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 26 of 50.
“I also oppose it because I believe the age of 11 is wrong, and I believe that the Chief Constable's agreement to the age of 12, by which time young people are at post-primary school, is a significant difference from 11. I also believe that the issue of ensuring the best possible public safety by managing the circumstances in which shotguns and air rifles may be used on ranges and in clay pigeon shooting events is a significant and important point. While I am very happy to continue exploring the potential for compromise with those who proposed the amendment, I believe, in line with advice from the Chief Constable, that I must oppose what is being put forward.”
“We have conflicting proposals. They are contradictory and therefore flawed. I see what the intention is, but the reality of putting it into legislation means that such a proposal would be inoperable. There is the further point that sub-paragraph 3 disapplies sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 for under-11s, subject to sub-paragraph 4, but sub-paragraph 4 deals only with those who are over 11. There is no connection, it is confusing in legislative terms and it is probably nonsensical. My legal adviser stated that there is no overlap between sub-paragraph 3 and sub-paragraph 4, which would require sub-paragraph 3 to be subject to sub-paragraph 4. <BR /> <BR />I must oppose clause 98B in amendment No 12 because of its fundamental drafting flaws.”
“That is an area that we will have to look at particularly, but I will just turn to the technical issues with the amendment. <BR /> <BR />The proposed amendment to schedule 1, after paragraph 9(3)(b), provides for a young person, aged between 11 and 18, to use an airgun subject to supervision. It is only permissible for an airgun with a kinetic energy of less than one joule. That directly conflicts with schedule 1, paragraph 9(3)(a), as it currently stands. It states that a person under 18 may not:”
“Mr Humphrey, who again cited Mr Calvert and the series of medals he won over the year, made a similar point. <BR /> <BR />What is proposed in the amendment is entirely different from what was suggested at that stage or what I was considering in the context of competitive sport and where the Chief Constable was prepared to agree that it was reasonable to remove the age limit of 16 and substitute it with one of 12. The challenge is for us to ensure that young people get the opportunity to participate in sports where there will be international competition. Robust supervision is also much more likely to be seen at an organised clay pigeon shooting club than in the kind of example that was highlighted by Mr Lyttle when he referred to the evidence of the Deer Society about the dangers of young people carrying shotguns in open, rough country.”
“He referred specifically to shotgun and airgun shooting sports only:”
“That is certainly the issue that I was taking on board, noting what was said by the House on that previous occasion. <BR /> <BR />That is in line with comments that were made by Lord Morrow on his amendments on 7 March 2011:”
“I am fully aware of points that were made in the House four years ago during the passage of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. I am also well aware of the fact that a range of different proposals were made on the appropriate minimum age for shooting. There were proposals for 10, 11, 12 and for no change whatsoever, maintaining it at 16. The Chief Constable was reluctantly prepared to move to age 12 and I accepted his advice in that respect, but there is also the issue that the amendment goes significantly beyond what was stated in the House previously by enabling 11- to 15-year-olds to shoot live quarry in entirely different situations from what was highlighted, which was people taking part in clay pigeon shooting on specified ranges under significant supervision in the context of international competition.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also have a slight concern about the final reference in the proposed schedule that fees would not be increased for a period of at least five years. The concept that we might see fees decreased but not increased, when we know that some of them are already too low, is not going to deal with the financial circumstances that we are in, even with what we are seeking to do to ensure better efficiency on the part of the PSNI by putting those recommendations into practice. Although overall there is a considerable measure of agreement on banding and fees, I cannot support clause 98A because of the points that I have raised before and after Question Time. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to the proposed clause 98B, amendment No 12, which relates to the age for shooting.”
“I accept Mr Frew's point, but the fundamental point is that much the largest amount of work is covered by category 1: the grant or renewal of the 60,000 extant firearm certificates. Whilst I certainly recognise the point about modest changes elsewhere, they do not come anywhere near to recovering the amount of money that would be lost by failing to charge an appropriate figure. Despite what is being suggested in some quarters, they do bear comparison with fees charged in other jurisdictions on these islands, given the variety of different time periods and, in some cases, issues with the number of firearms that can be held on one certificate as opposed to an individual one. There are options there.”
“I certainly welcome the opportunity to look at dealers' fees, and I note the points made by, in particular, Mr McGlone and possibly also by Mr Frew about small dealers and the appropriate fee that they should be charged, particularly somebody who holds only a few firearms because they are effectively operating a repair service rather than a dealership. I am very happy to look at those again. It is reasonable to accept that there will be a potentially lower category of fees for some dealers, but the detail of that needs to be worked out.”
“If it had been intransigence on the part of the Department, that might merit an answer. <BR /> <BR />On variation fees, the amendment proposes three different charges. My proposals were a little different — less, in one case — but I had proposed two scales to simplify matters. There is also confusion in how fees 3 and 5 would apply to banding. Difficulty in language does not make for good legislation. There is also a reference to a game-fair permit, though that is not currently covered in the 2004 Order.”
“A fee of £88 is proposed for five years. My proposal is £98 for five years. The cost of £2 more per annum for a certificate lasting five years does not seem to me to be a considerable amount for those who hold the FAC, but in terms of the funding from 60,000 certificate holders, that is a loss of £600,000 for the PSNI. Whilst we may talk about ensuring robust good practice on the part of the PSNI, and I believe that one Member said that we should put pressure on it to do that, I am keen to encourage the PSNI to be accurate. I am not sure that the Minister of Justice should, in the current circumstances, seek to put pressure on the PSNI. The police would have to find that money from elsewhere if the money does not come forward from the FAC fees. I will give way to Mr Givan.”
“<BR /> <BR />The first item proposed relates to:”
“<BR /> <BR />Detailed work was done when my Department employed DFP's business consultancy services to calculate appropriate fees for the future to ensure that those who hold the various licences and certificates should have an appropriate fee charged and so that the public is not required to subsidise those. In engagement last week, I signed off on the latest proposals coming on the basis of that information from DFP, but the amendments proposed to the House today include the figures that were tabled by members of three of the shooting organisations. What we have, then, is a proposal from the Department based on figures supplied by DFP, which closely scrutinised the work done by the PSNI, and, on the other hand, a set of proposals from those who might be described as having a vested interest and fees that are somewhat lower.”
“Yes. It is my understanding that that one minor modification to what the shooting organisations presented has now been accepted by the Department. We are now at an extremely close position on that point. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak to the issue of fees, specifically, the proposed new schedule 6 in the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. As Members will be aware, all Departments are required to apply cost recovery according to guidance from the Department of Finance and Personnel. That is what the Department has sought to do for some time. I also accept fully that concerns have been expressed by those who hold firearms certificates (FACs) and by dealers about whether the PSNI runs the process as efficiently as it could.”
“I was going to speak to fees at this point, but, in light of a slight misunderstanding on my part of what Mr McGlone was saying before we broke for Question Time, I want to make one further point clear on the banding issue. The bands that the Department proposes to introduce are those submitted to the Committee by the three shooting organisations on 28 May, with the one addition, in band 3, of .218 Bee. As far as I know, that would be the only change required to the specific banding, although the issue about the holding of two firearms of the same calibre would, I believe, still have to be varied through the PSNI, given the specific issue of due cause to hold two firearms of a similar nature. <BR /> <BR />I will give way to Mr McGlone if he wants to clarify that.”
“No. We would not agree to exactly what is proposed in the amendment, but it will be very similar to it. It has moved on as we have looked at different numbers of bandings from five to four. There was even a typographical error that, simply, does not provide an accurate description. It is in the context of rim fire and it says "rim f" and not "rim fire". There are problems with that from a technical point of view. We would be very close to the amendment that is proposed there, but we need to ensure that the work is done in detail before the next legislative opportunity. It will not very far from the four bands as currently proposed. <BR /> <BR />With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will break there and return to fees after Question Time.”
“They and, indeed, club secretaries would need advice and training. In addition, the police would need to be able to remove the permission for dealers to conduct banded transactions if they do not comply with the requirements. I welcome the fact that the dealers have dealt with that. There is a realistic prospect for moving forward in future, but it is not one that we can deal with today. <BR /> <BR />At this point, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may wish that I break here before going on to speak about fees.”
“<BR /> <BR />There are other rules and conditions around on-loan and dual-use firearms exchanges that might have some prospect of moving forward if we deal with the current difficulties surrounding the specific points made. I echo the comments of Mr Frew, the Committee Chair and others that, since the amendments were tabled, there has been helpful engagement between representatives of three of the shooting organisations and my officials. I also met the Members who tabled the amendment. If it does not proceed today, let me place it firmly on record that I will be prepared to modify my proposals, which exclude those aspects. The modification would allow for these categories to be included on the basis of a regime that involves, in effect, the authorisation of dealers to carry out banded work.”
“Again, I understand the motivation, but it is just not right when we are talking about legislation, which has to be right. <BR /> <BR />There was a reference to firearms exchanges being possible to allow somebody to hold two firearms of the same calibre as long as it is not for the same good reason. I accept that that is an attempt to deal realistically with the issue of the Chief Constable being required to assess that somebody has good reason to hold two firearms of a similar calibre. However, it is an issue for the Chief Constable and not a dealer to perform when the exchange is being made. I suspect that that also covers Mr McGlone's point about dual use and how exactly we deal with firearms that are used on ranges and elsewhere.”
“Therefore, there is a provision for the Secretary of State, who does not actually have the power, and no provision for how it could be done. That is fundamental flaw that I suspect cannot be rectified. There is also a reference to bands being changed by addition only but not by subtraction, which would mean that it would not be possible to move a particular category from one band to another.”
“The three groups that have been highlighted — the Gun Trade Guild, the Countryside Alliance and the BASC — were not happy and have produced their own proposals. I welcome the fact that we have got a realistic look at how bands will work, although my bands were more extensive that those that have been proposed. <BR /> <BR />I need to look at the flaws in what is proposed. On the point made by Tom Elliott, I can say that there is a specific reference in amendment No 11 to the Secretary of State being responsible for future amendments, yet, in every other respect, other than the issues of national security and prohibited weapons, all the Secretary of State's functions passed to the Department of Justice on devolution five years ago.”
“I start by emphasising the point that it is absolutely clear that the banding proposals that we have in Northern Ireland go significantly beyond the practice in any other jurisdiction in these islands to the benefit of those who shoot and firearms dealers. As I said, I believe that we are very close on the banding issue, but it is not quite right. I trust that it will be possible for the amendment to be withdrawn and rectified for a future piece of legislation — ideally, as Mr Frew said, the Justice (No. 2) Bill, which I trust will be before the Assembly in the next week or so. Well, a week or a day. <BR /> <BR />A number of the shooting groups were content with the banding system that the Department put forward.”
“Indeed, as highlighted by Tom Elliott, there is a particular inadequacy in one of the amendments, which is an indication that a lot more work needed to be done. As I said, however, we are where we are, and I will proceed on my view, which has been informed by Chief Constable, but seek to reach an accommodation with the Committee and those Members who tabled the amendments. It is really unfortunate that, on aspects of banding and fees, we are very close to agreement but not quite there. Had the amendments been tabled at Consideration Stage, we might have been there by today. <BR /> <BR />I want to speak first to amendment No 11, the proposed new clause 98A, which covers the new banded exchange system for rifles and proposes a schedule of bands and a schedule of fees.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take the hint. <BR /> <BR />In appreciation of the way in which the amendments were put forward by Mr Frew and spoken to by others, I need to make a few general points about issues on which I am still in slight disagreement, particularly the timing and manner of the amendments and the level of engagement that was already going on between the Department, the Committee and various interests, which go rather beyond the three organisations that were named on several occasions. However, we are where we are, and I will not labour those points. <BR /> <BR />Further Consideration Stage, at which there is no opportunity to get things right, is not a great point at which to introduce quite complex amendments.”
“As Justice Minister, I have to consider the integrity of the criminal law as a whole and ensure that it is fit for purpose and not liable to dysfunctional outcomes. There is also, I believe, a similar responsibility on the Assembly. So, whilst I am happy to support Mr Allister's amendment, Mr Ross, I am quite happy to say that it is not possible to accept with any credibility the second amendment on mandatory minimum sentences.”
“<BR /> <BR />All those issues mean that I cannot support this amendment, not because I believe that those who commit violent crimes against the elderly should not be punished appropriately, but because I believe that the courts are best placed to do this and because the draft revisions are not competent. The "violent offence" reference is far too wide; the reference to "the court" does not deal with the issue as to what level of court; and tabling an amendment at this stage of the Bill is not an appropriate way to introduce legislation on such a complex issue. It is without consultation, consideration or scrutiny by Committee. Changing laws in this way is not, I believe, the correct place for this Assembly. It is not how good law is made.”
“He or she simply could not do it within existing law. So does that mean that the district judge would be passing up to the Crown Court matters that do not justify hearing in the Crown Court, which would produce significant clogging up of business there and, potentially, end up with Crown Court judges saying that there are exceptional circumstances in a great number of them? As others have said, the clause would also impose a minimum sentence that is not within the range of sentence permitted by law. The definition would require a seven-year sentence to be imposed for some offences with a maximum of two years' imprisonment.”
“It is clear that there would be many potential difficulties in the application, if this were passed. For a start, the provisions are not restricted to trial on indictment, in the Crown Court. Given all the problems that we have in managing courts, I find it difficult to believe that, when Mr Givan suggests that it is reasonable that all such cases be remitted to the Crown Court for trial, that it would be a realistic and reasonable use of resources, particularly if we consider cases like two 70-year-olds who fall out outside the pub and push each other a bit. <BR /> <BR />The usual maximum term of imprisonment for a summary offence is six months; in some cases, a maximum of 12, where allowed by law. So, if passed, how would a district judge in a Magistrates' Court enforce these provisions?”
“However, I must confess that Jim Allister and Alban Maginness have identified some, and it certainly appeared by the speech he made that Basil McCrea is seeking to join traditional lawyers' voice and is researching for a career at the Bar, because he also spotted some.”
“<BR /> <BR />The outworking could mean that, if two people aged 65 or over had a minor physical altercation — perhaps they had drunk too much on an evening out — both would be liable to seven years' imprisonment unless they could show to the court that there were exceptional circumstances. That shows the potential difficulties of legislating without the normal policy and scrutiny processes being carried through. <BR /> <BR />I first saw this clause, as other Members did, when it was tabled on 10 June, which clearly did not allow time to properly consider all of the legislative issues or all of the possible unintended consequences.”
“A very broad range of offences would be covered, including incidents of very minor physical injuries and, indeed, cases where there was no injury whatsoever. Whatever was said by Mr Poots, physical injury does not mean grievous bodily harm with or without intent; it does not mean actual bodily harm. It would include common assault. It would lead to anything that led to a physical injury. Indeed, during the first Assembly mandate, I was assaulted in the Chamber by another Member who squeezed my arm to the point at which it was painful. That would qualify as physical injury on the definition that is given and, therefore, would be covered by a mandatory seven-year minimum sentence, had I been over 65 at the time.”
“However, the reality is that we could see large numbers of cases of little more than, or possibly not even, common assault being considered under this. It would be very bad law to have exceptionality considered in so many cases. <BR /> <BR />We cannot be sure that this clause, in its operation, would not impact unjustly on an offender before the courts. The framework in legislation usually sets out the maximum penalty, not the minimum sentence, for an offence. Of course, there are discrete exceptions for specific offences, but the proposed minimum seven-year sentence in this amendment would apply not to specific offences but to all violent offences, as defined in the proposed clause, at the very serious end of the spectrum and, more worryingly, offences that fall within the very broad definition of:”
“The Assembly knows my views on mandatory minimum sentences. I have always argued that they make no allowance for the exceptional case, and there is always the possibility of such cases. I acknowledge that this clause allows for a lesser sentence to be imposed in exceptional circumstances, but what those circumstances might be is unclear and will have to be determined by case law. Mr Poots said that mandatory minimum sentences would ensure consistency. There is no suggestion that they would ensure consistency; they would merely ensure a mandatory minimum. <BR /> <BR />When we look at the issue of exceptionality, there may be specific cases. We have had highlighted, previously, the case of the paedophile pensioner, which Mr Allister mentioned on a previous occasion.”
“I have said many times that it is fundamental to our system of justice that judicial discretion is maintained and that sentences are imposed on a case-by-case basis by those who hear the entire case, not by those who read very limited reports in the media of what may be very long cases.”
“I believe that that shows the judiciary responding. I also believe strongly that judges are best placed to take account of the specific circumstances in each case and to sentence appropriately.”
“That is a point that this particular proposal is slightly inconsistent on; although, given the difficulties we have in getting any older person's strategy through OFMDFM, it is perhaps not surprising that we have not got that defined. We should perhaps also consider those who are physically disabled and those who suffer from learning disability. There are issues of vulnerability that are not easily stated by regarding just one particular group of one particular age. <BR /> <BR />As an illustration of what the courts consider around older people as a particularly vulnerable group, let me quote another point from a Court of Appeal guideline judgement:”
“Where the law stands and the opportunities that we have are absolutely clear. One of the purposes of sentencing has to be to act as a deterrent. I know from the regular discussions I have with the Lord Chief Justice that judges take that responsibility seriously. There has been considerable work done on guideline judgements, and the Judicial Studies Board has made a number of recommendations to colleagues. That is significant work that is ongoing. <BR /> <BR />It is absolutely clear that older people are regarded as being, potentially, particularly vulnerable and, therefore, worthy of particular consideration. Perhaps we should not be considering just older people, although Claire Sugden made an entirely reasonable point as to whether older people are those who are older than me, at 65, or include me, at 60.”
“In making those decisions, judges are guided by sentencing guidelines, which already indicate that the courts should treat the age and vulnerability of the victim as an aggravating factor when assessing the appropriate sentence to be imposed. <BR /> <BR />Let me quote a further bit from the same Court of Appeal judgement that was quoted by Mr Basil McCrea earlier. It is the judgement delivered, I believe, by Lord Justice Gillen on behalf of the court in the Crown v Cambridge in January. As well as the point highlighted by Mr McCrea, it was said:”
“Indeed, the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 introduced public protection sentences where offenders who are considered to pose a risk of serious harm can be detained indefinitely — indefinitely — and decisions on release are made by the parole commissioners and not by the sentencing judge. <BR /> <BR />For murder, a life sentence is mandatory. For attempted murder or manslaughter, sentences up to life imprisonment are available. For robbery and aggravated burglary, again life sentences are available. For assault occasioning actual bodily harm, penalties of up to seven years maximum can be given. Sentencing decisions within this legislative framework are a matter for the judiciary, taking account of all the factors pertaining in individual cases.”
“These include funding projects delivered by Age Sector Platform and Linking Generations Northern Ireland to, for example, raise awareness of existing crime prevention support and promote the benefits of intergenerational work. Policing and community safety partnerships also deliver a range of initiatives aimed at tackling crime against older people. Those include a number of schemes involving home security and a variety of crime prevention projects. <BR /> <BR />However, the thrust of this amendment is focused on sentencing. The reality is that substantial custodial sentences are available to the judiciary under the current legislative framework for those convicted of violent crime.”
“I appreciate that the aim of the amendment is to send out a message that such crimes will not be tolerated. While I agree with that message, I cannot agree with the amendment. It is flawed, it will not work within the existing legislative framework, and I believe it is not necessary. <BR /> <BR />The Programme for Government demonstrates the Executive's commitment to ensuring that older and vulnerable people are able to live their lives free from the fear of crime. That commitment is reflected in a range of measures that my Department has taken forward to address sentencing issues and fear of crime and to reduce offending.”
“My starting position is certainly to agree with the comments made from all parts of the Chamber that said that, although all crime is to be condemned, crimes against older people and other vulnerable people are particularly abhorrent. However, we also need to be careful that we do not make older people become more fearful about their safety. I think that, at times, we exceeded that in this evening's discussion. As I said at Question Time yesterday, statistics show that people aged 65 and over are the least likely to be victims of violent crime. They accounted for less than 2·2% of such victims in 2014-15, even though they constitute 15·5% of the population. We know, of course, particularly given the effects on anyone who is vulnerable, that one crime is one too many.”
“Obviously, that will be on the basis of individual risk assessment in many cases. <BR /> <BR />Whilst I certainly support the use of unpaid placements to support rehabilitation, my preference is that, where at all possible, we should be encouraging those leaving custody to obtain paid employment and to make their contribution that way. However, I am happy to accept the amendment and to consider how a community service scheme might work as part of the package of services that we provide to those leaving custody in the future. I think that that is a recognition of the reality as we seek to work through the detail of it. <BR /> <BR />If that was the easy one, amendment No 7 is certainly not easy to consider.”
“Improving prisoners' educational attainment and employment prospects will most certainly help to reduce the risk to the community by reducing the risk of reoffending and supporting a general desistance from crime. There are real possibilities in that area. <BR /> <BR />Mr Douglas asked me specifically about matters relating to his experience of seeking to promote employment. It is absolutely the case that I wish to see employment opportunities provided where possible. He also asked about offences that would be seen as outside article 19. The current list, as I have it, is that excluded from those provisions will be those serving life sentences, those serving extended or indeterminate sentences, those subject to notification requirements under Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and other prisoners convicted of more serious offences.”
“We would need to look at the potential effects on the Probation Board in terms of how it would sit alongside its community service programme, and we would need an analysis of the Department's employability strategy, so there are a number of issues. <BR /> <BR />The Prison Service employability strategy is a public commitment to support individuals in custody to develop the qualifications, skills and experience they need so that they can obtain employment when they leave. There has been a lot of progress on that. I have reported recently on the partnership between the Prison Service, the Belfast Metropolitan College and the North West Regional College to provide education and training opportunities to those in custody.”
“However, that said, and aside from that little bit of nitpicking from the Minister, the wording is helpful. If introduced, it would give the Department a discretionary power, rather than a mandatory requirement, to require unpaid community service to be undertaken. It clearly builds very positively on the experience that we have seen across the border. Anything that comes from the DUP supporting Irish policy is clearly to be welcomed, as it shows the openness of its approach in that respect. <BR /> <BR />In light of the severe budgetary pressures on my Department, I hope that Members will understand that any decision to introduce such a measure will need to be subject to a detailed cost-benefit analysis. I need to give some measure of caution, and, certainly, I will not be in a position to rush to implement the amendment.”
“It is interesting that, when we have been talking a lot about what sympathy we have and who has the most sympathy for older people who are the victims of crime, we are also conscious that today we might have sympathy for those who are bereaved and those who were injured by the balcony collapse in Berkeley, California. That involved a significant number of students from this island, although we do not know exactly from where at this stage. <BR /> <BR />I will start with the easy one. I have some slight concerns about the process of Mr Ross's amendment, otherwise known as Mr Allister's amendment, because of the early release conditions. To some extent, it means that we are putting legislative authority in place before we have actually done the policy work.”
“<BR /> <BR />What we have put forward in the first group of amendments is a reasonable and workable programme that will ensure that the changes that were made at Consideration Stage are made better, that we deal with the specific issue of the charity recognition to ensure that we can better protect the victims of human trafficking, and that everything else we are doing is designed to improve our overall commitment to improving services for victims and witnesses across the justice system. With the exception of Mr McCartney's gracious recognition of the difference between amendment No 3 and amendment No 4, I commend all the other amendments to the House.”
“He produced that without notice at Consideration Stage and then he accused me of, in my response, springing something on the House. It was absolutely clear, from the discussion at Consideration Stage and with the Committee afterwards, that there was a will to make amendments to the amendments that were provided on the issue of committal. If I am asked to choose between taking advice on what is proper drafting from legislative counsel or from Mr Allister, I will choose the advice of legislative counsel. If I am asked about what the effects will be on the court, I will take advice from those who have specific experience of how it runs.”