Bill has undergone extensive and detailed scrutiny and debate, during both Committee Stage and the lengthy debate at Consideration Stage. That has resulted in a large number of amendments being made and a range of new provisions being added, which have improved and strengthened the legislation before us. <BR /> <BR />The Bill will bring about significant and long-awaited reform of the arrangements for the collection and enforcement of financial penalties. The Committee welcomes the improvements that, when the Bill is enacted, will no doubt make a major difference to the way that fines are collected and enforced in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, the new Committee for Justice will wish to look at the detail of the proposals, if the new Minister brings them forward. Does the Minister envisage any legislation being required as part of his package of proposals?”
“<BR /> <BR />Although I support the general thrust of what the Minister said, particularly some of the themes around the problem-solving model of justice, which the Committee has been keen on over the past year, I seek an assurance that we are principally talking about young people who have been accused of non-violent, low-level offending and that, if they do pose a threat to the community, they will be detained in the traditional way. <BR /> <BR />What input did victims have into the scoping study? What is the Minister's view of the likely effect on victims, given the proposal for the presumption in favour of bail until a case is dealt with? That could, of course, mean that victims run the risk of almost immediately coming into contact with those who allegedly committed an offence against them.”
“The Minister is right to highlight the fact that there is not political consensus around raising the age of criminal responsibility, although I suspect that there is growing consensus around the idea that we should, as far as practicable, keep young people out of the formal justice system, as all the evidence points to the increasing likelihood that they are entering the revolving door of the criminal justice system.”
“Thank you very much, and I appreciate all the comments.”
“Ms McGahan talked about domestic violence courts, where really important work is being done on innovative approaches involving video links, which ensure that vulnerable witnesses do not have to be in the courtroom. The problem-solving model ensures that the person who has made a complaint has a wrap-around service to make sure that they get to court and give their evidence, so that we get a greater number of convictions. <BR /> <BR />I conclude by thanking the Minister for his supportive comments. He mentioned the calibre of speaker. When we get Lord Justice Leveson, Lord Neuberger and people from Holland, London and New York involved, that shows that the Committee did credible and valuable work. I support the Minister in any of his efforts to shape the next Programme for Government and ensure that this work can be realised.”
“Someone who has wronged a community — perhaps through graffiti — can pay back the debt to the community. Of course, it works best where the victim is very much part of the outcome and is central to whatever the restorative programme looks like. Victim Support in Northern Ireland echoes those comments.”
“There are difficulties for a justice system in a global, borderless community, as it tries to track down where cybercrime emanates from and to encourage law enforcement agencies in parts of Africa or South America to follow up on leads given to them. <BR /> <BR />Safeguarding personal data is really important as well. We had really good contributions, from not just Jim Gamble but Wayne Denner, on online reputation, and Europol. Of course, the Committee brought forward an amendment to the Justice (No. 2) Bill on revenge porn, which goes some way to addressing a modern phenomenon that was not envisaged 10 years ago when some of the legislation that has been used was drafted. <BR /> <BR />Mr Lynch talked about the conference. He also talked about restorative justice. It has worked really well in America.”
“That is absolutely right. Without the support of the Lord Chief Justice, other senior members of the judiciary, barristers and solicitors, the community and voluntary sector, probation services and the police, our work would not have been accomplished. It is only through that collaborative approach that we will get concrete, evidence-based ideas that work and that people will support if we change DOJ policy. <BR /> <BR />He talked in particular about justice in the digital age — of course, there is a shift from traditional crime towards cybercrime or online crime — and the need to make sure that we are aware of our online safety. Our conference, which was hugely successful, looked at malware and spyware.”
“It is important to make sure that the two things are connected. That is important in all sections of the justice system but particularly in youth justice. The Member makes a very important point in that respect. There has been a learning process for many of us on the value of diversions and disposals. <BR /> <BR />He also talked about children in care. They, of course, would be keen to say that there is not a high proportion of children in care in contact with the justice system. However, it is important to recognise that a high proportion of people in the justice system come from a care background. That is something that we need to keep an eye on. <BR /> <BR />Mr Douglas said that it is an excellent report. He talked about the radical and informative work that was taken on. He mentioned the Lord Chief Justice and the role that he played.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Dickson said that the report will hopefully be a good legacy for the next Minister and Committee. That is absolutely right. We are keen to make sure that the next Committee, whatever its composition, picks up the work of our Committee and runs with it. There are many other areas in which it is important to investigate innovative approaches, and hopefully the next Minister will be as keen, and work as closely with us, as the current Minister. <BR /> <BR />He talked about the importance in youth justice of intervention in collaboration with family and schools. He talked about statutory time limits. That is really important. All the evidence shows that the time between the alleged offence and the individual coming into contact with a judge needs to be as short as possible.”
“That is what has happened successfully in Glasgow. <BR /> <BR />Mr Kennedy talked about community justice centres and made a pitch for Armagh. The Minister will know that I made a pitch for a similar idea in Ballymena. The idea is that, if you have to close traditional courts — hopefully many cases will be diverted away from them, which may well justify closing them — you can have community justice centres. Again, we saw examples of those in the United States. Justice centres are not just courts. They are not just about sentencing or punishing people. They are a one-stop shop for advice — legal, health and housing advice — and that ensured that communities hostile to the justice system came to see it as being on their side. That is where the potential lies in developing community justice centres.”
“Indeed, in the Glasgow experience, they had a meeting, before the defendant would appear in front of the judge, to look at progress, to see if they are turning up for their rehab, and to make sure that they are still returning negative drug tests. It was a very impressive set-up that they had in Glasgow. <BR /> <BR />He also mentioned the importance of judges looking sympathetically at that approach. Judges need to buy into it. We saw many personality-driven courts, particularly in the US. People might be encouraged to give a round of applause to those who have successfully graduated from a sentence. Then there is the example of Judge Ferdinand hugging the individual who passed a drug test. We will not see that sort of thing in our courtrooms, but we can adapt and modify it for our culture.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Kennedy also talked about the visits to the drugs courts and also mentioned the presentation that we had from Phil Bowen from the Centre for Justice Innovation. I think that that was a very useful presentation. Of course, anyone who has read some of the media coverage in Great Britain, over the last week, will have seen articles in 'The Times', 'The Guardian' and 'The Telegraph' on the benefits of problem-solving courts and how they can save the taxpayer money and improve outcomes as well. <BR /> <BR />Mr Kennedy talked about the holistic approach, and again that is something that impressed all of us who have looked at the drugs courts; in particular, around how social services, nurses and judges are all working in a collaborative way.”
“Of course, the impressive thing, as Mr Kennedy said as well, is the immediacy of all that: how an offender can be in front of a judge in the morning and, if found guilty, will be in a rehabilitation programme that evening or the next morning and will have to, during the process, repeatedly go in front of a judge and repeatedly take drug tests to ensure that they have stayed off the drugs. That is something that has impressed all of us. He was, of course, meant to spend his five minutes talking about excessive penalisation and spent only about 15 seconds on it; but we forgive him, given that it is towards the end of his Assembly career. The points that he made about excessive penalisation were absolutely valid.”
“I know that he will not be here, but I am sure that he will take an interest in how we develop some of these ideas. He spoke about the support from the Lord Chief Justice for problem-solving courts, and, of course, the Chief Constable of the PSNI, when he was in front of the Committee two weeks ago, also expressed support for this. It only works when you get support from the judiciary, law enforcement and politicians. It has been so successful in the United States because it has managed to get support from all those different areas. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness spoke in particular about the Brooklyn Treatment Court, Red Hook and Glasgow.”
“Perhaps unfairly, he said that Mr Maginness preferred law with a quill to some of the innovative ideas, but actually I think that he has been hugely beneficial in the role that he has played particularly in this innovation work but in all other matters as well. He quoted the president of the Supreme Court. It was great to have him over and for him to pay tribute to and take an interest in the work that we have been doing. He did not just talk to the Assembly on Thursday; he also has taken an interest in the work that we have done throughout the year, and I think that that became evident as we spoke to him during the night. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness talked about being creative in the criminal justice system and looking to the next mandate.”
“<BR /> <BR />Key to all that is judicial oversight and judicial sign-off at the end, to make sure that whatever agreement has been made is an equitable and fair one to both parties. That is part of the benefit of the system. It reduces the cost for the overall system and could reduce the cost of the legal aid budget, which is a benefit. I would say that, if we are moving this way, we want to buy in the technology rather than try to develop it ourselves. That is why, in Holland, it has such a low annual recurring cost. <BR /> <BR />The Minister paid tribute to Mr Maginness and his legal background.”
“Mr McCartney talked about the whole rationale for delivering better outcomes, and that is exactly what this is about. He talked about the access to justice review and Lord Justice Gillen's work. Of course, Lord Justice Gillen has talked about ODR being part of his review. He came along to and participated in the seminar that we had with Maurits Barendrecht from HiiL. He talked about the online dispute resolution system being a voluntary one, of course. The advantage of that system is that it supports the citizen through their justice journey. It empowers individuals to take that responsibility themselves, but, if they require help and support during that journey from trained legal staff, that support is there.”
“I begin by thanking Members for their kind comments to me. It turned into a bit of a love-in at times, but I concur fully with the positive remarks about the Committee staff in particular. It is somewhat unusual to get so much praise so close to an election, but actually, as the Minister has said, it is reflective of the fact that the Committee has dealt with some very difficult issues — potentially controversial issues — in a collaborative and non-partisan way. That is not just in the work that we have done on justice innovation but in many other areas. We have sought to take a collegiate response to things, and I think that that has worked incredibly well and made the Committee, as other Members have said, probably the best-functioning Committee in the House. <BR /> <BR />I will touch on some of the comments made by Members.”