David Ford
South Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“All I can say is that I remember officials coming back into the Department and saying, "You wouldn't have been very pleased with what Trevor or Stewart said at the Committee yesterday, Minister".”
“<BR /> <BR />When I listened to the start of the debate, I welcomed the comments that Mr McGuigan made, but, as Alex Attwood said so forcibly, even when he intervened and asked what had changed, there was an inability on the part of the Sinn Féin representative to explain anything other than to say that there is an election in six weeks'…”
“<BR /> <BR />No doubt, what we saw from in/out Ministers not so long ago and the failure of the outgoing First Minister to accept her role when she was Minister in DETI to deal with the issue has further added to that.”
“There is an inability in all that we face at the moment to recognise the public disgust at the behaviour of certain people in this place and, most particularly, in the Executive.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his question to the Minister on that statement, Mr Paul Girvan suggested that some judges spin out cases inappropriately in their own financial interests.”
“Less than the full truth emerged and facts were eventually slowly dragged out from the bunker, sorry, from Stormont Castle. It is a classic example of why people have lost trust in the way that this place operates; it is a classic example of why the ministerial code needs to be enforced at least as rigorously as we enforce procedures agai…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,469 lines we hold for David Ford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 50.
“I wrote to him on 2 August suggesting a joint consultation on issues relating to termination of pregnancy. On 8 October, I wrote again with a summary outline for a joint consultation. Ironically, that was one day before the story of Sarah Ewart featured in the media. <BR /> <BR />On 16 October, one week after the issue became public through Sarah Ewart, the Health Minister announced that he would bring revised draft guidelines to the Executive within a matter of weeks to deal with the issue of termination of pregnancy in the case of fatal foetal abnormality. On 2 December, he wrote to the Executive stating that that issue could not be addressed by guidance, and that guidance could only reflect the law — a point that I made a few minutes ago — and that would require amendment to the criminal law.”
“<BR /> <BR />In opening this section of the debate, Mrs Pengelly talked about compassion and love. She also talked about consultation, so I think that we should look at the history of where we have been over the last few years. On 12 March 2013, an amendment was proposed at Further Consideration Stage of the Criminal Justice Bill — the last conceivable stage — to make pregnancy terminated in premises not operated by a Health and Social Care trust a criminal offence. There was no consultation whatsoever and no opportunity, had it passed, to make any further amendments had there been issues with it. <BR /> <BR />On 23 April, following discussions on that, I met the Minister of Health to discuss the issue of termination of pregnancy and the regulation of private clinics.”
“<BR /> <BR />During the departmental consultation, I received personal letters, and some made a significant impression on me. There were heartfelt statements from women who faced a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality, continued to full term and felt a measure of comfort because they delivered a baby, even if it survived for only a few minutes. Nothing in what I seek to do would stop that being made available to a woman who wishes to proceed to full term, and there must be full medical care for those who are in those circumstances. <BR /> <BR />I also received two letters from members of the clergy, each describing the pastoral care of a woman who faced a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality and felt that she could not contemplate continuing with the pregnancy. Those two sides illustrate the sensitivity of this issue for many people.”
“I want to ensure that Sarah Ewart, and others in her circumstances, will never again have to face the prospect, potentially at over 20 weeks of pregnancy, of travelling to England, possibly alone and unsupported, without the medical team that cared for them, for an inevitably late-term abortion, with all the complication that that brings. I hope that others will share that aim. <BR /> <BR />I recognise that this is a difficult issue. I believe that it is a difficult issue for many who will walk though the Ayes Lobby with me this evening, and we should not underestimate that. We heard significant personal contributions from Members. It is an issue that many of us would have wished never to have to consider, just as, frankly, it is an issue that some women, and their husbands, partners and families wished had never come to their door.”
“It sought views and responses to 16 questions relating to whether the law should be changed in this regard and how such a change might be made. Those questions remained largely unanswered, and the Department is of the view that the complexities are such that it is not possible to make proposals to exempt cases of rape and incest. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment on rape and incest at this time. <BR /> <BR />I notified the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that I intend to support the modest but vital change to the law proposed by amendment No 61.”
“With some of those questions in mind, and with a number of more technical drafting issues that have been pointed out to me, I intend, if the clause stands part of the Bill, and with the advice of legislative counsel, to bring at Further Consideration Stage amendments to ensure legislative clarity. I have been assured that that is quite possible. Part of the proposed clause contains provision for matters that are not strictly for the Justice Minister but which deal with health issues and the delivery of services to women. I want to hear from the Health Minister on that. <BR /> <BR />I want to touch on amendment No 68, tabled by Anna Lo. My consultation considered the issue of access to termination for women who were victims of rape or incest.”
“I believe that we owe it to the women whose stories have come to light over the past few years to treat this issue with honesty, sincerity, compassion, truthfulness and reason. <BR /> <BR />Mr Agnew has indicated that he will not move his amendments so, in effect, we are discussing amendment Nos 61 and 68. The principle behind amendment No 61 is clear. The proposers of amendment No 61 believe that the law should exempt from prosecution any medical professional who performs a termination or any woman who has a termination in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality, and I agree with them. <BR /> <BR />Some questions have been raised during the debate regarding the detail of the proposal and how the clause would operate in practice.”
“That is just scaremongering and, frankly, it is an insult to doctors, nurses and midwives. <BR /> <BR />Fourthly, no guidelines on the current law will provide the necessary provision for any doctor to terminate a pregnancy for reasons of fatal foetal abnormality. That can be achieved only by making a change to the law similar to that proposed in amendment No 61. Guidelines must reflect what the law says, which, in line with the Bourne judgement, is that termination is an option only to save the life of the mother or to prevent risk of serious long-term mental or physical damage. <BR /> <BR />Those are the facts. They are not opinions, party lines or skewed interpretations. Those are the simple facts.”
“<BR /> <BR />First, the amendment that stands in the names of my colleagues and my departmental policy position will never allow for termination unless the condition is fatal. That does not include Down's syndrome, cleft palate, club foot or a disability of any nature unless the condition is incompatible with life outside the womb. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, doctors can and do diagnose when a foetal condition is fatal on a daily basis. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists assured me of that and, indeed, the chair of the Northern Ireland committee of the college referred in an interview with the BBC last year to patients who have a fatal foetal abnormality. So much for the suggestion that they do not recognise the term. <BR /> <BR />Thirdly, there will be no pressure put on women to agree to have a termination.”
“Clearly, that is only an option based on the opinion of two doctors. It is not an issue of disability; it is an issue of independent survival. <BR /> <BR />I am glad that the Assembly has finally been allowed an opportunity to debate the issue — well, at least to discuss it. I am also glad to have the chance to dispel some of the myths surrounding what the amendment proposed by Trevor Lunn and Stewart Dickson would do and what my policy would aim to do. Frankly, we need to expose some of the more unrealistic interpretations for what they are, which is nonsense. We need to stop the rhetoric, stop the posturing and start engaging positively and actually look at the facts.”
“Last month, I offered a further paper in response to a request from Executive colleagues for updated information. That was ostensibly to inform discussion at a future Executive meeting. <BR /> <BR />That clearly illustrates where I stand in relation to progressing my policy objective to change the law on fatal foetal abnormality. That is also why we are here today debating Back-Bench amendments, rather than scrutinising an agreed legislative proposal from a Minister that represents over two years of departmental work. <BR /> <BR />I hardly need to restate my position, which I have stated many times in the past few years. The law needs to change to allow women to consider the option of an abortion when faced with the devastating circumstances of carrying a foetus that has no prospect of independent survival.”
“In December 2013, I said in public that we needed to consider whether it should be lawful for women to have an abortion in circumstances where there is no chance of a foetus being delivered and having a viable life. I said that after the Health Minister announced that guidance under the current law could not address abortion for fatal foetal abnormality. I said that I would conduct a full and proper consultation on changes to the criminal law and, in 2014, I launched such a consultation. In 2015, I responded in some detail to that and published proposals to change the law. In June last year, I asked the Executive for agreement to introduce those legislative proposals. I asked again in July, and then in December at the very first opportunity following suspension of the structures during the talks.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. You see what happens, Mr Speaker, when a liberal party gives freedom of conscience on an issue like this? I reassure the Member that the draft guidelines were circulated a few hours after the judgement of Mr Justice Horner, which meant that guidelines that reflected the law as it existed prior to that judgement could hardly then be said to be valid.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way again. The position is not that I sought advice from the Attorney General, but that the Attorney General proffered his advice to me. I have access to other advice, and the best advice that I have is to suggest that, if the appropriate mechanism is that the Supreme Court should be asked to decide on a measure such as this, that is the appropriate place to test conflicting legal opinions.”
“I have no doubt that that would be his intention if he believed that to be the case, because he would believe that it was his proper duty. However, it is entirely proper for the Assembly to pass what it believes to be within its competence, on advice presumably given by the Speaker's legal advisers and certainly given by my legal advisers, and then allow referral to the appropriate body — the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — to which, with due respect to Mr Allister, I would defer more than I would defer to him or to the Attorney General, because it is the Supreme Court.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way, Mr Speaker. I fear that he is coming perilously close to criticising you for having accepted this amendment. I am also well aware, because the Attorney General has written to me on this topic and, similarly, has cited the UNCRPD. I must say, however, that Mr Allister's continual use of the term "severely disabled", as opposed to "a lethal or fatal abnormality", appears to me to somewhat misrepresent the intention. <BR /> <BR />The Attorney General has a specific constitutional function, which he has outlined, and he is absolutely entitled, if he believes that the Assembly has passed legislation that is outwith its powers, to refer it to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.”
“It has been made absolutely clear in everything that has been said, in the Department's consultation and in the way that the amendment is written that we are talking about a fatal abnormality. Let us not add further trauma to women who are suffering with such an issue or indeed to those who have children who suffer from Down's or some other limiting issue that is not fatal. By making that comparison, you stray into extraordinarily dangerous territory, and you will add to the distress that some people feel.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way, but we can at least be factual on the consultation. The consultation made specific recommendations to allow for termination in the case of fatal foetal abnormality. It highlighted issues around rape and incest but made no specific recommendations. On the back of that consultation, it was clear that there were no specific recommendations to make. Please do not suggest that something was dropped that was being pushed; that is simply not the case.”
“I thank Mr Frew for that point. It is clearly an issue that will be difficult to resolve, but, nonetheless, it is one that requires attention in the future. With that point made, and I thank Mr Frew for his indication that he will not be pushing the amendment on coercive behaviour while there is a consultation out, I think that we can expect the House to accept all the other amendments in the group without difficulty. I commend them to the House.”
“I have no doubt that we will continue to look at that, and I welcome the acknowledgement that, although this amendment makes a useful statement, there is more detailed work to be done in future.”
“I think that this issue, whether or not it is finally addressed at Further Consideration Stage, may well merit wider consideration at a future stage. <BR /> <BR />Mr Dickson made a significant point about lone healthcare workers. Yes, many paramedics work in ones and twos, but so do others in the healthcare field. I think of my past practice as a social worker, when I was on standby duty late at night or in the early hours. Sometimes, I was in parts of the country that, if you are on your own, are not the easiest places to enforce a court order relating to childcare or mental health. There are significant issues there across a range of services, not just the social workers whom I am most concerned about from my past life but a range of others in the professions allied to medicine, nursing and so on.”
“However, I have concerns, even with the amendments that he suggested. Even if we said "blue-light workers", it would not cover organisations that provide blue-light volunteers who are not technically employees of any of the statutory bodies but work in association with them. We have only to think of the recent vandalisation of the Lagan Search and Rescue boat. Although, thankfully, it did not involve a physical attack on any person, it was an indication of the dreadful things that happen to some who provide public service as volunteers, in many cases putting their life at risk, whether in water, mountain or cave rescue. A number of other bodies also have policy links to the Department of Justice.”
“I appreciate his recognition, and that of Mrs Kelly, of the work being done in the current consultation process, and I echo their hope that the Department will get a good response. Not everybody in the world will be entirely taken up with an election campaign between now and late April, so, hopefully, Members will encourage those whom they are in contact with to take that opportunity. In particular, we would all do well to remember that abuse is significantly more than just physical violence, as was highlighted. That is where coercion and controlling behaviour come in, and they are of great significance. <BR /> <BR />The second amendment that Mr Paul Frew spoke on was about attacks on public service workers. The discussion was significantly wider than the precise wording of the amendment as is, and clearly there is an issue.”
“Whether or not I have any influence, depending on the remark just made about the "next Minister", I believe that there are significant issues that require early consideration. On the specific issue of revenge porn highlighted by these amendments, it is entirely appropriate that we proceed to look at the lessons that can be learned from England and Wales, and that we move speedily on that. A number of Members made links to, for example, bullying, and mentioned the dreadful effects that that kind of activity can have on young, and very young, people. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew managed to put forward some extremely good arguments on why he should push his amendment on domestic abuse and then announced that he would not do so.”
“There was a fair amount of debate on sex offences, specifically revenge porn. It was noticeable that much of that debate referred to the digital age conference initiated by the Committee. That, too, shows the valuable work done by the Committee, and it is appreciated by the Department. I should also point out that, although the Committee initiated it, as on most of these occasions, it is the Committee staff who do all the hard work while the members take the glory. Nonetheless, it was because of the initiative of the Chair that that happened, and it clearly looked at a very significant issue. <BR /> <BR />Undoubtedly, there are other issues that need to be looked at, and I hope that there will be speedy consultation on those in the next mandate.”
“Certainly in response to some of the points that Mr Poots made, the fact that we are also considering the issue of unduly lenient sentencing on animal welfare issues may address, in a way which a Minister can respond to rather than in the precise way in which Mr Poots expressed his concern about the judiciary, means that there are issues there that can be moved forward on. Clearly, those were sorts of issues that were highlighted by Mr Weir about work with rehoming charities, but I suspect that that is probably in policy terms rather more for DARD than for DOJ.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the point relating to animal welfare issues, which were highlighted at the beginning by the intervention that Mr Weir made in my opening statement and which were concluded at the end by Mr Agnew's remarks, it is clear that there was a significant agreement that, although the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 is not yet five years old, there was an issue of looking at proper penalties for the offences covered by that Act. There was surprisingly little discussion except that which was initiated by Mr Weir and followed through by Mr Agnew. <BR /> <BR />I noticed in particular the references that Mr Weir made, which got some backing from Mr Poots, about the need to build on amendment No 52, looking at a number of issues.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understood that another Member wished to speak, but he has obviously decided not to at this point. <BR /> <BR />There seemed to be two general themes in this group of amendments. The first was the high level of agreement, even if there was not full agreement, on precise terminology and on the principles of the amendments in the group. The second seemed to be the amount of work noted as being required in the next mandate or, frequently, for the next Minister. I am not sure whether that was a reaction on the part of some Members to the praise that was being heaped on the Minister when we discussed group 1, but I may have to take the hint.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let us be absolutely clear: we should all believe that all public servants should be free to go about their service to the community free from abuse and the threat of violence. Whilst the current legislation provides adequate scope for effective prosecutions in those despicable instances when emergency staff are abused or, regrettably, attacked in the course of their efforts, I am content to accept the amendment if that is the will of the House.”
“That consideration acknowledged that it was not apparent how an additional offence would increase the protection afforded to Health and Social Care staff over and above the offences already available under the Offences Against the Person Act and the Protection from Harassment Order 1997. It was also considered unlikely that an assailant would be deterred by a separate criminal offence related specifically to the assault or abuse of Health and Social Care workers. I understand, however, that the Health Minister is content in principle that the creation of this offence is welcome. Therefore, I will not oppose Mr Frew's amendment, although definitional issues would need to picked up at Further Consideration Stage, if the amendment is agreed today, to ensure that the legislation is as good as it can be.”
“However, I raise a slight concern that a precedent could be set if there is a suggestion that the role of some should be prioritised. <BR /> <BR />I am not aware of any problems or shortcomings with existing legislation, which allows for assaults on all public servants, including paramedics and other ambulance workers, to be prosecuted under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. In addition, I ask the House to note that attacks on public servants or attacks that damage emergency equipment may already be treated as aggravating factors in sentencing. Indeed, DHSSPS, which is responsible for healthcare staff and has an obvious interest in the amendment, has previously considered the introduction of legislation that would create a specific offence of assaulting or impeding a healthcare worker in the execution of their duties.”
“I believe that that would be the best way forward. <BR /> <BR />If the amendment were to be pressed, amendments would be required at Further Consideration Stage. However, we should get the entire process right — the issues that Mrs Kelly and Mr Frew highlighted — and ensure that we have robust legislation, rather than doing something today that would potentially have to be changed in the early years of the next mandate. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew, I acknowledge, has been busy on the Bill as an individual. He also has amendment No 57 seeking to create an offence of assaulting and obstructing certain emergency workers. I believe that we all agree that attacks on public services should not be tolerated. All public servants have the right to go about their service to the community free from abuse and the threat of violence.”
“Just a few weeks ahead of us, on 22 December last year, Scotland launched a second public consultation on the draft offence of domestic abuse. That consultation closes on 1 April, and we can benefit from its outcome, particularly as it deals with a slightly wider construct in the definition of domestic abuse, dealing with the physical and psychological aspects. <BR /> <BR />Whilst acknowledging the work done by Mr Frew and Mrs Kelly previously, I believe that the consultation is the right place to address things to ensure that, in slightly slower time, we get this aspect of the legislation absolutely right. Therefore, I request the Member not to move the amendment at this time, to await the outcome of our public consultation, to learn the lessons of the application in England and Wales and to see the Scottish consultation concluded.”
“In developing and bringing forward the consultation paper, I sought the views of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which will have a key and significant role in determining and obtaining evidence for the offence. Acknowledging that the offence has only recently been introduced in England and Wales, the police believe that it would be prudent to await feedback from England and Wales on the efficacy of the new offence in criminalising the unseen aspect of abusive relationships. I support the view of the police that feedback from the introduction of the offence in England and Wales would be very beneficial in shaping future legislation in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, I believe that the feedback from the ongoing public consultation exercise will greatly assist and strengthen how best we legislate for the offence in Northern Ireland.”
“Members will be aware that, during consideration of the last Justice Bill, I gave an undertaking to consult on the introduction of a similar offence in Northern Ireland. The Justice Committee has considered and approved a draft consultation paper, covering not just this offence but the introduction of a domestic violence disclosure scheme in Northern Ireland on 28 January. The public consultation was launched just last week on 5 February and will close on 29 April.”
“I am happy to accept the will of the Committee that we should proceed to make this amendment today. <BR /> <BR />A further amendment is proposed specifically by Mr Paul Frew regarding the introduction of a domestic abuse offence to capture patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate relationships, an issue that arose during the discussion on the last Bill. Both Mr Frew and Mrs Kelly have shown considerable interest in this aspect of tackling domestic violence. In this specific instance, I will not support amendment No 56; indeed, I am opposing it. It proposes, in effect, to replicate section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which was commenced in England and Wales on 29 December last, following an extensive public consultation process.”
“<BR /> <BR />It seemed sensible to deal with the issue in the round to ensure that the law in this important area was developed in a coherent and logical manner. However, given the clearly stated support for the introduction of a similar provision to the offence that already exists in England and Wales, I am content to support the Committee's amendment, subject to a minor amendment that I intend to table at Further Consideration Stage to clarify the level of fine for a summary offence. At present, clause 42A(9)(b) does not precisely define the level of fine for a summary conviction, and that would need to be corrected. The other point is that the usual period on summary conviction would be imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine or both. However, that is a detail, which is what we have Further Consideration Stage for.”
“It should be recognised that there are existing laws in Northern Ireland to prosecute offenders for offences such as harassment, the improper use of a communications network and even blackmail. <BR /> <BR />I have not been made aware of particular or noticeable gaps in the law that have resulted in charges not being possible for this objectionable behaviour. As a result, given the time constraints and other pressing issues for the Department, it was not possible to give appropriate policy consideration to this new offence in time for a proposal to be considered for this Bill. I had planned, instead, to include the proposal in a proper policy consultation for future legislative change, as part of a wider review of related areas covering certain sexual offences and child protection.”
“The amendments will ensure that Northern Ireland has amongst the toughest penalties for these types of crime of any jurisdiction in these islands. That is something that we should seek to build on, and we should be proud of it if we can get it in place. <BR /> <BR />Having finished on the issue of animal welfare, I turn to the Committee's amendments to create a new offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress, generally known as "revenge pornography". We are looking at the creation of an offence similar to that created in England and Wales by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Such behaviour is, of course, already totally unacceptable.”
“Let us be clear that we are seeking to increase the maximum sentence for cases heard in the Crown Court from two years to five years, and the maximum sentence in the Magistrates' Court for offences of unnecessary suffering and causing or attending an animal fight from six months' to 12 months' imprisonment. The maximum fine that a Magistrates' Court can impose for these offences will increase from £5,000 to £20,000. <BR /> <BR />The three offences that will change from summary only to hybrid and therefore also be triable in the Crown Court are possession or supply of images of an animal fight, breach of a disqualification order and selling an animal pending the outcome of an appeal against a deprivation order. This, as I say, will allow the most serious offences to be taken in the Crown Court where they properly belong.”
“<BR /> <BR />I hope that these measures in the Bill will be introduced at an early stage so that we see the significant enhancement of sentencing provided for and send out a clear message.”
“I hope that not every member of the all-party group is going to get up. Perhaps we could stop at the two officers. Yes, it is a perfectly valid point on how we provide and enhance the information. Of course, these days, we do not have vast budgets for advertising campaigns, but there are ways of getting messages out via social media and the media generally, particularly in areas with decent local newspaper coverage. We need to ensure that we not only get the law right but continue to work with the voluntary animal welfare and rehoming groups to get the message out to the public about how we are going to do things right in future and that we will not allow others to engage in practices of animal cruelty, which, sadly, come to the courts of this jurisdiction too often.”
“I am very happy to give that commitment. I will continue to work with the Minister of Agriculture. I know that she shares my view that we should continue to work with rehoming charities to explore areas of best practice. The issues that have been highlighted are practical ones. I understand that a date for that meeting is in my diary; at least, so my officials tell me. I think that we are extending an invitation to at least the chair of the all-party group, who happens to be Mr Peter Weir. I have no doubt that he will add to the good work that Michelle O'Neill and I are doing, and we will ensure that we continue to provide the best possible arrangements in this jurisdiction.”
“We have had a very thorough review by the two Departments, and I hope that we are now in a strong position and will look at any further issues that we had not noticed before, as they arise, to take things forward.”
“While that legislation properly belongs to the Agriculture and Rural Development Minister, we are both aware of the considerable public interest, as shown by Mr Weir's speedy intervention, in ensuring that we have robust arrangements to protect and enhance animal welfare in this jurisdiction. <BR /> <BR />I believe that our joint response in the form of these new sentencing arrangements and the other measures being taken forward by DARD demonstrate a very significant commitment to animal welfare on the part of the two Departments and, indeed, this House. If we find ourselves in a position where this new legislation requires further thought — we have ongoing engagement with animal welfare organisations and the all-party group — I am sure that careful consideration will be given. That is an indication of the positive work being done.”
“I was not expecting an intervention so early, nor one so positive about the work that has been done. I could recommend to Members that they be equally supportive. As Mr Weir says, the joint review by DOJ and DARD was a very useful exercise, especially as it followed the relevant legislation relatively speedily. The input from the animal welfare organisations into that review was very significant, and both I and Mrs O'Neill want to ensure that we have an ongoing working relationship with them over this issue, which lies between the two Departments. <BR /> <BR />As a result of the review, a number of improvements have been agreed, and we are considering specifically the improved sentencing arrangements today.”
“Amendment No 52 makes changes to the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 by increasing the maximum penalties for the most serious offences of animal cruelty; changing the mode of trial for three animal welfare offences, from summary only to hybrid; and extending the use of a range of court orders in the 2011 Act, such as disqualification orders, to apply in cases where someone has been convicted of possessing or supplying images of an animal fight. The amendment has been included following a request from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in order to give effect to a recommendation arising out of the joint review carried out between DARD and DOJ on the implementation of the 2011 Act.”
“That was a ludicrous intrusion, overlaying the will of devolved bodies with national security. This is no such thing: it is guidance. "Have regard to" is the lowest possible standard. Therefore, to suggest that this is somehow a major problem is simply nonsense. People should accept the reality that this exists in prison rules. If we are putting the Prison Ombudsman on a statutory basis, we should get the statute right in the Bill and reflect the reality of life.”
“I will make the position absolutely clear: that the ombudsman shall have regard to guidance and, having considered all the issues, shall decide whether to go with that guidance is not the test that Sinn Féin Ministers and MLAs accepted in the Reservoirs Act. It is utterly bogus to pretend that this is somehow some massive intrusion by the NIO, when the test is at a significantly lower level than that which they have accepted with regard to the Public Services Ombudsman and with regard to reservoirs. People ought to grow up, accept the reality of life and stop pretending that something is significantly worse than it is. <BR /> <BR />I made this point to Mr Maginness, and I will make it again: I had significant concerns about what the NIO was seeking to do when it was looking at new legislation to deal with legacy institutions for the past.”
“In this case, all that we are talking about is a replication in the legislation that puts the ombudsman on a statutory footing of that which already exists in prison rules and will continue to exist in prison rules whatever decision is taken in the House this afternoon. That is the well-known, regular formation of "having regard to" guidance, which is a vastly lower test than the ability of the Secretary of State to issue a direction. Members suggest that somehow this is a massive intrusion into the work, yet it has existed for six years since devolution and has not ever been used. I am tempted to requote Mr Maginness. If he thinks that, because it exists, it will somehow be used, why has it not been used for six years? The power is there anyway.”