Stewart Dickson
East Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, you will have noted that the Government recently announced a VAT cut for some family expenses for a range of activities over the summer. That is perhaps a change.”
“Many do not know how to apply; others do not even realise that the opportunities exist. If the process itself is a barrier to participation, it is really not open to all.”
“I was born in 1950 in Thorndale House, which was one of the homes that is named in the legislation. I was born to married parents, and Thorndale House was a maternity home. It was where you went to have your baby in 1950 on the Antrim Road. My mum and dad went there, I was born and, a few days later, I left with loving parents.”
“I agree with Mr Brett: amendment No 6 is important because it will deal with persons who refuse to provide information or evidence to the inquiry. Amendment No 8 to clause 20 is a tidying-up amendment that will allow the Committee to make interim reports, which will be of benefit to the inquiry process.”
“That is why I want the inquiry to succeed and why it is vital that it succeeds. That is why it is important for us to see that cruelty in the full glare of a public inquiry. That is why it is important that the scheme goes through without further delay. <BR /> <BR />Finally, I place on record my thanks to the Committee Chair.”
“The Assembly faces stark choices, and agreeing the draft Budget as it stands is not a silver bullet, nor is it sustainable for us to continue in the absence of a Budget. It is vital, therefore, that we break the cycle of crisis and collapse that has been destroying our public finances.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,188 lines we hold for Stewart Dickson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 38 of 44.
“One of my party colleagues is 65 tomorrow, so if she were violently assaulted today, a judge might award a three-, four-, five-, six- or seven-year sentence against the perpetrator, but tomorrow they would have to implement a seven-year sentence. The judge would have no discretion whatsoever to take into account the circumstances of the event. We should allow the judge to do what none of us in this Chamber can do. We can hypothecate for as long as we like, but until we hear the actual circumstances and the detail of what has gone on, it is impossible to provide the appropriate sentence and regime for dealing with the matter that occurred.”
“It is the area that causes me the greatest concern. Put simply, if implemented, it is my belief that amendment No 7 will make for bad law. Any violent crime against any person is unacceptable, regardless of that person's age or circumstances. We have heard Mr Maginness and others provide us with long lists of many people who are vulnerable, or who perhaps are not vulnerable but become vulnerable as the result of a violent crime against them. While there have been horrendous circumstances in which people who are perhaps older have been traumatised by violent crimes against them, to single out those who perpetrate crimes against older people as a particular section for a particular type of sentence is very difficult. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, to draw an arbitrary line at the age of 65 causes me concern.”
“I well remember the debate about the type of clothing. I found that to be a particularly offensive aspect of it. Certainly, having listening to Mr Ross, I do not believe for one second that that is the area that he is intending to veer into in any respect. In fact, the discussion about those prisoners who are going on early release and who, for example, have gained remunerated employment in the community would be facilitated. <BR /> <BR />The issue has been substantially worked through in the Republic of Ireland. This might be an opportunity for the Committee and its Chair to deal with and explore those issues further. There, a requirement is placed on the Minister to look at it as an alternative, and it requires the Department to work up an appropriate scheme to deliver it. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to amendment No 7.”
“That is the very point that I was making. When such an amendment comes forward, it is important that we have an opportunity to go through the detail of it. That is why I was suggesting that it veers into the realm of departmental policy. We as Committee members will receive that policy and see in detail the practical outworkings of those things. Having been at the meetings that Mr Ross referred to, and given that there are agencies out there that can deliver on prisoners being provided with that type of work on release, I am generally satisfied that it is a road that we should continue down, and continue down in the Bill.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak to the second group of amendments. They relate to early release conditions and some sentencing proposals, as we have heard in the debate. I do not intend to go much beyond what at least two of the Members who spoke said this evening, but I want to contribute to the debate on amendment No 6, which was proposed by Mr Ross. <BR />There is considerable merit in what he is proposing. It seems to me that he is taking us in a restorative and positive direction, although I have some concerns that bringing forward such an amendment may veer into the realm of departmental policy. Therefore, I think it is important that, as we work this through, collaborative work is done by the proposer and the relevant agencies and the Department to see the amendment's practical outworkings.”
“<BR /> <BR />I intend to support the amendments in group 1 from the Department. They refine and support amendments made at Consideration Stage. Centrally, they get on with the work of reforming our justice system to deliver one that is fit to meet the needs of all our citizens.”
“The Assembly has decided against that, and I respect that decision. Nonetheless, to ensure that a robust system is in place, I call on all to support the Minister's amendments today. <BR /> <BR />Further proposed amendments are departmental. Again, they refine much of what was added at Consideration Stage. I commend the Department and MLAs, particularly Mr Frew and Mrs Kelly, for the work that has been done to bring about those developments, particularly on child protection disclosures and domestic violence protection orders. Those measures will further ensure that the reform of our justice system helps to deliver for everyday people and, crucially, that we have a robust system with preventative measures in place that are accessible to the public and help to keep people safe. That is what this is about.”
“I am quite sure that that was not the intention of the proposer; I am sure that he would consider victims of non-sexual violent crime such as intimidation, for example, as potentially vulnerable victims who would and should be generally exempt from recounting their experiences numerous times in front of a court. It is for that reason that I am not in a position to support amendment No 4. <BR /> <BR />Personally, I feel that the proper abolition of preliminary investigations and mixed committals is the best that we can do for victims of crime. Indeed, many of those victims have told us that directly.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now turn to amendment No 4, which was put forward by Mr McCartney on behalf of Sinn Féin. The proposed amendment is clearly a compassionate attempt to ameliorate the impact of the retention of preliminary investigations and mixed committals on vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime. However, it is worth noting that the proposed amendment, as it is attached to clause 8, would only apply to mixed committals, meaning that preliminary investigations would not be affected by the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Furthermore, the amendment appears to exempt vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence under oath but sets a higher bar for victims, as they must be a victim of rape or sexual assault for the exemption to exist.”
“Evidence, in fact, suggests that these exercises are harmful for victims of crime, especially the most vulnerable people. For those recounting events it is traumatic and, further, it results in delays to our justice system in holding people to account. Nonetheless, by a majority, the Assembly has decided to retain preliminary investigations; where this is in the interests of justice it will, in itself, be a difficult term to define. The Minister's amendment will refine and support the retention of PIs in certain circumstances, including the crucial element of how it will operate in practice. Safeguards and a robust application procedure to ensure that PIs are only used in exceptional circumstances rather than continuing as the norm must be in place to protect the considered needs of vulnerable witnesses and victims.”
“In fact, only Part 1 would be affected by a power to make supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions and, of course, that would be with the consent of the Assembly. The Department and the Committee, of which I am a member, deserve credit for the work that has been done in reaching agreement on these contentious issues. Going forward, this means that the Department will be provided with at least some remedy in the unlikely event that something has been overlooked in the primary legislative process. <BR /> <BR />Moving to the proposed amendments with regard to preliminary investigations (PIs) and mixed committals, I am still convinced that preliminary investigations are, in fact, superfluous to a modern justice system. That has been clearly proven by their abolition in many common law jurisdictions, notably England and Wales.”
“<BR /> <BR />As we know, the Assembly chose to remove clause 86 from the Bill at Consideration Stage because of concerns that it gave too much power to the Department. I do not share those concerns, but that is where we are. It was clear that these changes in statute would have to come to the House anyway. However, to ensure that the Department still has sufficient flexibility, particularly in the area of single jurisdiction, the Minister has brought forward amendment No 1, which I hope has the broad agreement of the Committee for Justice and the House. <BR /> <BR />Respecting the concerns of the Committee and the Assembly, the Department has clearly restricted the scope of its powers in that area.”
“Like others, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Further Consideration Stage of the Justice Bill as it moves through the Assembly. The reform of our justice system, which has developed, some might say haphazardly, over many centuries is, of course, not a straightforward task. We need to commend the Minister for the work that he and his Department have done in maintaining a very steady and clear pace of reform. <BR /> <BR />Most of the amendments in group 1 are departmental in origin with the exception of amendment No 4, which I will come back to later. It was mentioned previously that this is a complex piece of legislation and, therefore, it would create a considerable and undue difficulty at the implementation stage were we to tie the Department's hands completely with regard to making alterations to previous statute.”
“Minister, thank you for your answer so far, particularly in relation to an actual date for a public inquiry, one at which I will certainly be supporting the project. One key element of the York Street interchange is the opportunity to provide a dualling of the railway track across that section; but it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as the consultants have advised that it can be done only at the same time as construction of the roadworks. Will the Minister confirm that that is true and that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that the work for the rail track is done at the same time as the roadworks?”
“She has to step out of the world of denial that she and her party live in. For that reason, I propose an amendment to the debate this evening that calls on all the actors to share with the new institutions any information that they hold. Sinn Féin cannot demand a higher standard of truth from state actors who caused harm without delivering the same actions and the same truth itself. The Stormont House Agreement made progress in those areas, and we must not throw it away. The victims and survivors deserve that from us. Sinn Féin and the SDLP cannot have their cake and eat it either. They must be responsible parties in government and implement the Stormont House Agreement in full.”
“Although it requires the difficult implementation of welfare reform, Sinn Féin and, indeed, the SDLP must face up to their responsibilities in government. To put it simply, the House cannot implement only the parts of the agreement that it likes and forget about the commitments that we have made, for example, to welfare reform. We cannot provide justice and deal with the past in an insolvent, unstable environment. We all need to work together to build the foundations for truth and justice by first securing a Budget, the living standards and the basic necessities for all our citizens in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />If, however, we are ever truly to establish the truth through those institutions, people need to disclose what they know. The day of speeches like Ms Ruane's has to come to an end.”
“Those institutions will include an oral history archive, which will provide a place for people from all backgrounds to share experiences and narratives. Crucially, that will be free from political interference, and all of us in the House must ensure that that freedom is maintained. A historical investigations unit will be set up to carry out the unfinished work of the Historical Enquiries Team. That will be crucial for victims and survivors who have not yet had their case investigated or for whom new evidence comes to light. <BR /> <BR />To secure those prospective institutions, we must, as a matter of urgency, return to the pathway set out by the Stormont House Agreement. That means that we implement all parts of the agreement as previously agreed or risk unravelling it all.”
“In a liberal, democratic and open society, that is an intolerable situation. However, what makes it worse is the continuing lack of action on the issue in the House and in the Executive. Victims and survivors deserve, demand and require our support. We must give them our support. More than that, they deserve action: action to deliver the truth; action to deliver justice. <BR /> <BR />Today, I believe that all that the families want is the truth. Many will want more, but some will require just the simple truth. Therefore, the Alliance Party wholeheartedly supports the creation of legacy institutions to deal with the past, as we agreed in the Stormont House Agreement.”
“I thank Mr Maginness for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with him. <BR /> <BR />Numerous investigations have proven, beyond a doubt, that that was the case, and many agents from all quarters have been implicated in the murder of people across Northern Ireland. It appears that these were murders that could have been prevented had the state intervened, rather than passively watching, turning a blind eye or even sanctioning them at the highest level. <BR /> <BR />The Stevens inquiries highlighted the characteristics of the collusion, which include:”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on an issue that has poisoned political discourse but, most importantly, has destroyed and poisoned the lives of those directly affected. They include citizens from all communities in Northern Ireland. Since the late 1980s, suspicions that the state worked with agents in paramilitary organisations have been widely established.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee notes that the change would also have the effect of reducing the administrative burden that results from requiring claimants to switch to another benefit — JSA to ESA — for a short time. Importantly, it will also have the effect of keeping a claimant in touch with the labour market and treating them as still available for work. The Committee notes that advisers will take account of the easements on conditionality that will apply to the claimants during the extended period of sickness. In conclusion, the Committee for Social Development recommends that the statutory rule be approved by the Assembly.”
“I again reply on behalf of the Social Development Committee. The Committee for Social Development considered the Department’s proposal to make the regulations at its meeting on 26 February 2015 and the resulting statutory rule at its meeting on 12 March 2015. The Committee supported the regulations. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that the regulations will amend the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996 to allow an extended period of sickness that will enable claimants to remain on JSA when they have a short spell of sickness that is expected to last more than two weeks but fewer than 13 weeks, or they have exhausted the number of occasions on which they may be treated as being capable of work. The Committee further notes that claimants will need to provide medical evidence to qualify for the new period of sickness.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Committee notes that the rule will reduce the administrative burden and payment delays. Jobseeker's allowance claims will be kept open by treating claimants as available for, and actively seeking, employment for the duration of their training. The Committee notes that the change will move claimants closer towards sustainable employment by allowing them to attend reservist training and encouraging networking within reservist-friendly organisations. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Social Development recommends that the statutory rule be approved by the Assembly.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am speaking on behalf of the Committee in the absence of the Chair and Deputy Chair for unavoidable reasons. <BR /> <BR />The Committee for Social Development considered the Department's proposals to make these regulations at its meeting on 12 March 2015, and the resulting statutory rule at its meeting on 16 April 2015. The Committee was supportive of the regulations. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that the regulations will enable claimants of jobseeker's allowance or income support, or partners of a claimant in receipt of those benefits or employment and support allowance, who are new members of the reserve forces, to attend a maximum of 43 days' training in their first year of service without the need to end their entitlement to benefit.”
“You said that they were carrying out terminations.”
“Will the Member give way? The Member has made a serious accusation against Marie Stopes, because he is saying that Marie Stopes is carrying out — or is the Member saying that Marie Stopes clinic in Northern Ireland is carrying out abortions outside the law in Northern Ireland? That is a very serious allegation, if that is the allegation that he is making.”
“He raises the very important question "Who knows?". We would all know if the two Members sitting opposite me, as former Health Ministers, had done something about it. They had an absolute right to bring appropriate legislation before the House to regulate and legislate to allow us to know what goes on inside those facilities.”
“Well, again, if Mr Givan will allow me to intervene —”
“The debate we are having this evening is about the extremely narrow provisions, which are now so clouded and so smoke-and-mirrored by the party opposite me, that it makes it virtually impossible. Medical staff have been traumatised by the fear of going to jail as a result of what is being said. <BR /> <BR />Does the Member accept that the reality is that the type of surgical intervention that is permitted under the law in Northern Ireland in the most extreme of circumstances could not be carried out in Marie Stopes but could be carried out in other private health facilities that provide surgical facilities?”
“The Member just referenced Marie Stopes, and, in fact, that is the only clinic that we have heard reference to this evening. Does the Member accept or acknowledge that other private facilities in Northern Ireland can and do deliver similar services to Marie Stopes? Indeed, they have the potential to go far beyond the services delivered by Marie Stopes, because they actually provide surgical facilities meeting the requirements of the law in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />Let us remember that what is being debated here this evening is the extremely narrow legal right to have an abortion in extremely narrow circumstances in Northern Ireland. That is all that is being debated this evening. We are not debating the wider issues of abortion, although many would like the public to think that that is the debate we are having this evening.”
“Therefore, I support the amendments tabled by the Minister. <BR /> <BR />In respect of amendment No 50, I will not detain the House long. The arguments for and against have been made, and we have the petition of concern. I support the Minister in his view on this.”
“Amendment Nos 14 and 69 will allow for a review mechanism for the new filtering process, allowing an individual to seek a review of the filtering process if certain convictions or other disposals are included in their Access NI certificates. Furthermore, people who have offences included that were committed under the age of 18 will automatically be referred to the review mechanism. You must remember that many of these offenders have not been able to obtain a decent level of education and so would otherwise be unsure how to seek a review or deal with a complex application. <BR /> <BR />This is about making the justice system work for victims, but it is also about criminals with regard to reforming their behaviour, acting to rehabilitate people and giving them a true stake in society.”
“I will certainly not hold Members back very long from their comfort break. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the fourth group of amendments, which relate primarily to criminal record evidence gathering and handling. The amendments are mostly for the purpose of tidying up this part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I would just like to speak for a short time specifically on the changes to Access NI disclosures. I am pleased to see further refinement of the filtering process that is now in place for Access NI applicants. This is a common-sense approach, making it more straightforward for rehabilitation and reintegration in the community and the workforce of people previously convicted of a crime.”
“will be subject to draft affirmative procedure and cannot be made without Assembly approval. That seems to me to be reasonable. All orders made under clause 86(1) will also be subject to the usual subordinate legislative procedures. This is a safeguard to ensure good law and is not unique in legislation. I, therefore, believe that it is vital that we ensure that the Department is provided with this safety net when implementing such a complex and important reform to our judicial system. It is for these reasons that I will oppose amendment Nos 51 and 52 and the removal of the clause from the Bill.”
“It is also indicated that clause 87(6)(b) provides that any order made:”
“the Act, and that, subsequently, clause 86(2) must be read in that light.”
“The Bill, as many of us on the Justice Committee will be aware, is rather complex and wide-ranging. As has been referred to, it will deal with the repeal of some statutes that go back as far as the 1840s. <BR /> <BR />During Committee Stage, the Department admitted that the power could appear to be widely drawn, but, because of the precise circumstances that it may be called to, it cannot be determined. The Department further noted that the purposes of the power can be used as reasonably exact, and it drew attention to the fact that clause 86(1) provides that the relevant orders must be used for the purposes of the Act or to make provision:”
“I also welcome the opportunity to speak on group 3, although perhaps "welcome" at this time of night is not entirely appropriate. <BR /> <BR />The amendments are mostly of a technical nature. A few elements caused considerable disquiet among some during Committee Stage, but I do not consider that to be warranted. Needless to say, I will support the Minister on this. I do not wish to strike a discordant note in the Chamber, and I doubt that I will be able to persuade others, but, nevertheless, we need to reflect on exactly what we are doing. <BR /> <BR />Clause 86, as has been indicated, is not unique in lawmaking. It provides the means for a Department to refine the law, ensure that it is efficient and purposeful, remove contradictions and make sure that it is fit for 21st-century use.”
“I am delighted that Mr Frew and the Department have been able to work together in this area to ensure that the amendment is effectively incorporated into the Bill, ultimately enabling the police and parents to protect children from individuals who could cause them harm. I therefore support that amendment and further departmental amendments that will come forward to refine this, not forgetting the work that Mrs Kelly has been doing in these matters. I support these amendments in group 2.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also welcome the addition of clause 35A and schedule 4A, which are common-sense additions to the Bill and will make a fine difference to many victims of crime by ensuring that they are better informed, as Mr Elliott said, about the services available to them and will provide support as they progress through the judicial system. <BR /> <BR />I particularly welcome Mr Frew's amendment. I confess that, originally, we had some concerns, not with the policy aim, but that the range of information that could be disclosed might be too broad and might extend beyond that for which, for the best of intentions, it was designed.”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome the amendments to clause 33, which allow for victims of crime to convey the impact of the crime on themselves and their families through victim statements. The rationale for considering that crime does not impact only on the person most directly involved is that we have social connections with others around us, which mean that we can be profoundly affected by a family member becoming a victim of crime. I support the principle of incorporating the experience of the victim of crime but, ultimately, it is up to the judge, having heard all the evidence, to pass sentence as he or she sees fit. I am content that the Department has left it to the judge to decide whether to take such a contribution into account. This helps to ensure continued confidence in judicial independence in these matters.”
“I agree with Tom Elliott that the amendments in this group are less likely to be controversial but are, nevertheless, highly important when it comes to dealing with these matters. They relate primarily to prevention, detection and disclosure in relation to vulnerable groups. I support these amendments. I commend Mrs Kelly and the SDLP for the work they have done and I know that work with the Minister will be ongoing to conclude this matter in a satisfactory way. <BR /> <BR />As others have done, I pay tribute to the work of Women's Aid, and indeed to the other women's support organisations that exist in every constituency across Northern Ireland, for their work in the east Antrim area.”
“That will help ensure that offenders are able to see and hear the court during the trial, and vice versa; otherwise, the trial will be adjourned. Other departmental amendments will ensure that the Bill works more efficiently regarding early guilty pleas, and that will avoid delay in criminal proceedings. I intend to support those amendments.”
“<BR /> <BR />As the Minister has indicated in a number of interventions, and as I hope others will take into account when coming to their view in supporting this today, a preliminary inquiry will still be undertaken by a magistrate, with the inbuilt safeguards to ensure that the defendant is sufficiently represented. In fact, defendants may even be able to make a submission to the court personally. If it is found that there is insufficient evidence for a trial, the defendant can be discharged at that stage. I am satisfied that the Minister's plans are sufficient to safeguard the rights of victims and defendants in that area. Therefore, I will not be supporting Mr Allister's amendments. <BR /> <BR />I welcome amendment No 20, which relates to the provision to enhance live-link facilities in our courts.”
“Mr Allister's amendment will oppose the reform of the committal system and seek to retain some form of mixed committal. We must recognise that the origin of this clause was, in fact, the consultation with those who have profound experience of the justice system, as the Committee Chair pointed out, as victims. <BR /> <BR />In the current system, victims and vulnerable people are often compelled to experience the trauma of giving evidence twice; once at PI or mixed committal and again at the trial itself. I do understand that Mr Allister may have concerns, perhaps suggesting that these are important in the interests of justice. I fully understand that position, but as I am very sure he is aware, it is the trial that determines the innocence or guilt, not the committal proceedings.”
“Perhaps I will make a few opening remarks first of all. The Bill marks the third Justice Bill that has been brought forward by the Department and the Minister as part of reforming our justice system and, indeed, making it fit for the 21st century. In those circumstances, I would like to commend the Minister for this and express my support for the process of reform and my opposition to those who wish to derail that. <BR /> <BR />Like the Chair of the Committee, I place on record my thanks to staff in the Department of Justice, to those who came to give evidence to the Committee, and to the Committee staff for the incredible amount of work that they put into assisting us to prepare the report. <BR /> <BR />Group one refers mostly to the reform of the committal and court process. We have heard arguments in respect of this.”
“Following on from the point that the Minister has made regarding reform and ultimate removal of that, particularly in England and Wales, the first stage came in 2001 and the removal came in 2013. There is no body of evidence of the detriment that perhaps you and Mr Allister are proclaiming may happen here. Therefore, there is a substantive body of evidence — likewise in the Republic of Ireland — that is demonstrating to us, in this particular case, about cautious reform. You are right to say that the law should be reformed cautiously, but, on the basis of 2001 and 2013, this seems to be a caution that we should be prepared to take today.”
“The Member might not have caught up with the news today, but, at lunchtime, Number 10 recommitted the Prime Minister to breaking the link. He is determined to proceed.”
“Minister, thank you for your assurance that you will fully cooperate. Given the concerns around this project, can you assure the House that no corners will be cut in respect of delivery of what is clearly a pet Sinn Féin project for west Belfast?”
“These injustices are the origins of our Human Rights Act. We must step up to protect our rights or risk losing them. I encourage and urge the House to support them.”