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 7 of 22.
“<BR /> <BR />There are a number of amendments tabled by the Minister that emanate from the Committee's opposition to clause 288. Those are amendment Nos 69, 379-388, 404 and 405. The Committee has given notice that it is opposed to clause 288. The Minister has also given notice that he opposes clause 288, and I welcome the fact that he has agreed to adopt that position. As he said, clause 288 gives the Department the power to amend or modify by way of secondary legislation any primary legislation in connection with the Bill. To be clear, that means that it could make amendments to the Bill itself when enacted or to any other primary legislation, and not through, for example, a miscellaneous provisions Bill but through regulations. <BR /> <BR />In the Committee’s view, such powers could not be justified.”
“The Committee was not convinced by the argument that somehow people in Northern Ireland would be thrown by the term "independent mental capacity advocate" because it is also used in English legislation in a slightly different way. Health and Social Care staff in Northern Ireland will operate according to this Bill and not in accordance with the English legislation, and it would be likely that a very small number of staff would even be aware of the terminology used in the English system. The Department eventually came round to the Committee’s view and agreed to bring forward a raft of amendments to rename "independent advocates" as "independent mental capacity advocates" throughout the Bill. The Committee therefore supports all those amendments.”
“Looking at that evidence, it was clear that some organisations misunderstood the role of the independent advocate in the legislation. Some stakeholders were of the impression that independent advocates provided for by the Bill play a part in giving general support to people who lack capacity, in assessing capacity, or in the best-interests decision-making process for all decisions, whether routine or serious. <BR /> <BR />The Committee asked the Department for its views on changing the terminology. Initially, the Department was opposed to the suggestion and contended that the term "independent mental capacity advocate" would cause confusion, because it is used in the English Mental Capacity Act 2005.”
“It argued that, given the extensive independent advocacy work already taking place in Northern Ireland — for example, for children in care and people with learning disabilities — there is a concern that the use of the phrase "independent advocate" in the Bill could lead to confusion about what is a very specific statutory role. The Law Centre further advised that in England, Wales and Scotland the equivalent term in legislation is "independent mental capacity advocate". It proposed that that would be a better term to use in the Bill in order to make it clear that a very specific kind of advocacy function is being carried out. <BR /> <BR />The Law Centre's view was backed up by the written evidence that the Committee received on the Bill.”
“A "relevant act" is defined as being one of the following: a deprivation of liberty; a requirement to attend a certain place to receive treatment with serious consequences; the imposition of a community residence requirement; or the provision of serious compulsory treatment. <BR /> <BR />In its evidence to the Committee, the Law Centre proposed that the term "independent advocate" should be changed to "independent mental capacity advocate" so that there is no confusion between general advocacy services and an advocate appointed under the Bill.”
“I think that the Minister used more numbers in that speech than in any speech that he made during his time as Finance Minister. That perhaps reflects the number of amendments tabled to the Bill. Again, I will not comment on all of them; rather, I will focus on those that were of most interest to the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 is the first of many amendments that will bring about a change of terminology throughout the Bill. Part 4 of the Bill deals with independent advocates. Under the Bill, people have a right to an independent advocate in certain circumstances, which are set out in clauses 35 and 36 and referred to as "relevant acts".”
“The Committee therefore agreed to bring forward its own 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. <BR /> <BR />I ask the House to support these amendments.”
“The Committee sought the Department's view on this proposed amendment. Its response, much like the Minister outlined earlier, was that the prevention of serious harm condition is a high bar that a decision maker must be satisfied is met before providing certain types of treatment. In the Department's view, that high bar is proportionate when a nominated person is objecting but not when the person themselves is resisting. The rationale is that the person's resistance could be unexpected or unrelated to the treatment itself. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was not convinced that that was a sound rationale. For example, it might be convenient to say that the person's resistance is due to some other factor and not the treatment that they are about to receive but that is a subjective judgement call.”
“The Law Centre was of the view that clause 22 should be amended so that the prevention of serious harm condition applies.”
“Under the Bill as drafted, a nominated person can object to a proposed treatment with serious consequences. In most cases, the nominated person would be a family member or carer. In those instances, the treatment can proceed only if the prevention of serious harm condition is met. That condition is that failure to provide the treatment would create a risk of serious harm to the individual in question or to other persons. However, if the individual who lacks capacity resists the treatment with serious consequences, that does not trigger the prevention of serious harm condition. The Law Centre had significant concerns about what it saw as that discrepancy. It argued that it is unfair that resistance from the person who was actually the subject of the treatment did not have the same weight as an objection from a nominated person.”
“The Department agreed to make such an amendment to require it to review the law on advance decisions and produce a report to be laid in the Assembly within three years of the Bill coming into operation. That is amendment No 331, and it has been welcomed by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />I will now turn to the Committee amendments in this group. Amendment Nos 18, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are Committee amendments and relate to clauses 21 and 22. Clauses 21 and 22 come under Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with additional safeguards for what is called "treatment with serious consequences". This is defined in clause 20 and broadly means treatment that causes the person serious pain, distress or side effects, is major surgery or has a serious impact on their day-to-day life.”
“For example, a range of issues would need careful consideration, such as whether advance decisions should be limited to refusal of a specific treatment or should allow for positive statements requesting a specific treatment; whether children and adults should be allowed to make advance decisions; and whether an advance decision could be confined to an already diagnosed condition or extended to a future condition or future circumstances. The Committee therefore agreed to ask the Department to bring forward an amendment to provide for a "review and report" clause, which would require the Department to review the law on advance decisions within a certain period from the Act becoming law and lay a report before the Assembly.”
“They then stated that public awareness raising, as part of the implementation phase of the Bill, might result in people being more aware of advance decisions and that that could generate more court cases. The Committee did not accept the notion that people being forced to take court cases because of a lack of clarity in the law was somehow a positive thing in that it would help to develop case law. In the Committee's view, that would be evidence of failure, not success. In addition, it would leave healthcare professionals and patients in a vulnerable and uncertain position, particularly in connection to advance decisions for mental health conditions. <BR /> <BR />The Committee acknowledged that not enough policy work has been done by the Department to allow the rules around advance decisions to be put in the Bill.”
“Officials advised that consultation on the Bill had demonstrated that there is not enough evidence or consensus to allow the rules around advance decisions to be set down in the Bill and that there are still key policy issues to be determined, such as, for example, whether the rules should be the same for all treatments or for people of all ages. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was concerned that an issue of such significance was going to be left to the courts to determine rather than the policy being developed by the Department and approved by the Assembly through the Bill. Members questioned the Department further on existing case law. Officials revealed that, in fact, there had been no cases on advance decisions to date in the courts in Northern Ireland.”
“One of its key points was that because the Mental Capacity Bill fuses mental health and mental capacity legislation, there could be a wider range of treatments covered by advance decisions than is the case in England and Wales. The courts have not yet considered those issues. In the Department's view, the courts should have the opportunity to develop common law rules further. The Department also suggested that it would be preferable to allow for greater public debate on advance decisions once the Bill is in operation rather than setting the rules in law at this point.”
“However, other stakeholders, such as the Northern Ireland Association of Social Workers and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, took the position that case law and the wider societal debate about advance decisions was still developing. They suggested that the code of practice should contain guidance on how advance decisions should be drafted. <BR /> <BR />The Committee explored the issues involved with the Department in some detail. We wanted to understand its rationale for relying on case law rather than using the Bill to provide clarity and direction on advance decisions. The Department's position was based on a number of arguments.”
“Stakeholders pointed out that, in contrast, advance decisions are codified in the English Mental Capacity Act 2005. The concerns about the Department's approach to advance decisions were flagged up by the Northern Ireland Association for Mental Health, the Commissioner for Older People, the Children's Law Centre, Compassion in Dying, the Medical Protection Society, Disability Action and the Alzheimer's Society. For example, Compassion in Dying was concerned that the Bill has the potential to create confusion for people who would like to plan ahead for their future treatment in the event of loss of capacity; and for healthcare professionals who may be faced with an advance decision but are unsure as to whether it is "effective" and are therefore unsure of their obligations to respect it.”
“that has been made by the patient. A range of stakeholders was concerned that, whilst clause 11 recognises effective advance decisions, it does not set out the rules for what constitutes an effective advance decision or how people can go about making one. Instead, the Department is leaving those issues to common law.”
“Given that independent advocates are instructed only when the most serious interventions are proposed — those that will have a major impact on a person's life — the Committee felt that it was right and proper that the independence of the advocate should be without doubt. The Department accepted that rationale and tabled amendment No 82, which was also welcomed by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 331, tabled by the Minister, concerns one of the key issues that the Committee focused on during its scrutiny. Clause 11 deals with advance decisions and states that protection from liability does not apply if, for example, a doctor carries out treatment:”
“As drafted, clause 84(3) requires that the health and social care trust must have regard to the principle that the advocate must be independent of the person who proposes to do the act or give the treatment, so far as practicable. As the Minister mentioned, the Law Centre flagged its concern at the use of the phrase "so far as practicable" and suggested that it be removed from the clause for what the Committee viewed as very sound reasons. The Law Centre argued that independent should mean independent and that it should be entirely possible to appoint an advocate who is completely independent of the decision-maker.”
“It relates to clause 84 and the matter of independent advocates. Under the Bill, people have a right to an independent advocate in certain circumstances. These circumstances are set out in clauses 35 and 36 and are referred to as "relevant acts". A relevant act is defined as one of the following: deprivation of liberty; a requirement to attend a certain place to receive treatment with serious consequences; the imposition of a community residence requirement; or the provision of serious compulsory treatment. Therefore, it is clear that independent advocates have a role to play when people find themselves at a point in their life when serious decisions about their future treatment or care are to be made. <BR /> <BR />Clause 84 sets out the arrangements for instructing independent advocates.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 14 also came about as a result of Committee scrutiny. The RQIA and the Commissioner for Older People queried the way in which clause 18 was drafted as it implied that a second opinion could be made without a doctor being obliged to visit patients or obtain their medical records. The Committee agreed that the clause should make absolutely clear that both would be required in the course of producing a second opinion. The Department agreed to amend clause 18, and the Committee welcomes amendment No 14, which requires a medical practitioner to make at least one visit to a patient and to have made at least one request for their records before he or she can issue a certificate. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 82, tabled by the Minister, was also in response to an issue raised by the Committee.”
“However, some organisations believed that it could be strengthened further. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists was keen to ensure that the clause made clear that communication support must be given to those who require it. The Committee supported that view and asked the Department to consider amendments to address the issue. The Department tabled amendments to clauses 4 and 5, which are before us today as amendment Nos 1 and 2. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 makes clear in the Bill that help and support must be given to enable a person to communicate his or her decision. Amendment No 2 amplifies the point that help and support must be given to enable a person to communicate his or her decision, without affecting the generality of clause 5(2). Those amendments were welcomed by the Committee.”
“These are serious questions, and I am interested to hear the Minister's thoughts on the Bill's affordability as the debate progresses throughout the day. <BR /> <BR />I will now comment specifically on the first group of amendments. All the amendments in the group that were tabled by the Minister were supported by the Committee. Given the sheer number of ministerial amendments, I will not go into detail on every single one. Rather, I will focus my remarks on those that are, from the Committee's point of view, most significant. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 1 and 2, tabled by the Minister, relate to one of the key elements of the Bill, which is that people must be supported to make their own decisions wherever possible. Clause 5 sets out the steps that must be taken to allow that to happen. Stakeholders welcomed clause 5.”
“Therefore, the outworkings of the Bill would cost the Executive an additional £70 million each year, and every year going forward. If the Health and Justice Departments were required to find that money from their existing baseline, it would place significant pressure on both budgets. <BR /> <BR />Given the current financial climate and the likely financial climate over the four or five years, the question genuinely arises of whether Northern Ireland will be able to afford the implementation of this substantial legislation. If we cannot afford it, what happens then? Will we have passed legislation that could end up being out of date by the time that it is commenced five or 10 years down the line?”
“The introduction of the Bill will require a substantial change to practice and culture across the health and social care and justice sectors. Major change, which will necessitate staff training, additional staffing, an increased legal aid budget, the establishment and operation of a review tribunal and an Office of the Public Guardian, comes with a hefty price tag. The Departments have estimated that between £76 million and £84 million will be required for year 1 implementation costs and between £68 million and £76 million for recurrent costs on an annual basis.”
“First, the Department's decision to recognise but not codify advance decisions in the Bill and to leave it to common law; secondly, the Department's approach to the future role of enduring powers of attorney; thirdly, whether criminal justice disposals provided for in the Bill were sufficiently broad to deal with offenders who pose a risk of serious psychological harm to others; and, fourthly, the extent of the powers in the Bill to allow the Department to amend primary legislation by means of secondary legislation. I will return to those issues later in the debate. <BR /> <BR />There was also the financial cost of the Bill, which I want to focus on for a few minutes before I turn my remarks to the detail of the amendments. There are major questions on how and when the legislation will be implemented.”
“I thank the Minister for his cooperative approach and for taking on board the Committee's views. I am sure that my Committee colleagues will support me in noting the good working relationship that was established between the Committee and the Bill teams, which were composed of officials from the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. Officials made themselves available to answer our queries, in writing and in person, when required. That certainly helped us to come to an agreed position on many issues in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Before I speak specifically about the amendments in the first group, I will provide a brief overview of the key issues that we identified as we went through the scrutiny process.”
“Towards the end of June, we also held a round-table evidence session with international experts and academics in the fields of mental health and mental capacity to provide us with another perspective on the key issues in the Bill. The Committee received 53 submissions in written evidence and, during September and October 2015, took oral evidence from a wide range of interested parties. The remainder of our time was spent deliberating on the Bill, including fairly detailed negotiations with the Department of Health on a number of clauses. <BR /> <BR />The Committee's scrutiny led to its recommending to the Department of Health that it make a number of significant amendments to the Bill. The majority of the recommendations have been accepted by the Minister and are reflected in the amendments that we are considering today.”
“It is important to note up front the complexity of the task that we faced in scrutinising a Bill that fuses 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. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the Ad Hoc Joint Committee was established in May. We considered the Bill each week until we reported on 25 January. It is a long Bill, comprising 295 clauses, which are divided into 15 Parts and 11 schedules. The Committee worked its way through the Bill, starting off with introductory briefings with the Departments during June.”
“They have maintained two distinct legislative frameworks. The closest that anywhere has come to contemplating the approach is Victoria, Australia. In 2012, it considered bringing together mental health law and mental capacity law and produced a report. It decided, however, not to proceed further and concluded that it was a matter for ongoing debate. Given that we are leading the world in this regard and that it is such groundbreaking legislation, one would imagine that every Member would want to speak. Given that very few Members will contribute, I suggest that that perhaps reflects the complexity and difficulty in getting your head round such a complex Bill.”
“Mental health law is broadly concerned with the reduction of the risks flowing from the mental disorder to the patient and to other people, whilst mental capacity law is designed to empower people to make decisions for themselves, whenever possible, and to protect people who lack capacity. <BR /> <BR />The key purpose of developing a single legislative framework to cover mental ill health and mental capacity is to attempt to reduce the stigma and inequalities that can sometimes flow from having specific mental health legislation. However, the production of such legislation is in no way a straightforward task, and, indeed, Northern Ireland is the only place in the world to attempt such an approach. England and Wales passed the Mental Capacity Act in 2005, for example, but it does not cover the treatment of mental illness.”
“I will endeavour to be as quick in getting through my speech as the Minister was. I speak on behalf of the Ad Hoc Joint Committee, which is the first Ad Hoc Joint Committee to be established by the Assembly. Its membership was drawn from the Health Committee and the Justice Committee. We began our work in May 2015, with the task of looking at the Committee Stage of the Mental Capacity Bill, which is, as the Minister acknowledged, one of the largest Bills to have ever come before the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that the background to the Bill is the Bamford review, which concluded in 2007 that, for the first time, there should be a single legislative framework to reform the existing mental health legislation and to introduce capacity legislation to Northern Ireland.”
“In December, the Committee agreed that it was content with the Department's proposal to bring forward the statutory rules required to bring the codes of practice into operation. At the meeting on 18 January 2016, the Committee noted that the Examiner of Statutory Rules had raised no issues with the technical aspect of the rules. The Committee therefore agreed to recommend that the statutory rules be affirmed by the Assembly, and it supports all three motions that have been laid.”
“The Department has consulted and kept the Committee updated on the development of the three codes of practice throughout the past year. <BR /> <BR />I will briefly highlight the Committee's consideration of those matters. In June 2015, the Department wrote to the Committee to outline its intention to hold a public consultation on the three draft codes of practice. At its meeting on 11 June, the Committee agreed that it was content for the consultation to take place and to consider the matter further when the results of the consultation were available. At the meeting on 19 November, the Committee noted the outcome of the consultation and agreed that it was content with the draft codes of practice, which it noted would bring the POCA regime up to date and into line with England, Wales and Scotland, subject to jurisdictional variations.”
“I will speak very briefly on behalf of the Committee. As the Minister has already outlined, the rules before us today will bring three distinct Northern Ireland codes of practice into the operation of powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The codes of practice will provide necessary guidance for constables and officers with responsibility in that area and specifically in relation to cash searches, investigations, and the search, seizure and detention of property. <BR /> <BR />At its meeting on 28 January, the Committee noted that the draft codes of practice form part of a wider POCA commencement programme and that the Department has been working closely with the Home Office in scrutinising proposed legislation, engaging in consultation and providing consent where required.”
“I have been listening intently to what the Member has been saying. Would he agree, however, that one of the dangers with some disclosure systems is that, when you have asked about your partner and the answer comes back that there is no record of complaints or convictions, you then falsely think that you are safe? That is the worst scenario for someone who is in legitimate danger. There is a real task in getting any disclosure system right.”
“The Committee, aware of the increasing incidence of this behaviour, wanted to table the amendment today and ensure that Northern Ireland people had the same protection as people in England and Wales. We believe that this is the opportunity to make sure that our law keeps pace, and, therefore, we ask the House to back the Committee amendment.”
“Sharing sexual images of themselves seems to be a cultural thing among young people. It is all too commonplace across schools, and children as young as 12, 13 and 14 are doing this. This is a real problem out there, and we need to make sure that we have the right legislation in place to ensure that people have confidence to come forward and that we can convict those who maliciously share this material. <BR /> <BR />When the Committee suggested the proposal to the Department, it indicated that, given time constraints and other pressing issues, it was not possible for it to give the appropriate policy consideration to include it in the Bill. The Department said that it intended to include the proposal in the policy consultation on a broader review of sexual offences.”
“The Committee believes that introducing a specific offence to deal with revenge porn will assist the police and the Public Prosecution Service in tackling this obnoxious crime. It will also send a clear message to potential perpetrators that such behaviour will not be tolerated, and, hopefully, it will provide some assurance to victims that this type of crime is being taken seriously by legislators and the law enforcement agencies. <BR /> <BR />I was pleased that the amendments were welcomed in the media yesterday by Nexus and by members of the legal profession who have done much work in the area. Unfortunately, it is an area that causes increasing concern to the legal community. I have spoken to solicitors who deal with similar issues, particularly those involving young people.”
“I am sure Members are aware of the distress, devastation and humiliation that is caused to victims when intimate photographs or films they have shared with another individual, often someone who at the time they trusted implicitly, are then shared widely, most often on the Internet, without their consent and with the intent of causing distress. <BR /> <BR />The Minister outlined the potential to bring prosecutions under existing legislation, but the difficulty is that, when that legislation was drafted, nobody envisaged the world that we live in today. We all now have smartphones capable of taking photographs and videos, all of which can be shared online almost instantly. Therefore, I think that the law needs to keep pace with technological changes and recognise the world that we live in today.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I indicated, the Committee recognises that times and technologies have changed and will continue to change. There is a need to adapt the legislation to meet those new challenges. It has therefore decided to table amendment Nos 53, 54 and 55 to create the new offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress. That offence already exists in England and Wales through the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and has been widely welcomed. Therefore, there are unlikely to be the same issues regarding unintended consequences. A person found guilty of such an offence will be liable on conviction by indictment to a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both and on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both.”
“The Minister of Justice, in correspondence to the Committee, asked us to support the inclusion of the proposals in a policy consultation for future legislative change to be undertaken by his Department as part of a wider review of related areas covering certain sexual offences and child protection, rather than bringing forward amendments as part of this Bill. Given the very limited time available in the context of the Bill, the Committee reluctantly agreed to adopt that approach, as we want to see these issues progressed as soon as possible. We have requested a briefing on the proposed departmental consultation at the earliest opportunity. I also ask the Minister to provide an assurance today that the consultation will be prioritised and any necessary legislative changes brought forward as early as possible in the next mandate.”
“Whilst all the organisations recognised the prevalence of online crime and the need to ensure appropriate measures are in place to tackle it robustly, they highlighted a range of issues on the proposals that, in their view, would require further detailed consideration. <BR /> <BR />The Justice Committee is very aware that the development of the Internet has created challenges for the criminal law. It believes that it is essential that the law responds and adapts to those challenges and that the law enforcement agencies are provided with appropriate and robust tools to tackle new and emerging types of criminal behaviour. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is supportive of the proposals but recognises that this is a complex area of law and that any changes will require careful consideration to ensure that there are no unintended consequences.”
“An individual who did so would commit a criminal offence unless they could prove that they did so with reasonable cause or lawful authority. In reasonable cause defences, the burden of proof would shift to the alleged offender. Mr Gamble highlighted that many people already think that this is an offence and expressed the view that, if an adult goes online and masquerades as someone below the age of 18 for the purposes of talking to or engaging with someone below 18, this question has to be posed: why would they do that? There is unlikely to be a lawful excuse or authority. <BR /> <BR />The Committee then took the views of the Department of Justice, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Public Prosecution Service and the Human Rights Commission to assist its consideration of the proposals.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second proposal related to an amendment to the Protection from Harassment Order 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 or the ability to create multiple online accounts to harass another person. Mr Gamble indicated that there were not a substantial number of individuals being prosecuted for such harassment despite, for example, the high number of people involved in trolling online, which, in his view, demonstrates that the law as currently configured is not working. <BR /> <BR />The third proposal would create a new law to prohibit an individual of 18 or above who masquerades as someone below that age and engages online with an individual whom they know or believe to be under the age of 18.”
“<BR /> <BR />The first proposed change related to amending current law so that a child or young person under the age of 18 who takes, makes, distributes or possesses a sexual image of themselves will commit no criminal offence unless it is done with malicious intent. Mr Gamble believes that the law as it stands and under which it is an offence for a person below the age of 18 to take, make, show, distribute or possess a sexual image of themselves discourages young people from coming forward quickly when they have shared such an image with another person and fear it may be shared with others for fear of prosecution. In his view, decriminalising that, unless it occurs with malicious intent, will encourage children who find themselves in circumstances of crisis to come forward to the relevant authorities.”
“As part of our work programme over the last year, the Committee held a hugely successful conference on "Justice in a Digital Age" back in October. We covered a wide range of issues, including cybercrime, social media and online protection and the legal response to changing technologies. A number of areas for possible legislative change were highlighted at that time on improving online protection, particularly as there was a focus on protecting children online. Following that conference, the Committee decided to give further consideration to three possible changes proposed by Jim Gamble, who was one of our speakers at the event, with a view to bringing forward amendments using this Bill as the vehicle. The Committee also decided to give consideration to creating a new offence to cover what is commonly referred to as revenge porn.”
“Of course, it is an awkward situation, in that Mr Frew has not had the opportunity to outline his amendment to the House yet. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to amendment Nos 53, 54 and 55, which the Committee for Justice tabled. Online crime is becoming more and more prevalent. The Committee has been considering whether current criminal law is equipped to deal with the new type and range of offences being committed or whether legislation needs to be changed and updated to provide the necessary tools for the police, the Public Prosecution Service and the courts to tackle these emerging threats properly.”
“When the Committee discussed the initial proposal with Lord Morrow, two issues were raised: the inclusion of other staff, including other front-line medical staff in accident and emergency departments, nursing staff, social workers undertaking home visits and members of voluntary organisations, such as Lagan Search and Rescue, which the Committee visited last year; and whether the proposal would protect paramedic staff if they were assaulted in an accident and emergency department or only when out on call. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was sympathetic to the intention of the proposal, and that early engagement allowed Mr Frew to taper his amendment to make it as fit for purpose as he possibly can. It is my expectation, therefore, that Members will want to support it.”