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 30 of 50.
“We must ensure that we can move things on in a much better way to achieve the faster, fairer justice that we all want to see. I will give way.”
“<BR /> <BR />When Members ask, "Is this clause essential?" or actually "Are these two clauses essential?", the answer is yes — not because I propose to use them but because they might be required. If an issue arose, waiting for primary legislation, given the time that it takes to get primary legislation through this place, is not the best example of how we would deal effectively with ensuring that the justice system gets reformed in the way in which it ought to be reformed.”
“On the basis that this is the same form of words as appears in other legislation, which deals with the necessity of catching matters that would otherwise create problems and require primary legislation, this is really not the right Bill to do this with. This Bill is so complex. It is one that, as I highlighted, has already about 30 pages of schedule 1, with another four being added by amendments before the House now, and there may even be one or two other points discovered before Further Consideration Stage. However, if they are not discovered before Further Consideration Stage, they have the potential to derail the Bill, if we do not allow things to be carried through as they should be.”
“I am grateful for that consolatory remark. Frankly, about the only decent thing that was said by any member of the Committee, apart from Stewart Dickson, is that I am apparently not a tyrant like Henry VIII. When you get to the point where English kings are being praised by the SDLP and disowned by the DUP, heaven knows where we are getting to. <BR /> <BR />It is quite a serious point. Our structures are not those of Westminster. The Executive are not absorbing power from this place in the way that that has been clearly the case at Westminster. Our Committees have significant power and do their job in this place.”
“We have that expertise built up. We are not anything like Westminster, yet people are dragging in a frankly irrelevant reference from somebody who has been an MP there. I give way.”
“Standing Committees on Bills, as well as Select Committees on particular topics, have their functions combined in our Statutory Committees, where a level of expertise builds up, although I am not sure that it is necessarily the expertise that would have allowed Committee members to spot whether the Married Women's Property Act mentioned petty sessions districts.”
“There is absolutely no doubt that, for about the last 50 or 60 years, power in Westminster has moved from the House of Commons to the Executive. That is the reality. That is why, in 1998, our arrangements were set up in a completely different way. We have Committees that perform all the scrutiny functions that are carried out by different Committees in the House of Commons.”
“None is justice legislation, but they are all mentioned because they make references to petty sessions districts or courts of quarter sessions. Despite the good work done in the Department before the Bill was published, and since, with further amendments coming through, because of the massive number of potential consequential amendments, all these issues could require primary legislation if we did not allow such provisions to go through. <BR /> <BR />It is slightly bizarre that the Committee has got itself so worked up by an academic who arrived from London knowing little about what happens in this place and who produced that kind of point. References to John Stanley and his experience here as a NIO Minister in the 1980s are completely outwith the way in which this place operates.”
“<BR /> <BR />We also need to be realistic about the kind of things that are here. The point was made that this would cover any legislation, not just justice legislation. No. This covers the potential for making orders dealing with amendments to any Act for the particular purpose of, in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, any provision made by this Act. <BR /> <BR />Of course, there is lots in the Bill that has nothing to do with justice legislation. The Married Woman's Property Act 1882, which is an amendment that falls in the addition to schedule 1, might just be classified as justice legislation, but I doubt that the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878, the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898 or the Open Spaces Act 1906 could be so described.”
“<BR /> <BR />I find more than a little bizarre the suggestion that, somehow, the Committee would be lacking and incapable in the unlikely event that we needed to invoke the provisions of clause 86 or clause 87, meaning that something would be sent to the Committee for scrutiny on the basis that it was subject to affirmative resolution and so would also need to come to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />After all, in the last few years, the Committee scrutinised the salary paid to a member of the Lands Tribunal. It carried out that function prior to the matter coming to the Assembly and when it was debated here. So I am a little disappointed that the Committee that I thought capable of advising and assisting me appears to regard itself as incapable of scrutinising what comes before it.”
“I am more than a little surprised at the lack of confidence amongst members of the Committee. The number of references made by all participants in this bit of the debate, except my good colleague Stewart Dickson, to scrutiny not being carried out properly if it was secondary legislation, is a little disappointing. Over the last five years as Minister, I have seen a Committee that has given full, detailed scrutiny to everything put before it by the Department of Justice.”
“I again appreciate the care with which the Justice Committee has scrutinised the Bill — care that, I believe, has been reciprocated in the work that my officials have done with the Committee — but I caution against running into a problem in this area. For that reason, I cannot support either the removal of clause 86 or the amendment.”
“The word "transitional" would be retained, and that at least would be welcome. For instance, the word is important to ensure an orderly transition between the law as it was before implementation of the new provisions and the law going forward. However, the word "saving" would also be lost through the amendment. A saving provision preserves the effect of an action or process ongoing at the time of the repeal of the existing legislation. <BR /> <BR />I therefore believe that we should tread most carefully indeed in matters such as this. Without great care and thought, the implications of the amendment cannot be fully understood and appreciated. I fully respect the Committee's intention to make sure that Ministers do not take powers unto themselves that are not needed or appropriate.”
“The term "supplementary" would also be lost under the amendment. That is also problematic. Supplementary provisions are those that are required to supplement the provisions in order to make them work. Again, those are conditioned by the policy intent. It would not be possible for regulations to begin to introduce new policy or to take us away from the policy objectives in the Bill. In the case of Daymond v South West Water Authority, Viscount Dilhorne said:”
“It removes key words that act as safeguards to the policy objectives, and I would now like to focus on the words that would be lost, as the impact of the amendment needs to be understood. The amendment would remove the word "incidental" and seeks, I believe, to replace it with the term "consequential". I do not see the benefit and would note that either term provides just a narrow opportunity for regulations and orders to give effect to policy objectives. The Supreme Court has noted the following:”
“If they were otherwise, they would be ultra vires and would face being struck down. Our legislative arrangements enable regulations. They give effect to policy in a very real way and are an important part of how we deliver law into operation. Regulation-making powers therefore need to be right, but they need a degree of flexibility, perhaps even more than clause 86. If we need to make minor and technical adjustments via the regulations to deliver policy objectives, we have traditionally decided as a legislature that we should be able to do so. <BR /> <BR />The amendment to clause 87(8) is, for me, troubling. It disturbs the scope of regulations in general under the Bill.”
“Clause 87(8) as currently drafted enables those regulations and orders to do certain things in furtherance of the policy objectives to which the regulations and orders under the Bill attach. As with clause 86, a Bill as complex as this, which is rightly leaving detailed schemes to regulations, requires some flexibility. That is because, of necessity, the regulations will come forward after Royal Assent. We will have schemes and ideas in mind, but, until the Bill is finalised and becomes an Act, it is not possible to describe entirely the detail that we need in regulations. <BR /> <BR />Regulations are often the subject of further and separate thought and analysis, but they are always true to policy intention, to the regulation-making powers in the Bill and to the limitations laid down in the Bill.”
“I cannot therefore agree with the proposition that clause 86 should not stand part of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Nor can I support the amendment proposed to clause 87(8). It would limit the scope of regulation- and order-making powers in the Bill by removing the words "incidental, supplementary, transitional and saving" provisions and replacing them with the words "consequential and transitional". The intention may in fact be to limit or alter the powers in clause 86, but it is not clear that it has that effect. Instead, it impacts on the other regulation- and order-making powers in the Bill. The Bill contains regulation- and order-making powers in Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and there are 14 such powers.”
“Without this, it would be necessary to await the next primary vehicle, which may be a year or more away. <BR /> <BR />I readily acknowledge that, if I were to offer such a fix via an order under clause 86, it would be for the Assembly to decide whether to accept it. The Assembly would, no doubt, weigh this most carefully and consider matters such as whether the order was properly made under the narrow gateways that exist in clause 86; whether the fix was in fact needed; and whether it might be preferable to await a primary vehicle. The Assembly would also have the opportunity to consider whether the policy objective was so important, or the circumstances created by the unforeseen gap in the law so concerning, vital and urgent, that it may be persuaded to pass the order.”
“I do not believe that it presents a wide-ranging power for me or that it goes beyond what is necessary to manage a small and particular risk that arises from the complexities of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />My second point concerns the utility of clause 86. In short, I have no plans to use it. I will be delighted if there is no reason for it to be used, but that does not render it unnecessary. It simply reinforces the fact that this is a safeguard provision. I have not used similar provisions in the past, and I have no plans to do so in relation to this Bill, but were it to become apparent that the Bill had missed an amendment or repeal and that this rendered the policy objective impossible to implement, or created a gap in the law in some particular circumstance, clause 86 allows me to offer to the Assembly — I stress the word "offer" — a fix.”
“The important third building block appears in clause 87(6): any such order would be subject to the affirmative procedure. <BR /> <BR />Clause 86(2) enables an order to amend, repeal, revoke or modify any statutory provision, and I understand why this may seem broad, but this is limited by the subject matter of the Act: the power can be used to deal only with that subject matter. If that test is passed, clause 86(2) enables the order to do what the Act would have done — amend, repeal, revoke or modify — had the issue been picked up at an earlier stage. The affirmative procedure means that it must be subject to the full, active scrutiny of the Assembly. I invite careful consideration of the totality of clause 86.”
“<BR /> <BR />The building blocks in clause 86 are as follows: the first is that the power is permissive and limited to supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitory, transitional or saving provisions — these terms have meanings; and the second is that the clause is limited to the general or particular purposes of the Act, or in consequence of, or for giving full effect to, any provision made by the Act. These two building blocks must be read together and as a whole. I would have the ability to offer to the Assembly only an order that was strictly limited to giving effect to the intentions in the Act, and the order can relate only to the matters described in clause 86(1)(a) and 86(1)(b). This gateway is, in reality, significantly narrower than some of the interpretations that have been placed on it.”
“My second point concerns utility, and there are two angles to that. The first concerns the way in which the clause is drafted; the second its potential utility in the future. I accept that clause 86 may look wide-reaching, and I fully understand why the Committee has given time to it. It is absolutely right that the Committee and the Assembly guard against sweeping powers and that the primacy of full scrutiny by the Committee and the Assembly is protected. However, clause 86 needs to be read very carefully. It is not a power for me as Justice Minister to do anything I like. I cannot use it to alter policy, and I cannot use it to dilute or disturb policy that I do not support. I cannot use it to frustrate democratic debate during the passage of the Bill. It could be used only in the limited circumstances set out in clause 86.”
“Given my opening observations on the complexities of the drafting needed to give effect to the policy objectives in the Bill, I remain firmly of the view that clause 86 is appropriate on this occasion.”
“That hardly supports the comment that I have heard being made, namely that such provisions are commonplace in devolved Administrations or that these provisions provide endless bites at the cherry. <BR /> <BR />To return to my point about amendment Nos 12 and 16, it is right that we remain vigilant during the course of a Bill and that we do not allow ourselves to rest on clause 86 as a desirable second-chance provision. It is not that at all, but it is a safety net, and a very important one. I have set out this detail to make the point that we do not and should not take an attitude that clause 86-type arrangements are standard. Clearly, they are not. They must be seen in the context of the specific Bill and judged in that way by the respective Committees and the Assembly as a whole.”
“Indeed, the Education Minister spoke most eloquently about the need for a similar provision in that Bill. <BR /> <BR />My Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, the Inquiry into Historical Institutional Abuse Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, the Charities Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, the Legal Aid and Coroners’ Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, which I just mentioned, and the Work and Families Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 all have a provision of that sort. Of the Bills introduced that have not progressed to Royal Assent in this mandate, four contain similar provisions: the Education Bill, the Reservoirs Bill, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill and the Pensions Bill. So, in context, more than 25 Acts and Bills in this mandate have not judged it necessary to include such a provision.”
“I would certainly not argue that all Bills should have that as a safeguard; it would not be necessary, nor would it accord with practice. Of the Acts passed in this mandate, most do not include a provision like clause 86. Indeed, not all of my Acts have a provision of that type, but some Acts do contain a provision like clause 86, and that will have been dependent on the context. Where an Act is complex, wide-ranging and amends or repeals other statutes to a large degree, a provision of this sort is wise and proportionate. A small Act like the Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 has a provision of this sort, and the context for that was, no doubt, the degree to which it amended other statutes rather than the five substantive sections contained in the Bill.”
“That is fundamentally right, as we intend those measures to form part of our law, and it goes without saying that my officials have made every effort to ensure it is both accurate and comprehensive. It is only right that all the matters that we wish to form part of the Act should be before the Committee and the Assembly to be scrutinised as a whole. <BR /> <BR />Clause 86, despite what may have been suggested by some people, is absolutely not a substitute for the effort required to get this right, but is a proportionate and necessary safeguard against the possibility, however remote and undesirable, that something has been missed. <BR /> <BR />Having observed the complexities of this Bill, I will make two points on the necessity for clause 86. First, provisions like clause 86 need to be seen in context because they are not standard.”
“To illustrate that, I draw attention to schedule 1 of the Bill, which makes the amendments that are necessary to give effect to the single-jurisdiction provisions. Taken alone, schedule 1 runs to nearly 30 pages and makes necessary amendments to over 100 separate statutes, involving many hundreds of specific changes. The earliest statute so amended dates back to 1842. The remaining schedules of amendments and repeals run to an additional 30-plus pages. <BR /> <BR />It is the clear responsibility of my officials and those working on the Bill to make every human effort to pick up the necessary amendments and repeals needed to give effect to the policy objectives.”
“That enables me to note that those amendments, which are short, technical and important, are rightly being brought forward for consideration as matters necessary to give full effect to the policy intentions in the Bill. If we were to find the need for those after Royal Assent, and if clause 86 were not available to us, we would be in some difficulty: we would be seeking primary legislation for two minor amendments. <BR /> <BR />This Bill has over 80 substantive clauses — it will have more by the time this Consideration Stage is finished — that deliver policy objectives on a range of issues. This is a complex set of measures, made even more complex by the need to amend and repeal a very large number of statutory provisions in furtherance of the policy objectives in the Bill.”
“Finally, amendments Nos 61 to 67 make a number of consequential amendments to schedule 3 in support of the direct committal amendments that were debated as part of group 1. <BR /> <BR />I want to spend some time speaking in support of clause 86 remaining part of the Bill. Let me first make some general observations about the Justice Bill, and I will then make two key points about clause 86 and provisions of that type. First, those provisions are not standard and must be seen in the context of the relevant Bill, and, secondly, I will comment on potential utility. <BR /> <BR />Clause 86 fulfils a particular purpose. Provisions of that type appear in other statutes when necessary, and I remain of the view that clause 86 is needed in this Bill. Indeed, I note that the debate on clause 86 has been grouped with amendment Nos 12 and 16.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 12 and 16 are minor technical amendments to correct small drafting issues with clauses 37 and 41, while amendment Nos 53 and 54 facilitate the coming into operation on the day of Royal Assent of the victims information sharing and the sexual offences against children amendments debated as part of other groups here today.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 49 is the only amendment in the group that takes the form of a new clause, clause 85A, which delivers a Justice Committee request to remove the need for an increase in the salary of the member of the Lands Tribunal to be made by an affirmative resolution order and to align the arrangements for determining salary with the non-Assembly procedure used to determine other judicial salaries. I doubt whether the Committee Chair, the Committee Clerk or the members will miss the opportunity to once a year debate a 1% salary increase.”
“Amendment Nos 55 to 60 make a number of amendments to schedule 1, which will supplement the list already contained within the schedule. These further consequential amendments will, primarily, remove references related to County Court divisions and petty sessions districts contained in legislation that has been made since the Bill was drafted, as well as some very old provisions. These further amendments are intended to complete the list of consequential amendments needed as a result of the creation of a single jurisdiction and, therefore, do not represent new policy. In addition, amendment Nos 75 to 78 make a number of supporting changes to the single jurisdiction elements of schedule 6, which deals with repeals.”
“This group relates to technical, miscellaneous and regulation-making powers. The majority of the amendments in this group relate to the Bill's single jurisdiction for County Courts and Magistrates' Courts powers, but the group will also provide the opportunity to debate the Chair's opposition to clause 86; the supplementary, incidental, consequential and transitional provision clause. I will first speak to the amendments and then return to clause 86. <BR /> <BR />Part 1 of the Bill creates a single jurisdiction for the County Courts and Magistrates' Courts in Northern Ireland by abolishing the current statutory County Court divisions and petty sessions districts. Schedule 1 supports the provisions by way of a large number of consequential amendments to primary legislation.”
“I am committed to action at Further Consideration Stage or in public consultation on the other matters that she has raised. I support the specific amendment that Mr Frew and Lord Morrow have put forward, subject to some minor tweaking — I believe that is the technical term — for Further Consideration Stage. I note that nobody said anything very much about my amendments, and I trust that the House will endorse them.”
“In this specific instance, and in common with the position in England and Wales, where such a scheme has been in existence since 2012, there is no legislative requirement to deliver such a scheme. Police already have the powers necessary to disclose such information. I propose to bring forward shortly a specific consultation on the shape of such a scheme in Northern Ireland, taking into consideration the outcome of the operation of the scheme in England and Wales. <BR /> <BR />In summary, I am quite happy to accept the principles of everything that has been put forward by Mrs Kelly and colleagues, and I hope that I have given an indication that guidance on the prosecutorial fines should cover the concerns that she had there.”
“However, I will not now do so as I firmly believe that DVPNs and DVPOs are required to help fill a gap in the provision of immediate protection of victims of domestic violence in the short term. I will, instead, bring forward alternative amendments at Further Consideration Stage with the support and, I understand, agreement of Mrs Kelly and her colleagues — for the sake of Hansard, she is also nodding — to allow for a more immediate introduction of DVPNs and DVPOs in Northern Ireland than would otherwise be the case. <BR /> <BR />On the specific amendment that deals with domestic violence disclosures — I think that it is amendment No 28 — I am also in broad agreement with the introduction of such a scheme.”
“I should perhaps add at this point, for the sake of Mr Douglas, that my understanding of domestic violence is that it is gender-neutral. It is sexual-orientation-neutral as well. While we need to acknowledge that the vast majority of domestic violence is inflicted by men upon women and children, we should not suggest that that is the entire picture. <BR /> <BR />I believe that the introduction of domestic violence protection notices and domestic violence protection orders will make an actual difference in the suite of public protection arrangements, and I have already raised them as part of the considerations in the consultation on the stopping domestic and sexual violence and abuse strategy, with a view to consulting in greater detail on those initiatives with key stakeholders during this financial year.”
“I am always happy to do my best to inform the Committee, and the Committee sometimes informs me back in a constructive way. The precise details of how this might be set up, given that we are on a tight timescale, will need to be worked out. In principle, I am very happy that the Committee has the opportunity for a meeting, even if those sitting in the Box at the moment are currently scratching their heads and wondering how it will happen. <BR /> <BR />I will turn, now, to amendment Nos 21 to 29, standing in the name of Mrs Kelly and her colleagues, on domestic violence protection orders and the associated area. I have considered the range of amendments they have tabled and, while I am certainly in broad agreement with those, and I fully accept the spirit of them, I consider that there are some elements of detail that need to be adjusted.”
“That is the sad reality of the society we live in. <BR /> <BR />Having said all that, I hope that this change will help to protect more children from harm. I have therefore indicated my support for the provision. However, with the advice of legislative counsel, I intend — and I understand that the Members who tabled the amendment will not object — to bring a number of minor technical amendments at Further Consideration Stage to ensure full legislative clarity. For the sake of Hansard, Mr Frew is nodding at that point. <BR /> <BR />On the issue of the further group of amendments —”
“<BR /> <BR />I was also pleased to be able to agree that the disclosure of conviction information will be considered in relation to any offender who falls within the PPANI framework, which could potentially protect a child from violent harm as well as sexual harm: a point that has been made in comparison with other jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />We also need one crucial, contextual point. Nobody should assume that this is a panacea to prevent all risks to children. It is clearly not that. The proposal addresses only one element of risk: that which comes from offenders with convictions for sexual crime or certain types of violent offending. It still needs to be said, very clearly, that most offending behaviour against children is much more likely to come from persons known to the child but unknown to the police.”
“I understand that the NSPCC is also in favour of taking this step. It offers a reasonable way to build on existing disclosure arrangements and yet will still offer a way for individual members of the public, who have particular concerns about a person who has access to a particular child or children, to make those concerns known to the police and be assured that, if there is a need to disclose information to protect those children, it will be disclosed to a particular person. How the details will be operated will be provided for in the PPANI guidance. The police and other relevant agencies will be consulted.”
“<BR /> <BR />We looked at extending the disclosure provisions, but we have also had to look at the circumstances in which disclosure arrangements operate in Northern Ireland. The police have had concerns about widening the arrangements beyond the existing PPANI framework, and I have had to take note of their position. <BR /> <BR />We have also had some doubts about the overall contribution that legislative change, such as that made in England and Wales, might have to the objective of genuinely protecting children. Those concerns relate largely to how such a system might affect the balance of compliance with different risk-management strategies. <BR /> <BR />I am glad to be able to say that I fully support the clause, which was worked through with my officials and that the police believe will be a practicable operation.”
“In that guidance, we set out a range of ways in which the agencies should cooperate and carry out their functions in the most effective way to manage risk. One of those ways is through disclosure of conviction information about offenders in order to protect victims, potential victims and other people who may be at risk. That is part and parcel of the existing procedures under the comprehensive PPANI risk-management framework, and I recognise its contribution to the overall protection of individuals. Indeed, a number of Members have referred to the successful work done by PPANI: successful, but never 100%. Members have commented on the inspection reports by CJINI, which have highlighted the good work done by the PPANI agencies.”
“What we can do and what the agencies already work hard at is identify the possible risks that offenders in the community pose; assess the level of risk in particular cases; and take steps to protect each of us from harm. Much of that is done under the multi-agency PPANI arrangements: police, probation, social services, prisons and others, working together, where they can, to minimise the risk from offenders. In order to work as effectively as possible, the Department keeps under review, in cooperation with the agencies, a range of policy options that might be used in furtherance of risk management. <BR /> <BR />In broad terms, there is the legislative framework for multi-agency working, from which flows the departmental guidance on the PPANI arrangements, guidance that the agencies are required to give effect to.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is important to say one or two things about the work of the agencies that seek to protect us all, particularly children. First, we need to acknowledge that the management of risk is not an exact science. It takes many forms, and the most important element is that cases are treated on an individual basis and risk is minimised through a combined approach, involving numerous risk management tools and, where necessary, utilising cooperation between relevant statutory agencies and voluntary bodies. We live with risk every day in many forms, only one of which is risk from offenders who have finished their prison sentence and returned to live in society. That is, of course, reality: we do not lock people away for ever.”
“<BR /> <BR />In this group, I also propose amendment No 17 to insert new clause 42A to facilitate the exchange of information between Access NI and the Disclosure and Barring Service. Only one Member made any reference whatsoever to that. The powers are not new, but they replace existing powers that have a sunset clause at the end of this year and are therefore appropriate. <BR /> <BR />There was considerable discussion about new clause 43A, the amendment in the name of Mr Frew and Lord Morrow. I have already signalled to them — they have referred to it — my intention to support the clause, which will add to the existing disclosure procedures set out in the 'Guidance to agencies on public protection arrangements' that I issued in 2011.”
“In many cases, it is because they did not register, perhaps in the confusion of the event. Allowing the direct referral will increase the chances that people will be made aware of that, and the changes are in line with the findings of the Justice Committee’s inquiry that victims were not using support services and that the capacity of organisations to provide support was reduced because of issues about passing personal information. The information shared will generally be the contact details of the victim or witness and the crime type. Taken together, I trust that the measures will improve victims and witnesses' experience of the criminal justice process and ensure that they can better access the support available.”
“Those service providers will be able to contact victims and witnesses directly to explain and offer their services. There are significant problems with the current system, and I believe that the changes will help to address some of them. For example, at the moment, two thirds of victims are not referred to Victim Support NI; around 20% of witnesses turn up at court on the day needing support but not having had any prior contact with the witness services provided by Victim Support or the NSPCC Young Witness Service; and only around a quarter of victims avail themselves of the victim information release schemes. That is an issue that comes to me fairly frequently when individuals or their representatives complain that they were not informed of the release of somebody who committed a crime against them.”