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 5 of 22.
“<BR /> <BR />I conclude by sincerely thanking all of those who helped the Committee over the past year; all of the stakeholders who attended and contributed to our seminars; all of the speakers who led discussions; the Committee staff, who organised visits and workshops; and the members of the Justice Committee, who embraced the concept of building a smarter, more innovative justice system and genuinely approached this work in a collaborative and non-political manner. I commend the report to the House and look forward to hearing Members' contributions.”
“We believe that these important suggestions would reduce costs to the taxpayer and improve outcomes. They will improve outcomes for wider society, which will experience a drop in crime; for victims, who will feel that they are part of the process rather than a by-product of it; and for offenders, who will be given a genuine opportunity to turn their life around. We fully recognise that it will require the support of other Departments, such as the Department of Education but primarily, I suppose, the Department of Health. That is precisely why this commitment needs to be made now, before Departments are allocated and Ministers take up post.”
“That technology is already being used in the Netherlands and in Canada, and, in our view, there is no reason why we cannot seek to pilot something here, particularly given that the Civil Justice Council is looking to introduce something in England and Wales. We do not want to be left behind. <BR /> <BR />In his contribution to the series, the Attorney General posed questions on whether we were too often legislating to create new criminal offences for non-compliance with legislation, whether that is an effective enforcement method or whether administrative solutions would be more appropriate. <BR /> <BR />I genuinely hope that the next Programme for Government will include some of the ideas contained in the report. They are far from being pie-in-the-sky suggestions.”
“We examined body-worn cameras used by PSNI officers — something that could help collate evidence for domestic violence cases — and we considered how we could make it easier for the citizen to engage with the justice system, lodge a complaint or report a crime. <BR /> <BR />One other area of particular interest from the Committee's perspective was the potential for online dispute resolution (ODR). It is based on the model that is successfully used by eBay. The Committee heard from the Civil Justice Council in London and The Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law about the opportunity for ODR in a range of cases from low-value compensation claims right through to divorce proceedings.”
“That is precisely why, in the US, politicians of all shades from Rick Perry to Bernie Sanders support that approach and why law enforcement and public prosecutors are behind the shift away from the traditional approaches that have so spectacularly failed in the United States. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also examined how technology could help the justice system in the future, from digitising court papers to the use of video links for vulnerable or expert witnesses who are overseas or in a place of safety or those in custody who, traditionally, need to be escorted to court by up to four prison officers for an appearance that may last for only a few minutes.”
“All of the evidence suggests that it will not. The approach of problem-solving courts, as we saw at first hand in Brooklyn and Glasgow, is to, instead, offer that individual the opportunity to avoid jail if they commit to an intensive testing, supervision, rehabilitation and community service order. As long as the person stays off drugs, ceases to offend and attends rehab and community service sessions, they can avoid a custodial sentence. Far from being a soft option, that is a much tougher regime for people with addiction issues and with little or no discipline or routine in their life. <BR /> <BR />The important fact is that the problem-solving approach in justice works. It has been proven to reduce reoffending in the US and in Glasgow, and it is a less expensive option than sending people to prison for short periods.”
“<BR /> <BR />Problem-solving courts come in various guises, whether it be drugs courts, mental health courts, domestic violence courts, veterans courts or peer courts. We have seen something akin to a domestic violence court working in Londonderry, which, I think, Bronwyn will speak about later this evening. The Committee visited drugs courts run by Judge Ferdinand and Judge Calabrese in New York and Sheriff Wood in Glasgow to see the different approaches that were taken and examine their levels of success. <BR /> <BR />Take, for example, an individual who steals or commits crime in order to feed a drug habit. Will sending that person to prison for a short sentence, where they will still abuse their substance of choice behind prison walls, rehabilitate that person and prevent them offending again?”
“In Northern Ireland, we already have a positive story to tell with youth conferencing, but other areas, including greater collaboration with education and ensuring that cases are heard quickly after an alleged offence takes place, are critical in establishing the link between offending and facing up to the consequences of those actions. <BR /> <BR />Perhaps the area that the Committee was most enthusiastic about during our work was the concept of problem-solving courts. They work on the principle that, unless you tackle the underlying reason why someone offends, you cannot realistically expect reoffending rates to reduce. It also means that we move away from the notion that all offending requires a criminal justice response. Sometimes, when appropriate, a healthcare solution is not only far more appropriate but much more successful.”
“Individual Members will cover the various issues in detail, but I will briefly give an overview of some of the areas covered in the report. <BR /> <BR />We began our series with seminars led by the Lord Chief Justice, the Bar Council and the Law Society, all of whom explored youth justice initiatives. Whilst a range of options were discussed, common themes included a desire to, as far as possible, avoid sending low-level young offenders to prison and keep young people out of the formal criminal justice system, as the evidence suggests that this simply leads to them entering the revolving door of the criminal justice system.”
“I am not interested in that; instead, I want us all to get smart on crime and ensure that we have a smarter justice system that is quicker, fairer and more accessible and, ultimately, aims to protect the public, support victims and rehabilitate offenders. The last part is incredibly important. Most people view the criminal justice system as being simply about punishing those who do wrong, and, whilst punishment is undoubtedly a key component of a justice system, a smarter justice system is effective only if we achieve the right balance of punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. <BR /> <BR />The report laid before the Assembly today is, in my view, a comprehensive summary of the work we have undertaken and the proposals that we think will make a real difference to the lives of people living in Northern Ireland.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have personally observed court proceedings at all levels in Belfast and Londonderry, spoken to judges and shadowed solicitors and barristers, met organisations promoting justice innovation in New York, London and The Hague and observed innovative courts in Brooklyn and Glasgow. This collaborative and comprehensive approach paid dividends and ensured that everyone's voice and experience was heard, as we sought to come up with new policy ideas and approaches and explore what works and what does not. <BR /> <BR />It also required us, as politicians, to think differently. I have said many times that too often in justice issues are viewed as either being tough on crime or soft on crime.”
“That is precisely why the Committee for Justice decided to launch its innovation seminar series, exploring new evidence-based ideas and encouraging outcome-driven, innovative solutions to traditional problems in the criminal justice system. <BR /> <BR />I am delighted to say that over the past year we were supported in our work by the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues in the judiciary, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the PSNI and the Probation Board and by countless community and voluntary groups and organisations. We also hosted a hugely successful conference on justice in the digital age that explored the challenges and opportunities that modern technology presents to the criminal justice system.”
“On Thursday, the President of UK Supreme Court, Lord David Neuberger, addressed the final innovation seminar of this mandate. The fact that somebody of his stature travelled to Northern Ireland to participate demonstrates the credibility and regard with which our work was valued by those in the criminal justice sector. <BR /> <BR />Everyone in the Assembly understands that we live in a world where public expectation is higher than ever, yet the amount of money that Departments have to spend is reducing and is set to continue to fall over the next few years. There is therefore a clear incentive for us to do things differently not only to reduce costs but, importantly, to produce outcomes and delivery.”
“The Examiner of Statutory Rules also confirmed that he has no issues to raise on the technical aspects of the rule. At our meeting on 25 February, the Committee agreed to recommend that the statutory rule be affirmed by the Assembly and, therefore, supports the motion today.”
“This rule mainly contains technical amendments that reinstate certain provisions that were previously provided for prior to the commencement of the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 in April 2015. The amendments will restore a range of proceedings not covered under the scope of civil legal services and will bring them back into line with prior legislation. <BR /> <BR />In November 2015, the Committee noted the detail of the proposals and considered the statutory rule itself more recently at its meeting on 25 February. The Committee noted that the policy intention of the rule is to bring within its scope proceedings in a court of summary jurisdiction relating to declarations of parentage, applications for warrants of further detention and extensions of warrants of further detention.”
“The Department advised the Committee of its intention to bring forward further notification requirements in June 2015, and, after considering the detail of the additional notification requirements, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposal at its meeting on 2 July 2015. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered the statutory rule, which is required to bring the additional notification requirements into effect, at its meeting on 25 February 2016 and noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had confirmed that he had no issues to raise with regard to the technical aspects of the rule. The Committee agreed to recommend to the Assembly that the rule be approved, and, therefore, I support the motion proposed by the Minister today.”
“<BR /> <BR />As part of its consideration of the VOPO provisions, the Committee considered and was content with the information that an offender must provide to police when they first make a notification and the timescale within which they were required to provide that information. The Committee was also content with the delegated powers to allow the Department the flexibility to impose further notification requirements by order on the offender as might be considered appropriate at a future stage. It is those further notification requirements that are being considered by the Assembly today.”
“I will endeavour to be brief and will not rehearse the detail of the proposed statutory rule. However, I wish to remind Members of the Committee's consideration of the violent offences prevention orders during the deliberations on the Justice Bill during the last Assembly session. At that point, the Committee agreed that it was content with the policy intent in the Justice Bill to introduce VOPOs as an important tool to assist the criminal justice agencies in the management of risk from violent offending. The Committee acknowledged the benefit of the use of VOPOs as a preventative measure that would benefit both the offender, by helping to prevent the committal of further offences, and those affected by crime, by reducing the risk and the fear of crime.”
“At that meeting, the Department advised members that two aspects initially proposed in December — the extension of transitional protection portability to eligible fee-paid judicial office holders and the removal of negligence as a basis for forfeiture and set-off of pension — were not being taken forward due to slippage in the Ministry of Justice's timetable in introducing similar legislation. The Committee also noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules confirmed in his report, issued on 1 February 2016, that he had no issues to raise with regard to the technical aspects of the rule. <BR /> <BR />At our meeting on 18 February 2016, the Committee agreed to recommend that the statutory rule be affirmed by the Assembly and, therefore, supports the motion today.”
“I am pleased to speak very briefly on this motion today on behalf of the Committee for Justice. I see from the number of MLAs in the Chamber that this motion has generated quite a bit of excitement amongst our colleagues. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister outlined, the statutory rule before us today makes a technical amendment to existing rules for judicial pensions contained in the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015. It will ensure the protection of increases to guaranteed minimum pension after the abolition of contracting out, following the introduction of the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. <BR /> <BR />In December 2015, the Committee noted the detail of the proposed changes, and, more recently at the meeting on 18 February 2016, it considered the statutory rule itself.”
“Therefore, I have no comments to make on behalf of the Committee in that regard. <BR /> <BR />On that, I again put on record my thanks to the departmental officials from Health and Justice, who endeavoured to keep us up to date with any changes before the amendments were brought forward. I also thank the Minister for bringing the amendments forward.”
“The Bill as introduced set the age limit at persons aged 18 or over, and the Minister’s amendment changes that to those aged 16 or over. That was an issue that the Committee enquired into during the Committee Stage as we were not sure how restricting LPAs to people aged 18 and over sat with the remainder of the Bill, which, in general, applies to those aged 16 and over. During the Committee Stage, we were told that the issue was being considered by the Department of Finance and Personnel and, indeed, Members opposite brought amendments forward at Consideration Stage, but they did not choose to move them. I am glad that the Minister has now clarified the position in the House. <BR /> <BR />On the amendments that deal with judicial separation, that issue did not form any part of the Committee’s evidence or deliberations on the Bill.”
“The amendments provide more clarity and a better structure to that part of the Bill, and again are in line with the Committee’s position on that issue. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 10 is consequential to the Committee amendments agreed at Consideration Stage that require the PSNI to keep specific statistics on children and young people who have been detained under the police place of safety powers in Part 9 of the Bill. Amendment No 10 allows for the term "final disposals" to be defined in regulations. That, again, seems like a sensible suggestion and builds upon the Committee amendments that were agreed at Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 changes the age at which a person can make a lasting power of attorney.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 22 and 23 are consequential to the removal of clause 110 from the Bill, as proposed by the Committee at Consideration Stage. That removal means that enduring powers of attorney, or EPAs, as they are known, will continue to be available to people alongside the new lasting powers of attorney (LPA) system that is being created by the Bill. The amendments proposed by the Minister today are consequential to the decision made by the House at Consideration Stage to retain EPAs and are, therefore, in line with the Committee’s position. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 1, 2, and 3 are consequential to the Committee amendments agreed at Consideration Stage on the application of the prevention of serious harm condition to circumstances when the person who is to receive a particular treatment resists it.”
“The majority of the amendments are intended to tidy up and improve the drafting of the Committee amendments that were made at Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />The Department wrote to advise the Committee of the amendments it tabled on 1 March. However, we did not receive a similar letter on the amendments that were tabled on 2 March. In either case, given that the joint Ad Hoc Committee is no longer meeting, we have not formally considered the proposals and the text of the amendments. Therefore, I will simply note the amendments and provide some commentary on how they relate to the Committee’s position as set out in our report and during the debate at Consideration Stage.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee, which, of course, completed its scrutiny on 25 January. As the Minister indicated here this afternoon, the amendments are largely technical in nature, with the exception of amendment No 4, which changes the age at which someone can make a lasting power of attorney.”
“The Minister said that he was considering whether to make an announcement before the end of the mandate. Given that he has announced that he will not be the Education Minister post-May and that perhaps a different party might occupy that post, will any announcement made before the end of the mandate hold true after the election, or will schools such as Islandmagee in my constituency, which has been waiting patiently for over a decade for a new build, have any confidence that such an announcement will be followed through after May?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Perhaps I misunderstood the issue that Mr McMullan raised earlier. He may have been talking about the first responders who are out in cars with defibrillators and are working in rural areas, as opposed to those who use them in a leisure centre or somewhere like that. If that is the case, he has raised an interesting point about whether those individuals would also be covered, as they are effectively doing emergency call-outs as well. Maybe that is something that the Member wishes to comment on.”
“It is worth noting that, when the Committee talked about this issue, the discussion was about those who respond to emergency calls. Unfortunately, we have had media coverage of a number of incidents in which, particularly but not exclusively, young people stoned emergency vehicles as they responded to emergency situations. That is why it was felt that this was a prudent move in the Bill. We have not seen individuals coming under attack from local communities when they have been using defibrillators, so that may be a different issue. However, the Member raised the issue, and the Minister will perhaps want to respond to it.”
“I pay tribute to my colleague Mr Frew, who brought forward the amendment at the previous stage. The Minister always comments on the working relationship between the Committee and the Department. There is an example of where a positive and constructive amendment was brought forward. The work done between the Member and the Department was very good and has made sure that we get a resolution that everybody is satisfied with. <BR /> <BR />Finally, amendments 8 and 9 are consequential minor changes to ensure the long title of the Bill reflects the new provisions in it. <BR /> <BR />I will leave my comments there. I am happy to support all the amendments tabled.”
“In response to advice from the Office of the Attorney General, a new schedule 3A to make provision for providers of information society services, which is needed to give effect to clauses 51 to 53 of the Bill, will also be inserted. <BR /> <BR />I put on record my thanks to the officials, who have kept me informed of the process over the past number of weeks as they sought to tidy up the amendments. Indeed, they kept the Committee informed as well. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 makes a number of minor technical changes to clause 54, which creates an offence of assaulting and obstructing certain emergency workers, to ensure legislative clarity. The changes remove references to "obstruction", which is already covered under the Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006, and define the term "ambulance worker".”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 3, 4, 5 and 7 relate to clauses 51 to 53, which make provision for the new offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress — commonly referred to as "revenge porn" — brought forward by the Committee. The Minister indicated at Consideration Stage that some drafting amendments might be needed at Further Consideration Stage. The amendments, which the Committee is content with, will adjust the penalty available under clause 51(9)(b) for a summary conviction to make it consistent with other Northern Ireland hybrid offences. It will therefore provide for six months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee. As the Minister indicated, the group of amendments is largely technical in nature. The amendments are intended to tidy up and improve the drafting of some of the amendments that were made at Consideration Stage. The Department wrote advising the Committee of its proposed amendments back on 24 February. The Committee noted the proposals and the text of the amendments at its meeting last Thursday and had no issues to raise. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 1 and 2 are minor changes to clauses 35 and 39 to standardise the requirement for the Prison Ombudsman to inform police of a suspected criminal offence, which was supported by the Committee and the Assembly at Consideration Stage, across all the functions of the ombudsman.”
“I thank the Minister for a comprehensive answer. I am sure that she will agree that, with the Women's Rugby World Cup coming to these shores next summer and, indeed, the under-19 women's football championships, there is a real opportunity to get increased participation amongst young women and girls, in particular, in sport. What does the Minister intend to do in the run-up to that, and as a legacy of those events, to make sure that we get more females participating in sport, particularly rugby?”
“The Committee subsequently provided all MLAs with a copy of its report on the LCM, which was agreed at its meeting on 18 February. Therefore, I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />Following consideration of information provided by the Department on the results of the consultation on proposals to extend the powers of the CCRC, the Committee for Justice agreed that it was content with the Minister's proposal to extend its powers to enable it to obtain documents from private organisations and individuals, and for the legislative change to be made by way of an LCM. <BR /> <BR />The legislative consent memorandum in respect of the Bill was laid in the Assembly on 27 January 2016 and referred to the Committee for consideration on 28 January. At its meeting on 4 February, the Committee for Justice agreed that it was content to support the legislative consent motion in relation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill.”
“In view of the general support for the proposal, the Department indicated its intent to legislate for this change. <BR /> <BR />The Department later advised that the Ministry of Justice intended to bring forward the same legislative change in England and Wales through the Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill, introduced in the House of Commons by Mr William Wragg MP in June 2015. <BR /> <BR />The Department further indicated that, as it would be unable to make the change by way of an Assembly Bill before the end of this mandate, the Minister was seeking the Committee's formal agreement for the legislative consent motion mechanism to be used. That would enable the introduction of the relevant provisions in the same timescale as in England and Wales.”
“At that meeting, the commission provided examples that highlighted the difficulties it encountered due to its lack of powers in relation to the private sector. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Justice undertook a three-month public consultation on proposals to extend the powers of the CCRC with regard to the private sector in Northern Ireland, including proposed judicial safeguards. The Department reported to the Committee on 17 September 2015 on the results of its consultation, advising that the 10 responses received were largely supportive of the change and the proposed safeguards. The Committee noted that the Attorney General and the Information Commissioner raised issues regarding human rights and data protection respectively but that sufficient provisions to mitigate those concerns could be put in place.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee this afternoon. <BR /> <BR />As the Minister outlined, this legislation, introduced as a private Member's Bill at Westminster, will allow the Criminal Cases Review Commission to seek an order from the Crown Court requiring a person in the private sector to give the commission access to documents or other material in that person's possession or control. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly outline the Committee's consideration of the matter. The need for an extension to the commission's powers to obtain documents from private organisations and individuals, where it is reasonable to do so and under judicial oversight, was raised with the previous Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson by the commissioners in September 2014.”
“I thank the Minister for that answer. I encourage him to look at the current maintenance need in the area and get speedy progress on it. Specifically with regard to Abbeytown Square in the estate, what money has been spent there and what plans are there for development or schemes in that area?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I find it amusing that she is making all the arguments that I made at Second Stage of the private Member's Bill. Members of Sinn Féin argued against me at the time, and I remember some Members promoting the virtues of deemed and presumed consent at the time. I am glad that they have now examined the evidence, as I asked them to do. <BR /> <BR />I have no difficulty with what the Members are trying to do with their amendment, but perhaps they will look at it again in terms of the difference between promoting transplantation and promoting organ donation. It is organ donation that we need to promote; transplantation, obviously, comes afterwards. Obviously, you need to get the organs donated in the first place before you can do that. Perhaps the Member will consider that.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. This might seem like a very technical matter, but two Members have referred to diabetes being affected by sugar. Of course, there is type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes. It is important to put it on record that type 1 diabetes has nothing to do with the intake of sugar.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She is looking at the evidence; does she share my concern that the evidence actually suggests that a sugar tax would be a tax on the poor? Much evidence has backed that up. What we want to do is not to have additional taxes on people who can ill afford it.”
“That is what the argument comes down to, rather than what would be the easier way to enforce it.”
“I certainly agree that it is probably an easier way of doing it, if that is what you want to achieve, but the argument surely is not so much about whether anybody thinks it is a good idea to smoke in a car with children, or, indeed, whether anybody thinks it is a good idea to smoke full stop — I do not think that anybody does think that. The question is whether it is appropriate for government to legislate in what is a private sphere. The car is a private space. It is a private sphere, much like the home. Nobody is saying that it is a good idea to smoke around children in the home either, but it is accepted that it is a private space and that we do not legislate on it. In my view, the same, by extension, can be said about a private vehicle. It is a car, a private sphere, and we should not legislate in that area.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. One thing that people often talk about in the House is evidence-based policymaking. The Member seems to be suggesting that we make the policy with a lack of evidence just to be overly precautious. Is that not a little bit strange? There is no evidence to suggest that passive smoking from vaping — it is not smoke but water vapour — is damaging to somebody in the proximity. If we are looking at having evidence-based policymaking, surely we will not be looking to ban somebody from using an e-cigarette in a car. It does not seem to make logical sense.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He is right, of course, and, at the time, there was quite a debate. The distinction, however, is that that ban was about a public space; it was in the public sphere and involved public vehicles or council vehicles that could be shared with other people. This moves the debate into the private sphere — a private vehicle — and, some people would argue, ultimately impacts on a personal and parental decision. Nobody is saying that it is a good idea; in fact, it is stupid to smoke in a car carrying children. However, has the Member any concerns about starting to legislate for the private sphere? Can a distinction be made between a car and a small flat or a room in a house?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I understand and appreciate that research on e-cigarettes is still probably in its infancy, but, if the rationale for the amendment today is to protect children in a car from second-hand smoke, is there evidence that there is such a thing as second-hand inhalation from e-cigarettes or from vaping? My understanding is that there is not, and, if that is the case, what is the rationale for banning it? Is there not also a rationale that, if a parent is smoking on the way to pick up their child from school, and the smoke and carcinogens are in the fabric of the car, that does an equal amount of damage to the child once they get into the car than this amendment would actually do?”
“I appreciate what the Member is saying, but has she had any conversations with the Police Service of Northern Ireland about whether or not they would enforce this, given the comments that have been made by police forces in Great Britain?”
“I thank the Member for giving way and I totally concur on the dangers of passive smoking and why it is not a good idea. I want to ask two questions about the amendment. It would seem to suggest, by the way it is drafted, that other products such as nicotine patches, nicotine gum or even e-cigarettes would be contained within the provisions. Is that something that the Members intended or did not intend in the drafting of their amendment? Second, does the Member have any concerns about passing an amendment that the police may not enforce, given that a similar provision has been passed in Great Britain but the police have said that they will not enforce it?”