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 8 of 22.
“The Health Minister advised the Committee that previous consideration had been given to the introduction of legislation that would create the specific offence of assaulting or impeding a healthcare worker whilst that worker was carrying out their duties and provide that anyone found guilty would be liable to possible imprisonment or a fine. He indicated that those considerations had identified a number of practical problems with such legislation, including the fact that it was already an offence to assault or abuse a health and social care worker, and the need to establish who would be covered by the legislation and in which physical locations the protection afforded would have effect. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew's amendment focuses on protecting persons employed in the provision of ambulance services while responding to emergency circumstances.”
“<BR /> <BR />Both the Department of Justice and the PPS outlined that, where there is evidence of an assault on an emergency worker, the PPS can prosecute under existing assault offences, and, where the victim was serving the public at the time, prosecutors will consider that as an aggravating factor when deciding whether, for example, an offender should be prosecuted in the Crown Court, where greater sentencing options are of course available. Attacks on public servants may also be treated as aggravating factors when passing sentence in such cases. The Judicial Studies Board for Northern Ireland's sentencing guidelines for the Magistrates' Court state:”
“<BR /> <BR />The approach taken by Mr Frew in the amendment differs from that which was originally proposed by Lord Morrow and goes some way to addressing some of the issues raised, particularly around the practical implications outlined by the PPS. There is, however, an argument about whether a specific offence is necessary and whether other staff who undertake front-line duties with the public should also be included. Perhaps that warrants further discussion.”
“I agree with him, and that is why I tried to invite Members who had amendments to the Committee. It allows the Committee to discuss and seek advice on them. <BR /> <BR />On Mr Frew's second amendment, let me say from the outset that the Committee fully appreciates the difficult and often dangerous work undertaken by the emergency services, including paramedics on the front line. We also recognise and are sympathetic to the intention of his amendment. It is fair to say, however, that it is a complicated area, and the Minister referred to that. A number of issues were raised in correspondence to the Committee from the Department of Justice, the Public Prosecution Service and, in particular, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.”
“His colleague Mr Dickson agreed. He asked:”
“I was grateful that Lord Morrow came to the Committee to explain the intention behind his amendment. Likewise, Mr McCrea had proposals for an amendment that he has not moved forward with. Whilst the Committee was not in agreement with what Mr McCrea proposed, I was grateful that at least he came along, explained it to us and took questions on it. It allowed us as a Committee to then ask the Department, the Police Service and the PPS whether it was workable and achievable. It helps us as a Committee when those amendments are brought to the House, and it allows the whole House to look at the Committee scrutiny. Of course, this issue has been raised previously, and I know that the Minister shares the Committee view. During a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill in 2013, he said:”
“I was grateful to Mrs Kelly for not moving her amendment at that time, and, if Mr Frew were similarly minded, it would benefit the Committee's scrutiny role. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has had an opportunity to consider the issues relating to amendment No 57, which creates an offence of assaulting or obstructing a person employed in the provision of ambulance services whilst they are responding to emergency situations. Lord Morrow had advised us of his intention to bring forward a similar amendment. We invited him along to the Committee to discuss that. <BR /> <BR />Over the past 14 or 15 months, since assuming my current role, if a Member has said that they intend to bring forward an amendment to the Justice Bill, I have afforded them the opportunity to come to the Committee.”
“If Mr Frew were agreeable, perhaps a better way of dealing with the issue would be to ensure that the Committee has an opportunity to look at the consultation responses and, as with the issue that Mrs Kelly raised during the passage of the previous Justice Bill, allow us to take evidence from organisations that represent victims of domestic violence and look at potential unintended consequences. <BR /> <BR />When Mrs Kelly made her proposals around Clare's law, there were some charities that were concerned that they could give women a false sense of security. For example, if a woman has a check done that finds that their partner is clear, they might think that they are not at risk, which is not always the case. Others see it very much as a way of empowering women to understand what their partner has been potentially convicted of.”
“That appears to be what Mr Frew is aiming to achieve with his amendment. <BR /> <BR />It is clear that there is growing frustration among Members about the length of time it is taking the Department of Justice and the Health Department to finalise, publish and implement a new domestic and sexual violence strategy. There are, therefore, opportunities being taken by Members in this Bill, as happened with the previous Justice Bill, to try to move ahead with particular issues, such as the offence that Mr Frew highlighted. <BR /> <BR />Given that there is no such specific offence, and it would make it clear that unacceptable behaviours such as those outlined in the amendment are criminal, I suspect that the Committee would have some sympathy with Mr Frew’s amendment.”
“The Committee has not had an opportunity to consider and reach a position on that, although I was grateful to Mr Frew for explaining the amendment at our Committee meeting last Thursday and for his offer to members who wanted more information to go to him. The Committee does, however, fully appreciate the need to address domestic violence in all its forms and provide the best protection possible to victims. <BR /> <BR />The Committee is aware that the Department is undertaking a consultation on the creation of a specific offence of domestic abuse that captures patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate relationships in line with the proposed new definition of domestic violence and abuse contained in the draft 'Stopping Domestic and Sexual Violence and Abuse' strategy document.”
“We have all received representations for changes to be made to the sentencing regime, either through the Committee or as individual MLAs. The Committee therefore welcomes and supports amendment No 52, which will increase the penalties available for such offences, thereby reflecting the serious nature of them and providing some of the toughest penalties for animal cruelty offences of any jurisdiction in these islands. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the domestic violence amendments, Mr Frew has tabled an amendment to introduce a new offence relating to controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee explored a range of issues with officials from the Department of Justice and DARD, including whether there are clear sentencing guidelines available for animal cruelty offences, whether the proposed amendments are adequate and will achieve the desired effect, and whether stronger enforcement measures are required considering the number and length of custodial sentences that have been handed down for cases brought under the 2011 Act. <BR /> <BR />Committee Members are very aware of the public concern about some of the sentences that have been handed down for convictions for animal welfare offences, particularly those involving extreme cases of animal cruelty, under the 2011 Act.”
“The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development welcomed the proposed increase in penalties but had ongoing concerns regarding enforcement and whether some individuals were circumventing the Act. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Justice indicated that the Minister had considered the proposed amendments in the context of the wider sentencing framework and the penalties available in neighbouring jurisdictions for animal welfare offences. It indicated that the Minister believed that increasing the maximum penalties in that way was appropriate and would send out a message that animal cruelty will not be tolerated. The Minister also agreed in principle to add animal cruelty offences to the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, which would further strengthen the law around animal cruelty.”
“<BR /> <BR />The changes have arisen from joint departmental work between Agriculture and Justice and the review of the implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011, following the Assembly debate on animal cruelty.”
“I will cover the amendments in the group tabled by the Minister of Justice and my colleague Paul Frew before setting out the detail of the Committee's amendments. <BR /> <BR />In relation to penalties for animal welfare offences, amendment No 52 will, as the Minister outlined, increase the statutory maximum penalties in the Welfare of Animals Act 2011. In November 2015, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development advised the Committee for Justice that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was intending to make these changes by way of amendments to the Justice (No. 2) Bill as, whilst it has policy responsibility for animal welfare, it did not have a suitable legislative vehicle to bring forward the amendments before the end of the mandate.”
“This will emphasise his independence and enable him to investigate if there appears to be a systematic problem. The Minister subsequently indicated that he would table amendments to provide for this. I know that Mr McCartney has also tabled an amendment on this, and I will be interested to hear the difference, as he sees it, between the two sets. <BR /> <BR />On other minor amendments, the Committee is also content with amendment No 49, which adds the Attorney General to the list of bodies to which protected information may be disclosed, and the minor drafting amendments as proposed by the Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />In the written evidence received by the Committee on Part 2 of the Bill, a suggestion was made that the Prison Ombudsman should be provided with the power to carry out investigations on his or her own initiative, similar to what is proposed in the Public Services Ombudsperson Bill. Noting that, under the current provisions, the Prison Ombudsman has to receive a complaint or a request from the Minister of Justice before he can undertake an investigation, the Committee agreed that it would be appropriate for the ombudsman to be able to initiate investigations of his own volition.”
“<BR /> <BR />However, having considered the matter further, the Department subsequently advised that it was proposing to bring forward an amendment that would place a duty on the Minister of Justice to request the Prison Ombudsman to conduct an investigation in defined circumstances which will be set out in regulations that will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Given that it has been recent practice for the ombudsman to investigate near-deaths in prison custody, the Committee is content to support amendment Nos 42 and 43 and will scrutinise the detail of the arrangements when the secondary legislation is drafted.”
“The third amendment allows for the arrangements to provide for investigations in cases of near-death in custody which meet agreed criteria. When the issue of extending the Prison Ombudsman’s statutory functions to include investigations into near-deaths in custody was raised, the Department stated that the Prisoner Ombudsman currently investigates near-deaths in custody at its request, and it considered that such investigations could be addressed in the future by a request from the Minister to carry out an investigation under clause 34.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second amendment aims to standardise the requirement of the ombudsman to inform the police of a suspected criminal offence as part of any investigation he is conducting, rather than just as part of an investigation into a death in custody, as is currently required by the Bill. That anomaly was brought to the attention of the Committee by the Human Rights Commission, and we are content to support amendment Nos 40 and 44, which standardise the requirement for the ombudsman to inform police of a suspected criminal offence as part of any investigation he is conducting.”
“He further added that, whilst national security guidance has been in place since the devolution of justice powers in 2010, it has never been invoked in any way. He is content with the guidance indicating that, while he must have regard to it, his view is that it does not impede or shackle him or any future Prison Ombudsman from carrying out any investigation. The Committee, therefore, agreed that it was content with clause 38. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also considered a range of amendments that the Department indicated it intended to bring forward and which members viewed as potentially enhancing the arrangements provided for in the Bill. In terms of the power to defer investigations where the ombudsman considers it necessary to do so, the Committee agrees that this is a sensible proposal and therefore supports amendment Nos 39 and 41.”
“Whilst the Committee agreed that it was content with the provisions as drafted, Mr McCartney advised members of his intention to bring forward an amendment to provide the ombudsman with the power to compel witnesses. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the guidance on national security matters, some members of the Committee raised reservations about clause 38, which requires the Prison Ombudsman to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in relation to any matter connected with national security, and they have indicated their intention to oppose that clause. The Committee raised the matter with the current Prisoner Ombudsman, who was clear that he does not believe that the Secretary of State has the power to prevent him carrying out an investigation.”
“In fact, he stated that 99% of prison staff voluntarily assist with his investigations and indicated that, even if he had this power, a person could turn up and say nothing or add no value to his investigation. In his view, the powers to obtain and disclose information already provided for in the Bill are rigorous, given that the office will have the statutory authority to obtain documents, enter premises and require people to cooperate, and the legislation creates an offence of intentionally obstructing an investigation. <BR /> <BR />When pressed by members of the Committee on whether the lack of a power to compel witnesses could limit investigations in the future, the ombudsman stated that he did not think that the power was necessary at present, but it could be useful in the future.”
“Some members, however, outlined reservations with several of the provisions, and I turn to those now. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the power to compel witnesses, amendment Nos 47 and 48, which Mr McCartney has tabled, provide a power to enable the Prison Ombudsman to compel a person to assist any investigation and make it an offence, liable to a fine not exceeding level 3, if that is refused. That issue was raised with the Committee by the Human Rights Commission, which considered that the effectiveness of the ombudsman’s investigations would be augmented by empowering the office to compel witnesses for interview. <BR /> <BR />When we discussed the proposal with the current Prisoner Ombudsman, however, he believed that it would be a cosmetic change and would affect very few deaths in custody or complaints that he investigated.”
“He noted that the Bill legislated for the "as is" position, which he views as the correct approach to take, and stated that since he took up post over two years ago, no one has ever tried to interfere with his independence. As far as he was aware, the proposed arrangements are not much different from ombudsman offices in the UK and other western European jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />Having considered the issues raised, along with the views of the current Prisoner Ombudsman on how the office operates in its current form, the Committee agreed that it was generally content with the provisions that will place the Prisoner Ombudsman on a statutory footing by creating the office of Prison Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and set out the main functions.”
“Suggestions were therefore made that the office should be created under separate statutory arrangements which ensure the appointment is not made by a member of the Executive. <BR /> <BR />The Committee discussed the concerns with the current Prisoner Ombudsman, who indicated that he strongly welcomes the proposals to place the office on a statutory footing, which he believes will be of benefit in a range of ways, including demonstrating the independence and impartiality of the office and increasing the confidence of other statutory bodies, such as the Police Service and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust, in relation to sharing information.”
“Concerns were raised regarding the cost implications of establishing the office as a separate entity, with the Northern Ireland Ombudsman proposing that the role of the Prisoner Ombudsman in relation to prisoner complaints could be combined with that of the new office of Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman. All three organisations also raised concerns regarding whether the office of Prison Ombudsman, as provided for in the Bill, meets the required standards of independence given that the Minister of Justice will appoint the office holder, the salary will be paid through the Department of Justice and the Department has a role in approving the terms and conditions of staff in the office.”
“I will briefly speak on Part 2 of the Bill, which creates the office of Prison Ombudsman and sets out the main functions of the office, which are to deal with complaints, death in custody investigations and investigations requested by the Department, and the proposed amendments. <BR /> <BR />There was a clear divergence of views in the evidence received by the Committee on the proposed model, remit and appointment arrangements, to place the Prison Ombudsman on a statutory basis. The current Prisoner Ombudsman supports the provisions in the Bill, but the Northern Ireland Ombudsman, the Ombudsman Association and NIACRO all raised issues regarding the proposed model.”
“Whilst there is still opposition from some of the firearms organisations to the proposed change to the age of young shooters, the Committee is pleased that an accommodation has been reached regarding the banded system and the fees and is content, therefore, to support amendment Nos 59 and 82. <BR /> <BR />The rest of the amendments in this group are largely consequential to other changes to the Bill. The Department advised the Committee of most of those amendments and provided the draft text of them before scrutiny of the Bill was completed. The Committee had no other issues to raise.”
“However, those organisations remained opposed to the Minister's intention to reduce the minimum age for supervised shooting with a shotgun to 12 years of age for clay target shooting only in a club approved by the PSNI, and they suggested that that should apply to shooting clay targets and any other lawful quarry. <BR /> <BR />They also considered the proposed introduction of shotgun clubs as creating a totally unnecessary level of bureaucracy. As the Minister outlined, he does not agree with that position and believes that the amendment on the age of young shooters that is before the Assembly today is appropriate and is accepted by a number of other firearms stakeholders.”
“As a result, the Members did not move the amendments to the Justice Bill to enable the Department to bring forward legislative amendments as part of the Bill that is in front of us this afternoon, hence the amendments that have been tabled. <BR /> <BR />The Committee received a range of written submissions on the firearms amendments and took oral evidence from representatives of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), the Gun Trade Guild Northern Ireland and Countryside Alliance. While some issues required further clarification, there was broad agreement on the proposed new banded system and the fee structure.”
“<BR /> <BR />From the outset, it was clear that there was a wide divergence of views on the proposals, and the Committee encouraged the Department to engage with the various stakeholders and to undertake meaningful dialogue with a view to presenting an agreed set of changes. Following a protracted period during which little progress appeared to have been made, in June 2015 several MLAs tabled amendments to the Justice Bill at Further Consideration Stage on firearms fees, the age of young shooters and a banded system. That shot across the bows brought matters to a head, and officials advised the Committee that, following further discussions, a level of agreement had been reached between the Department and the main firearms stakeholder organisations on fees and bands.”
“<BR /> <BR />During the three and a half years that the Committee has been considering the proposals to change the firearms legislation, it has taken a wide range of written and oral evidence from all the key firearms stakeholder organisations, including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Gun Trade Guild Northern Ireland, Countryside Alliance Ireland, the Ulster Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the Federation of Shooting Sports and the Northern Ireland Deer Society. The Committee also discussed the proposals with the Department of Justice and PSNI officials on numerous occasions.”
“He has also made a wider contribution to the Committee, and I just want to put that on record. <BR /> <BR />I do not intend to cover the amendments in detail, particularly the new banded system that will enable firearms dealers to exchange a firearm for a licence holder within a band as long as certain conditions are met, as I am sure that Mr McGlone, Mr Frew and others will do that. However, I think it is important to set out the background to the Committee's decision to support amendment Nos 59 and 82.”
“Whether that is the silver bullet that solves everyone's concerns is still questionable, but the Committee has had its resident experts on the matter, none more so than Mr McGlone, although it is fair to say that all the Committee members now know a lot more about the various guns and calibres than we ever thought we could or perhaps will ever need to know. <BR /> <BR />At this point, I will pay tribute to Mr McGlone. I know he has left the Committee, and I thank him for his contribution, not just on this issue, but it is always easier to defer to somebody who knows considerably more about a subject than you do. Mr McGlone, along with Mr Frew and Mr Poots at times, has certainly led the Committee in dealing with and resolving the issue, hopefully to the satisfaction of most of the organisations. We are most grateful for that.”
“The Committee agreed that it was content for the change to be made to the fee structure for the Court Funds Office and therefore supports amendment No 60. <BR /> <BR />I will now cover amendment Nos 59 and 82, which deal with changes to the firearms legislation. This issue has been in the sights of the Committee for some time, so I am glad that it has been brought to the Chamber today. Indeed, the Committee has been considering proposals from the Department to increase firearms licensing fees and to make a range of other amendments to the firearms legislation that applies in Northern Ireland, including the age of young shooters, since as far back as May 2012 and has invested considerable time and effort in scrutinising that policy area.”
“Given that the policy intention was that those cases should be capable of being directly transferred where it is decided to proceed on indictment, the Committee is content to support amendment No 58, which will put the matter beyond any doubt. <BR /> <BR />Turning briefly to amendment No 60, back in December 2015, the Department provided the Committee with the results of a consultation that it had undertaken on fee options to enable the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service to introduce a new full cost recovery charging model for 2016 to ensure that the cost of administering the Court Funds Office is met by fees charged to service users rather than the general taxpayer and advised that a change to the relevant legislation by way of an amendment to this Bill will be required to introduce the required authority.”
“<BR /> <BR />Turning to amendment No 58, the Department advised the Committee of its intention to bring forward an amendment to address a possible gap in the direct committal for trial provisions in section 9 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. It had received advice that section 9 of the Act may not be sufficiently explicit to enable offences that are caught by article 45 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and article 17 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 to attract direct committal arrangements where the prosecution decided to proceed on indictment.”
“The Committee welcomed the confirmation provided by officials that the amendment will provide the power to make consequential, incidental and supplementary changes by way of secondary legislation only to Part 1 and will not enable the Department to bring in anything new or different. The Committee noted the type of circumstances in which the Department will be allowed to use the powers. <BR /> <BR />Given the Committee's opposition to such clauses, we certainly welcome and support the intention to remove clause 45 and introduce a much narrower power to make ancillary provisions restricted to Part 1, as provided for through amendment No 31. That replicates the model developed in the previous Justice Bill and addresses the Committee's fundamental concerns with such clauses.”
“<BR /> <BR />In light of the Committee's position on clauses such as clause 45, the departmental officials, when briefing the Committee on the principles of the Justice (No. 2) Bill, indicated that they intended to revisit clause 45 with a view to bringing forward an amendment to reduce its scope. They subsequently advised the Committee that the intention was to remove clause 45 from the Bill in its entirety and to replace it with a power to make ancillary provisions under more restricted circumstances limited to Part 1, which covers fine collection and enforcement. <BR /> <BR />When considering the proposed amendment, the Committee sought clarification from the Department on the extent of the powers it provided and examples of when such powers are likely to be needed.”
“I know that the Minister will remember that; there was almost a showdown at one stage between the Committee and the Minister. <BR /> <BR />The Committee, when scrutinising the Bill, raised its concerns about clause 86 in that Bill and the wide-ranging powers that it provided. The Committee was of the view that powers should be provided for an exact purpose rather than being broad and general in nature and, at that point, we agreed to oppose its inclusion. During the passage of that Bill through the Assembly, the clause was removed and replaced with one providing much narrower and more specific powers following a robust and, at times, heated debate with the Minister. He will, I am sure, be glad to know that we will not rehearse all the arguments against such a clause today.”
“First, I will cover the Minister's intention to oppose clause 45, which enables the Department, by order, to make any supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or other provision necessary to give full effect to the provisions of the Act, and to replace it with amendment No 31, which the Committee for Justice supports. When speaking on the first group, Mr Maginness, who is not in his place, mentioned that, sometimes, we are not zealous enough in making sure that legislation does not go too far. I am quite sure that all members of the Committee — I know that Mr Kennedy missed this the last time with the Justice Bill — would agree that we were incredibly ferocious in making sure that the Department was not given too much power.”
“May I make a suggestion? Following his announcement earlier this week about closing courthouses, the Ballymena courthouse would provide an excellent opportunity for a pilot drugs court, given that the Railway Street facility is there and there may be a particular problem around that area. He could think innovatively about what we use the remaining court estate for.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. I know that we have spent more time on this than, perhaps, anybody had anticipated. He talked about the pilot project that Judge McElhone is running in Londonderry — with mixed results, to be perfectly honest. The support required from other agencies is not quite there yet, although we are definitely moving in the right direction with that.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. We asked him in Committee last week what were his big ideas in making a pitch to the Executive for the next Programme for Government or Budget arrangements. If a lot of preparatory work has been ongoing for the next Programme for Government, is he suggesting that, in that Programme for Government, there should be a problem-solving approach and that Health and Justice will come together to fund that model to improve outcomes for offenders?”
“If that is the case, the Committee is agreed that it will not move amendment Nos 11, 12, 13 and 14 at this stage. I hope that, whoever the Committee Chair is come May, the Committee will also continue with this work and continue to press the Department. It is a valuable area that the justice system needs to go into, and it can improve outcomes. <BR /> <BR />On that basis, I conclude my remarks on the group 1 amendments. I will not be moving the amendments tabled in the Committee's name.”
“The US — in New York and Miami in the 1980s and 1990s — has undoubtedly been a pioneer in this area. Some of the judges whom we met — Judge Calabrese and Judge Ferdinand — were pioneers of this sort of work. It is working, and I note that, at Westminster, Justice Secretary Michael Gove is particularly interested in this, and I listened to some of the Prime Minister's comments in recent days as well. Momentum seems to be gathering, even here in the United Kingdom, to move towards that model of justice. <BR /> <BR />I listened to the Minister's assurance that the Department is keen to work on this. I hope that he is keen and that the Department, whoever the Minister is come May, is true to that and that we will see progress on this early in the next mandate.”
“I thank the Member for that, and, of course, he is right in saying that Donald Trump is a supporter of this. For anybody with an interest in the current debates in the United States, whether on the republican or democrat side, the interesting thing is that everybody is talking about justice reform. When people talk about justice reform, they all talk about exactly the same thing: introducing problem-solving models into justice. That means that, rather than seeing justice as something that sits on its own somewhere, it becomes much more aligned and intertwined with healthcare and education systems, as the Minister said. <BR /> <BR />Justice systems right across the world are now looking at early intervention in education and appropriate medical intervention for offenders who have other addictions that are the underlying cause of offending.”
“Mr Maginness, Mr Kennedy and I looked at that kind of system in operation in Brooklyn, where it gets support not only from across the political spectrum, republicans and democrats, but from the New York Police Department, the governor's office and the office of the district attorney. The reason for that is that it works. It works because it reduces reoffending and is improving outcomes in the system. It also reduces costs because it prevents people being sent to prison for short sentences.”
“I think so. We have tried to look at examples happening elsewhere in the world that have realistic potential to be implemented in Northern Ireland. I listened to the Minister's comments, and I agree with what he said about many of the issues requiring cross-departmental support, particularly if we are getting to a point at which we believe that not all offenders need a criminal justice outcome. If, for example, and I made the point about this case in particular, an offender has a history of mental health issues, alcohol dependency or drug addiction, perhaps a health-based outcome or response is more appropriate in those circumstances.”