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 27 of 50.
“When he said that it was clear to him that the Minister wished to dilute the will of the House, he contradicted every other Member of this House who has recognised that there has been good and close working partnership between Members of the House, particularly members of the Justice Committee, and the Department, whether it is the officials or the Minister. That was absolutely not the case. The case was to take account of what was said at Consideration Stage and ensure that we put things right. <BR /> <BR />I was accused of springing an amendment on the House by someone who produced an idea without any discussion with anybody that, on advice from legislative counsel, did not sit easily with existing legislation.”
“There is a lot in this that is about ensuring that people are better protected and better looked after across the justice system generally. We should be grateful for that, as we look at issues like domestic violence, protection orders and protection notices, as we look at disclosure and as we look at the way in which committal is run. It is about protecting victims and witnesses, which has been a key aim of the Committee since justice powers were devolved. On that issue, there has been good partnership, which is absolutely correct. <BR /> <BR />In the final contribution, Mr Allister ensured that all was not sweetness, light and harmony in the Chamber. First of all, he admitted that he was not here to hear my opening contribution. It is slightly difficult when you do not know exactly what was said in the opening remarks.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am also grateful for the fact that Mrs Kelly commented that she believed that the Minister had delivered on his commitments in the Bill and in the forthcoming consultation. I think that recognises the practical reality of the cooperation. She and her colleagues bear a part of that practical cooperation for the work that they have done. It was also very significant when, in the penultimate contribution of the debate before my final winding-up speech, Mrs Kelly said that this group of amendments is about the protection of victims and witnesses. I believe that that is the case in every aspect of what we are looking at, whether we are looking at committal reform or the specific issues around disclosure.”
“That is the key factor; not that we are upsetting the provisions that we have, not that we are dealing with major radical change, but that we are building on good work already being done by the police, probation and other agencies within PPANI and refining it that little bit to make it that little bit better. When we talk about promoting this, we should not suggest that there were not good arrangements in place previously, because I think that that would be doing a disservice to many dedicated public officials who have worked extremely hard over the years on the PPANI arrangements, and I appreciate the fact that Mr Frew is, again, nodding in response to something that I said, even if he laughs at Henry VIII references.”
“— I can assure him that I have no such powers, and, if I had them, I would not use them against him when he is working constructively with me. There are practical issues where, frankly, we disagree at times, even though a lot of what we do is positive, constructive and engaging. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew then went on to praise everybody, including, most notably, Lord Morrow for his role as he worked on the disclosure issues. I will happily register a slight smile at Mr Frew's allegations about me and pass on and continue to be constructive. I noticed that he made one very significant point about the disclosure issues, which is that those are building on the existing PPANI arrangements.”
“I am entitled to disagree on the basis of information that I have before me, but I am also required to take account of the views of the House and to seek to work constructively with the Committee. So, if Mr Frew thought that I was about to behead him or throw him in the tower—”
“The answer is straightforward and simple. We need amendment Nos 2 and 3 because we have clause 7 and clause 8 in the Bill, which deal with different issues and both are required to be covered in the amendments. They are similar issues but they are different issues. Therefore, we have to ensure that we get things covered carefully in that respect. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew suggested that the Minister sounded a bit annoyed, and he somehow managed to equate me to Henry VIII, which is deeply worrying since, not that long ago, I was told that I was not as bad as Henry VIII. So, I will go with the remarks made about me at Consideration Stage and ignore Mr Frew in that respect. However, I think that it is an issue where we have shown that the Department and this Minister do not always agree with everything that comes from the Committee.”
“The amendments tabled and passed at Consideration Stage would have meant virtually no difference in practice. In accordance with the remarks of many Members around the House, it is about the need to ensure that those vulnerable people who might be required to give evidence were suitably protected.”
“Mr Elliott referred, in the context of the committal proceedings, to having thought that Jim Allister's previous amendments were a kind of halfway house and that, to some extent, I was dragging matters halfway back again. I am sorry but I do not recognise that as being the position. Indeed, I know that there are those who are even better acquainted with the courts than me or, perhaps, Mr Maginness or Mr Elliott who believe that, as I said at Consideration Stage, the practical effects of the amendments put forward by Mr Allister would be virtually no change. <BR /> <BR />I think that the wish of the House to deal with the needs of victims has been fully covered by these amendments, and the comments around the House have largely reflected that. It is not a matter of taking a halfway house and pulling it back.”
“So there are positive changes within that. We established that we have got that right by looking at the balance of the first round of speakers.”
“I am grateful to him, and it would be slightly worrying if I did not have one person sitting behind me who was positive and constructive. He made the interesting point that preliminary investigations had been abolished elsewhere in other common-law jurisdictions. He highlighted England and Wales, and it is also the case that they have been abolished entirely in the Republic of Ireland. We are not seeking to abolish; we are seeking to ensure that they are used where appropriate in the interests of justice, and the interests of justice include the needs of victims.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness asked specifically about the provisions for extraterritorial cases. It is my understanding that, at this stage, the defendant does not have the right to object to a preliminary inquiry in those cases and this is merely a replication because of slight changes in the wording of the already extant provision; it is not any change in it. He also asked about whether the references in clause 8 are to a mixed committal. They are, in fact, references to a mixed committal on the basis that they are matters where some people are required to give evidence at what is a preliminary inquiry. That is a mixed committal in practical terms, so it covers the particular issues raised there. <BR /> <BR />Mr Dickson, of course, joined in the usual roll call of those praising the Minister.”
“By the fact that we balance the nature of the charge and the interests of victims and witnesses, I believe that this is the right balance between the two, not in an attempt to blunt — I think I have a fairly clear record of accepting the will of the House, including, frequently, when I disagree with it slightly — but to ensure that we put matters into practical sense to ensure that we move things forward as to how things can go ahead. I think that we have shown that the amendment, which was very largely encouraged by a number of Members of the House who recognised the difficulties that there were, would be able to deal with this in a way that is realistic, proportionate and practical. I trust that this will show that we can move forward around this area in a way that protects the most vulnerable.”
“That is an indication not of backpedalling on the concept of the interests of justice but of ensuring that, in taking account of the interests of justice, we take account of the interests of those who may be required to give evidence, particularly vulnerable victims and witnesses who might be required to give evidence twice if there were a preliminary investigation but who do not need to do so in the interests of justice.”
“Indeed, I could embarrass him by quoting what the vice-Chair of the Committee, Raymond McCartney, said at Consideration Stage:”
“Even if its advice is not always requested and its assistance is not always forthcoming, the general principle applies between the Justice Committee, departmental officials and, I trust, the Minister that there is still a fairly cooperative arrangement given the difficult issues we have to deal with. Even if we all have our tongue slightly in our cheek, I welcome the fact that it was a genuine comment from Mr Maginness about the work that was being done. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness hoped — his fellow member of "Traditional Lawyer's Voice" went a little further later on — that the intentions of the amendment were not to blunt the will of the House. That was absolutely not the intention of the amendments. However, a number of Members pointed out issues around the exact impact of the interests of justice on victims.”
“I liked his reference to his amendment around committals being "well intentioned but ill defined" and the grace with which he accepted that possibly my amendment was equally well intentioned but slightly better defined. It is an indication that we can do constructive work with many people in the House across a variety of issues. I trust that that has been recognised and that we are able to deal with the issue in a better way. <BR /> <BR />Alban Maginness again got in the point about amendment No 1 and congratulated the Minister for accepting the will of the House. I mouthed "as usual" across the Chamber to Paul Frew but did not make a formal intervention because I am well aware of the role of the Committee, which, I believe, still stands in the 1998 Act as being to advise and assist the Minister.”
“The amendment on the specification of charities makes it clear that we are talking about charities that are registered under the laws of England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. I am not quite sure whether there are international charities operating in any part of the UK that are not registered in any part of the UK, but, as the law stands and as the amendment stands, they would not be permitted to carry out functions under the human trafficking legislation unless they are international charities that are registered in one or other of the UK jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCartney made similar points as vice-Chair — as he frequently does in backing up the Chair, especially when there is some modest criticism going on of the Minister — around clause 86, so I shall not repeat them.”
“We have seen a lot of positive work done on that, so, whilst I will happily agree with the Chair that we perhaps need to look at the necessity of provisions like amendment No 1 and the previous clause 86, I do not think that we should automatically assume that we can do without it in all circumstances. I also thank the Chair for his recognition of the positive work that is being done on disclosure issues relating to adults and children, including the briefing that my officials and the police gave to the Committee last week. I think that it shows progress in that respect. <BR /> <BR />Mr Ross also asked about international charities and their potential role.”
“That would have been necessary to make the provisions on charities, had we not had this Bill before the House at the appropriate time. There were reasons why it was done. It was not done out of laziness, and we need to be careful that we do not throw out proverbial babies with proverbial bathwater in that respect. <BR /> <BR />As I said, I recognise that we have had a constructive discussion, including direct engagement with the Committee on how we deal with that, with particular reference to Part 1 and the vast amount of legislation going back to 1842 that had to be amended because of the single jurisdiction issue.”
“The fact that similar provisions to those in the original clause 86 have been included in a significant number of Bills that have been before the House and have been mostly allowed through without any question suggests that there are reasons why that is done. They are not reasons of laziness. The fact that we now have 34 pages of legislation being amended in schedule 1 alone is an indication of the detail that has to be gone into. <BR /> <BR />It is also slightly ironic that, if we had not had the Bill before the House at this stage, it would have been necessary to amend the provisions of the human trafficking Act in respect of charities through a procedure in that Act that was passed by the House without any dissent or disagreement.”
“Until the last contribution, I was beginning to think that there was going to be universal praise for everybody in sight. Before I criticise some aspects of what Members said, perhaps I should start off by praising the Committee and thanking its staff, my officials, legislative counsel, the Bill Office and the Members who have contributed and made specific comments. To disrupt that happy mood and given that there was such general agreement until the last contribution, I will go through some of the points that Members raised. <BR /> <BR />I have to disagree slightly with Mr Ross in the spirit of maintaining the fact that we do not entirely agree on the abolition of clause 86. He graciously acknowledged, as did others, the work that has been done to deal with that, but I think that there are real issues around legislation.”
“Clearly, some of the major children's charities are registered technically only in England, but operate here as well. As a result, the provision of an independent guardian service will be open to all relevant charities registered anywhere in the United Kingdom or on the deemed list in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to commend this amendment to the House with the support of Lord Morrow to ensure that his Act operates successfully. <BR /> <BR />That covers all the amendments in group 1, with the exception of Mr McCartney's amendment, which, as I have highlighted, I believe is not as effective as my amendment to the same clause. I commend the amendments to the House.”
“Those already registered in England, for example, will not be required to register separately in Northern Ireland; but the wording of section 21(4)(a) of the Human Trafficking Act means that those charities that are registered elsewhere but which operate in Northern Ireland cannot provide guardian services here. I cannot believe that that was the intent of the House when the Human Trafficking Act was passed, and I certainly do not believe that it was the desire of Lord Morrow or of the Department. <BR /> <BR />To fix the problem, therefore, section 21(4)(a) of the Human Trafficking Act 2015 needs to be amended, and amendment No 10 does so by redefining the meaning of a registered charity to include charities that are registered in England and Wales and in Scotland.”
“I understood, from working with Lord Morrow to bring forward the Act, that he specifically sought to have the guardian service provided by a charity, principally to maintain a level of independence from the statutory sector. The definition of a charity is therefore very important. <BR /> <BR />To date, only 1,695 charities are currently registered under section 16 of the relevant 2008 Act. Most are not health and social care charities, and registration will not be completed for some time, potentially for another couple of years. A specific problem emerges in that some charities, which operate across all three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom, are not required to register in every part of the UK.”
“<BR /> <BR />Finally, I turn to the last amendment in this group, amendment No 10, which I have brought forward at the request of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to correct an issue with the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, otherwise known as Lord Morrow's Act. In seeking to implement the provisions of the Act for an independent guardian service, DHSSPS officials identified that, as section 21(4)(a) of the Act was drafted, only those charities registered under section 16 of the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 would be eligible to apply to provide those independent guardian services.”
“This aspect was not moved by agreement, on the understanding that I would consult on the introduction of a domestic violence disclosure scheme for Northern Ireland as soon as is practicable. Since Consideration Stage, the Justice Committee has received briefings from my officials and the PSNI on the matter. Legislation is not required to operate a domestic violence disclosure scheme, and the consultation will allow me to consider all relevant aspects of introducing such a scheme, including human rights issues. I am pleased to inform the House that my amendments and my approach of consulting on a domestic violence disclosure scheme have the support of Mrs Kelly and her colleagues. She is likewise nodding, and I trust that the House will also vote in favour of these changes.”
“In the circumstances following domestic violence, a victim may be emotionally affected and, as a result, may not be capable of seeking the protection that is needed. Therefore, the measures under the proposed legislation will clearly demonstrate to the victim that the statutory agencies are initiating action on their behalf in order to protect them. I firmly believe that the measures will enhance our suite of public protection arrangements for victims. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that amendments tabled by the SDLP at Consideration Stage contained elements of a domestic violence disclosure scheme, but they were also not moved.”
“Additionally, the court must believe that making the domestic violence protection order is necessary to protect that person from violence or threat of violence by the perpetrator. <BR /> <BR />We have discussed domestic violence in the Chamber on many occasions. We all acknowledge that it is a dreadful crime and that, when it happens, victims need to be fully protected from any potential further violence. The legislation offers victims — women and men — the immediate protection that they need in circumstances where they are often very traumatised, vulnerable and need assurance that, for a time, the perpetrator will not be able to enter their home and violently abuse them again. At present, non-molestation orders and occupation orders offer protection for victims of domestic violence. However, it is up to the victim to apply for them.”
“It also provides for the courts to grant a domestic violence protection order for a maximum period of 28 days, which will provide immediate emergency protection for the victim, allowing them protected space to explore the options available to them and to make informed decisions about their safety. <BR /> <BR />The amendment ensures proportionality, consistency and appropriate use of the processes. The police, when considering the need to issue a domestic violence protection notice, will use their professional judgement to determine whether the measures are required to protect a victim. Similarly, the court will assess the evidence provided to it to ensure that it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the perpetrator has been violent towards or has threatened violence towards an associated person.”
“<BR /> <BR />I turn to amendment No 9, which introduces new clause 95A and new schedule 6A to allow for the introduction of domestic violence protection notices and domestic violence protection orders in Northern Ireland. Amendment Nos 13 and 16 are consequential to amendment No 9. Members will be aware that, following an amendment tabled but not moved by Mrs Dolores Kelly at Consideration Stage, I committed to tabling alternative amendments at this stage. I am pleased now to speak to the detail of the powers that I have put forward. The provisions give the police the power to issue a domestic violence protection notice and to apply to the courts for a domestic violence protection order for the purposes of protecting a victim of domestic violence where it has been assessed that they may be at risk of immediate harm and danger.”
“As I indicated to the House at Consideration Stage, that was not the policy intent of the clause — that was most certainly not the intention. I also stated that the duty is appropriately framed to ensure that reaching a just outcome is patently the primary consideration. However, in the interests of legislative clarity, I have tabled amendment No 8 to make it absolutely and abundantly clear that only the court, the prosecution and the defence will be subject to the general duty. There will be no application of the general duty to juries. I trust that that reassures Mr Allister and any Members who had sympathy with the points that he put forward.”
“Mr Jim Allister spoke to the clause at Consideration Stage and suggested that juries could be captured by the current wording of the clause and potentially feel under pressure:”
“That phrase was considered unnecessary, given that you cannot disclose information that you do not possess. It was also potentially misleading by suggesting that all agencies specified in article 49 have information to disclose. I understand that the Members who tabled the clause at Consideration Stage are content with those minor changes — for the sake of Hansard, I am looking across the Chamber at Mr Frew, who is nodding at me, so I will take that as assent. I believe that, when my officials briefed the Justice Committee on this last week, the amendments that I was proposing were acceptable to the Committee, and I hope that the House can agree today to make them. <BR /> <BR />Clause 90, as amended at Consideration Stage, creates a general duty to progress criminal proceedings in an effort to avoid delay.”
“<BR /> <BR />The first amendments to the clause will insert a number of definitions into article 49 of the 2008 Order to provide legislative clarity. They include the following definitions of "child" as a person under 18; "conviction" as including both findings of the court and police cautions; and "relevant previous conviction" as a conviction for either a sexual or violent offence as specified in the guidance to agencies that was issued by the Department under article 50 of the 2008 Order. The remainder of clause 48, which amends article 50 of the Order, has been reworded to take account of the definitions and to remove reference to the information being:”
“I believe that my amendment is a better way of resolving the issue and covering a wider range of crimes. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 will make some minor amendments to clause 48, which was inserted into the Bill at Consideration Stage on the proposal of Mr Frew and Lord Morrow. It allows for arrangements to disclose conviction information in respect of those who pose a risk of harm to children. I emphasise that there is no change of substance to the objective of the provision. The amendments are largely of a technical nature and are designed to allow for the provision to sit more easily within the current legislative framework for multi-agency risk assessment and management, as set out in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008.”
“In addition, as I explained to the House, clauses 7 and 8 need to be significantly amended to ensure that the provisions can work within the existing framework of the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. The Member's amendment would not resolve that problem; indeed, it might compound it. <BR /> <BR />My amendments provide that, when the defence makes an application that oral evidence is needed in the interests of justice, the court must consider the matter with regard to the nature of the offence and the interests of the witnesses likely to give evidence. That will apply to every offence and every potential witness, and it provides greater protection than is proposed in the amendment tabled by Mr McCartney. Therefore, I cannot support amendment No 4.”
“What about other crimes, such as domestic violence, other crimes of personal violence and other matters that would put individuals at specific risk and specific fear? <BR /> <BR />It is not clear what account is to be taken of the use of special measures under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 in relation to the giving of evidence by witnesses, which allow a witness to give evidence and prevents certain witnesses being cross-examined in person by the defence in sexual offence cases and cases involving children. I also believe that "Violent sexual assault" would also have to be defined. Thought would have to be given to that and care taken that the definition did not inadvertently impact on any existing legislation that deals with sexual assault.”
“I remind the House that we are in this territory only as result of the amendments that were made to the Department’s proposals at Consideration Stage, when the matter of committal was discussed. However, amendment No 4 does not achieve what the Members who tabled it want to achieve, and a number of issues would need to be addressed if it were to work properly. The amendment applies only to the giving of evidence on oath at mixed committals, not to preliminary investigations. It also includes the word "vulnerable", which is problematic. Although "vulnerable" has an ordinary meaning, it would need to be specifically defined in the context of this legislation. Also, the amendment is limited to victims of rape and sexual assault. I have to ask why the line has been drawn there.”
“The prosecution and the accused will be able to make representations to the court. The court, after considering the application and any representations made to it, may grant the application only if it is satisfied that that is necessary in the interests of justice. In reaching that decision, the court must give regard to the nature of the offence or offences charged and the interests of the persons likely to be witnesses. The amendments will help to protect the needs of vulnerable victims and witnesses, and I commend them to the House. <BR /> <BR />I will speak briefly to amendment No 4, which is in the name of Mr McCartney and those of his colleagues and proposes an alternative amendment to clause 8. I entirely understand the sentiment behind it and accept that it is a well-intentioned alternative to my proposals.”
“My amendments are intended to operate within the framework of the interests of justice test. That was the will of the Assembly at Consideration Stage. I am seeking to amend the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to provide that a preliminary investigation will be held only in the interests of justice. All other cases will be dealt with by way of a preliminary inquiry. An accused may apply to the court for direction on whether a preliminary investigation is to be held or whether oral evidence at a preliminary inquiry is necessary in the interests of justice. Court rules will set out the application procedure. An application will have to set out the grounds on which the application is made. The rules will also set out the procedure to be followed in determining the application.”
“I spoke about that at Consideration Stage, and other Members, most notably Mr McCartney and Mr Elliott, also questioned the position of vulnerable victims and witnesses. Indeed, I briefed the Justice Committee last week on the work needed to resolve the issue.”
“I am grateful again for the consideration given by OLC to the issue over the past few days. I believe that the clauses in the Bill as it now stands require significant amendment. That is, in part, because they take no account of how the revised process will work in practice. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 7 and 8, as amended at Consideration Stage, are oversimplistic and simply impose a new statement of law on top of an existing body of law without any attempt to reconcile the two. The conventional approach to amending an existing body of law is to do so by way of textual amendment to the parent legislation. That enables a complete, coherent and consistent statement of the law to be found in one place. More fundamentally, the clauses ignore the position of victims.”
“I hope that it addresses its concerns while allowing me some much-needed flexibility to give effect to the provisions in Part 1. <BR /> <BR />Let me now consider the amendments relating to committal reform, which are amendment Nos 2, 3, 18 and 22. They make specific amendments relating to preliminary investigations and mixed committals and consequential amendments to schedules 1 and 8. In the context of addressing my amendments, I will also address amendment No 4 in the name of Mr McCartney and colleagues. <BR /> <BR />On the amendments made at Consideration Stage to clauses 7 and 8, I have to say again that I was surprised that they were supported by the House, given the Committee's previous consideration. I have given thought to the impact, and I remain concerned about the situation that we are now in.”
“I am grateful to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and to the Committee for their efforts and support in bringing forward this alternative approach, including the fact that the Committee held a special meeting to consider the issue last week. The amendment that I propose contains two specific changes from clause 86 as it was. First, it is limited to Part 1. I want to recognise that that was a suggestion made by Paul Frew. He asked about the possibility of doing that, and the amendment recognises that suggestion. Part 1, which relates to the single jurisdiction provisions, is where the risk is most likely to arise. Secondly, the amendment is limited in scope compared with clause 86 in order to take account of the Committee's concerns. With the Committee's support, I was pleased to table the amendment before the House today.”
“I remain of the view that the Bill is complex and we need to mitigate the risk that we have missed something crucial to the policy intentions. Clause 86 has, however, gone, and the question is how to mitigate the risk that remains.”
“As you indicated, Mr Deputy Speaker, amendment No 1 stands in my name. As you also indicated, there are a considerable number of amendments in the group covering a number of issues, all of which are designed to deal with matters raised at Consideration Stage. I will outline the different areas in turn and trust that I have the support of the House for them. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 1 creates a narrower, more focused alternative arrangement for supplementary, incidental or consequential provisions following the removal of clause 86 from the Bill at Consideration Stage. Amendment No 14 is a direct consequential amendment flowing from amendment No 1. I am sure that I do not need to set out again how and why I felt the need to include clause 86 in the original Bill, but the issue now is how we move on from here.”
“It requires detailed work to ensure that the Westminster Bill is correct. It requires that we deal with the impasse over finance and welfare reform and actually put into practice the commitments that so often come from all parts of the House about our concern for dealing with victims of crime, whether past or recent, to ensure that we actually deliver for them, live up to the deal to make a deal that we agreed in December 2014 at Stormont House, put that in place and show that the House, instead of engaging in "whataboutery" across the Chamber, can actually put the needs of victims and the bereaved first.”
“Taken together, these reforms will provide significantly improved arrangements for dealing with legacy inquests. We should consider that there are currently over 50 legacy inquest cases relating to a significant number of deaths that are still outstanding. The victims — the bereaved in those cases — deserve to see the institutions established and the Coroners Service working better and better resourced around inquests in the past to ensure that some measure of comfort can be delivered to those who have suffered from that. <BR /> <BR />Some of the developments that I have outlined will take time to put in place and become fully operational. Progressing these developments is a key priority for my Department, and I am committed to seeing them through to their delivery. That requires agreement by the parties in this Chamber.”
“The Legal Aid and Coroners' Court Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 provides for the Lord Chief Justice to be present at the Coroners' Courts. We are working on the planning for that to improve leadership and direction for the Coroners Service. As president of the Coroners' Courts, the Lord Chief Justice will be able to introduce improved judicial case management for legacy inquests and to allocate the most complex inquest cases to more senior judges than has been the case heretofore. It has already been agreed that the existing County Court judicial complement will be increased for that purpose. <BR /> <BR />Work is also under way to establish a legacy inquest unit in the Coroners Service with additional legal, investigative and administrative support.”