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 31 of 50.
“The amendments also provide that the use of the power may be reviewed, should there be a considerable increase in the number of statements, if it is deemed to negatively impact on the direct victim's statement, and they set out the provisions in the victim charter defining the close family member, which will apply for the purpose of the victim statement procedures. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 11 and 68 create new clause 35A and new schedule 3A, which will allow us more effectively to advise victims about support services so that informed decisions can be taken. The provisions will enable the police and the prosecution service to pass victim and witness details to Victim Support, to the NSPCC Young Witness Service and to the victim information unit.”
“It will mean that a bereaved family member can set out the impact that the death has had on more than one family member, and I consider that that adequately provides for the views of family members to be appropriately reflected ahead of consideration by the court.”
“Amendment Nos 7, 8, 9 and 10 make adjustments to victim statement provisions, which are known as "victim personal statements", to take account of comments that were made during the consultation on the victim charter about widening the scope of the provisions. They enable a victim, a parent, a bereaved family member or a family member acting on behalf of the victim to set out the impact that the crime has had. They will not be limited to the direct impact on an individual. It is likely to be relevant when there is an impact on a wider family circle, for example, with increased caring responsibilities.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am certainly supportive of Mrs Kelly's other amendments relating to domestic violence protection orders and domestic violence protection notices, which I will return to in a moment. <BR /> <BR />Given the detailed guidance and given that we might, if we were to start listing any offences in the Bill, list a large number of offences, it is more appropriate that we leave this matter to the guidance. Although I certainly agree with the intentions behind the amendment, I feel that it is better that we do not make amendment No 6 to the Bill. I trust that we can look at exactly how we deal with the consultation around the guidance. I hope that that will satisfy Members that that is the best way to proceed. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 7 to 11 and 68 relate to provisions for victims and witnesses.”
“As has been acknowledged, the operation of prosecutorial fines will be underpinned by guidance that will be issued by the DPP and will set out the types of offence for which a prosecutorial fine is appropriate and suitable. It will be publicly consulted on, and it will form part of the code by which prosecutors will work. As has been made absolutely clear, prosecutorial fines are intended to be used for low-level offences committed by non-habitual offenders. I certainly do not consider that any offence of domestic violence could be suitable for the imposition of a prosecutorial fine. Indeed, the fact that it states in the Bill that the maximum prosecutorial fine will be at level 1 on the standard scale — the lowest level — is an indication of the kind of offence for which it is intended.”
“We seem to have spent quite a time over the past while in discussion of matters on which there is almost total unanimity in the House on at least the broad principles of the points, although there has been general acknowledgement from a number of places that a certain amount of fine-tuning will be needed. I will therefore try not to take too much time, given that we are still on only the second group of five groups of amendments, and the night is moving on a bit. <BR /> <BR />I start by referring to amendment No 6 in the name of Mrs Kelly and her colleagues. I certainly understand the intention behind it, and I know that Women's Aid in particular raised a specific concern with the Justice Committee that a prosecutorial fine might be imposed in cases involving domestic violence. That concern is clearly shared by some Members.”
“I thank the Member and would like to assure him that I find it equally embarrassing.”
“I wonder what thoughts Mr Allister, who says that a vulnerable witness could be however defined, might have about the definition.”
“I thank the Member for giving way again. A few minutes ago, he mentioned vulnerable witnesses, however defined. I wonder whether he could give us some thoughts as to how they might be defined in the context of a Magistrates' Court hearing. <BR /> <BR />I will digress by way of an example. Some four and a half years ago, while I was Minister of Justice and had faced a certain amount of questioning in this place, I was a witness in a civil case in the High Court. I must say that even in that context, as Minister of Justice, I felt just a little vulnerable when I was being subjected to questioning by an opposing QC. I am not sure, however, that I would have qualified as "vulnerable" in any sense of the term. I acknowledge that we are talking here about preliminary hearings in criminal cases, not civil cases.”
“I appreciate Mr Allister giving way. My point was that, in circumstances where a district judge is presented with a barrister saying that, in the interests of justice, they are looking for a PI, my belief is that that is very strongly likely to result in a PI being held, because it will be extremely difficult for any judge to resist something that is claimed in the interests of justice. Whilst I acknowledge that the starting point, which is Mr Allister's point, may be different, the practical effect will mean that there will be virtually no difference from the present stage.”
“I believe that they move us into a better place, subject to the proviso of that subsection 4, which I will happily look at, if it is subsequently required. <BR /> <BR />In the context of this group, I am happy to commend the amendments in my name to the House, but I ask Members to reject the proposals that are put forward by Mr Allister, as I do not believe that his amendments are actually required in the interests of justice, and I fundamentally believe that there is a very real danger that, by putting pressure on victims and witnesses, they could damage the interests of justice.”
“Like Mr Ross, I do not believe that that would be the effect of this regulation. It is most certainly not the intention, but I am happy to give the House an assurance that I will examine the matter further with my officials. If there is a need for an amendment to deal at Further Consideration Stage with the specific issues of juries, I will bring that forward, subject, of course, to Executive approval, unless the Committee does it for me. The fundamental point that Mr Allister or certainly one Member made about ensuring that professionals should be subject to that requirement is absolutely right, because it is part of the process of speeding up justice. <BR /> <BR />The amendments that are proposed to clauses 79 and 80 are intended to give effect to the Examiner’s comments, and I am grateful to him for his suggestions.”
“Clause 79 and clause 80 provide that the Department may make regulations to impose a general duty on persons exercising functions in relation to criminal proceedings to reach a just outcome as swiftly as possible and to make regulations in relation to the management and conduct of criminal proceedings. The Examiner questioned whether two sets of regulations were, in fact, necessary and suggested that the regulation-making powers be combined. The Examiner also suggested that the case-management regulations might be made following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, the Public Prosecution Service, the Law Society and the Bar Council. <BR /> <BR />Mr Allister expressed concerns about the possible effect on juries and asked whether this was something that would put pressure on the way that juries considered verdicts.”
“In addition, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland previously commented that such a provision would be helpful in encouraging early guilty pleas. It is a matter that is well worth consideration, and if there are details, particularly about clause 78(4), that Mr Maginness wishes to discuss with me between now and Further Consideration Stage, I am happy for that to happen. <BR /> <BR />The final amendments in the group are amendment Nos 43 to 46, which make adjustments to the regulation-making powers in clauses 79 and 80 to reflect comments and advice from the Examiner of Statutory Rules, following his scrutiny of the Bill’s delegated powers memorandum.”
“There is no doubt that if we wish to encourage people to make early guilty pleas when they are guilty and to avail of the benefits that will result from doing so, it is important that we make it absolutely clear to their legal representatives that they have a duty to inform those who are charged with offences of the position that they are in. Indeed, too often we see cases where pleas of guilty are entered at the door of the court, with all the cost that that has for the justice system. In such cases, there are no benefits for the defendant if matters have been postponed to that date. <BR /> <BR />So, the clause is part of the Bill as a result of a suggestion that was made by the Justice Committee when this policy was examined and my officials briefed it in 2012.”
“The Attorney General helpfully commented on the clause to suggest that, as it already sets out the nature of the duty on the solicitor together with the penalty for non-compliance, clause 78(3), which provides that the Law Society must make regulations with respect to the giving of advice, could be omitted. <BR /> <BR />Mr Maginness spoke at some length against clause 78(4), and there may be issues there that we could reconsider at Further Consideration Stage, but he did not seem to make a case against the entire clause.”
“That is part of enhancing the operating of the court system, particularly taking account of the single jurisdiction. The amendment does not involve any change of policy: it corrects an oversight and ensures consistency with other live-link provisions in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 40 adjusts clause 78 regarding the duty on a solicitor to advise a client about an early guilty plea at the suggestion of the Attorney General. It certainly appears that in this case the Attorney General does not belong to "Traditional Legal Voice", because his advice was to go with clause 78 and this amendment and not oppose it, as was advised by our two in-house barristers.”
“Those are amendment Nos 61 to 67, and I take it that they are acceptable to the House since they do not seem to have been mentioned. <BR /> <BR />A number of Members spoke about live links, and many spoke in support of amendment No 20, which relates to the Bill’s provisions to enhance live links in courts. That amendment places a requirement on courts to adjourn proceedings for failure to comply with certain orders or licence conditions, where the offender attending by live link cannot see or hear the court or be seen or heard by it and that cannot be corrected immediately. <BR /> <BR />The Bill provides for that safeguard in relation to committal proceedings in clause 44 and live links from another courtroom at weekends and on public holidays in clause 45.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 inserts new clause 12A to supplement the existing provisions for direct committal in chapter 2 to provide for the direct committal for trial of any associated co-defendants. In evidence to the Justice Committee, the Public Prosecution Service indicated that, where a person is to be directly committed under clause 12, it would be necessary, in the interests of justice, to allow for the direct committal of any co-defendants who are charged with offences related to a specified offence so that all defendants may be tried together. As a consequence of new clause 12A, there are some minor textual amendments to clause 14, which are delivered by amendment Nos 4 and 5. <BR /> <BR />Similar amendments that include references to new clause 12A are also required to schedule 3 in a number of places.”
“I could not put it better than the Committee Chair has put it. I noticed, whilst he was speaking, that the first Committee Chair, Lord Morrow, sat behind him. He will remember the work that was done in the first Committee, shortly after devolution, when the prioritisation of work by the Committee was on how we dealt with victims and witnesses. Work being done in the Department was taken over by the Committee, which produced a comprehensive report that the Department accepted and sought to put in place. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, if Mr Allister and Mr Maginness are listened to today, we will undo that work entirely and send out a very dangerous message. Since nobody else seems to wish to intervene at that point, let me seek to make progress and look at my amendments on the committal for trial provisions in Part 2.”
“I am afraid that, whilst we might debate whether it is partial — 50%, 53%, or whatever — I believe that the procedures that I am putting forward are, in Mr Elliott's terms, near enough to the halfway house.”
“I am afraid that I have to continue to disagree with "Traditional Legal Voice". As far as I am concerned, the papers are still examined and the defendant still has the opportunity to make representations to the district judge, and all that is removed is the opportunity to cross-question witnesses. That seems to me to be a halfway house when compared with total abolition. Mr Maginness said that we are abolishing the right to call witnesses, and he is absolutely correct in that. However, that is all that we are taking away from the normal committal procedures that have existed in this jurisdiction, as opposed to the complete abolition of committal procedures that exist in the two adjacent closest jurisdictions — the Republic and England and Wales.”
“Mr Elliott asks an entirely reasonable question. It seems to me that what is being proposed by Mr Allister is, in effect, maintaining exactly the current position. The halfway house is what I am proposing: to keep PEs and not go the whole hog and abolish any committal hearing, as has happened in England and Wales, but instead remove the opportunity for PIs. That is the halfway house. That allows the defendant to make the case. The case has to be put on paper, but there is not the opportunity for witnesses to be put in a very difficult position twice in court, and that is the fundamental issue that I am concerned about: to protect vulnerable people from the effects of having to go into court twice, when they are the people who are dealing with traumatic situations.”
“"Going for people" could have a couple of different meanings, and, sadly, the wrong meaning is what many who are victims consider to be the way in which they are treated by opposing barristers. If they have to do that once, they should not have to do it twice. On that basis, I ask the House to support clauses 7, 8 and 9 as they exist and schedule 2. I certainly will not be supporting amendment Nos 1 and 2, and I request the House to reject them. <BR /> <BR />Let me turn to some of the other amendments that are in the group.”
“He referred to the concept of a PI not questioning everybody and said that "One wanted to ... go for the key witnesses".”
“<BR /> <BR />We can talk all we like about district judges in the Magistrates' Court having to determine what is the interest of justice when it comes up, but I think it very unlikely that any district judge presented with a barrister standing up and saying, "In the interests of justice, I want a PI", will find it easy to resist such a pressure. There is little evidence to suggest that that kind of pressure is easily resisted. Therefore, what is being talked about today as an exception is likely to become the rule. In fact, it could even exist in a greater number than is currently the case. <BR /> <BR />I also noted one comment made by Mr Allister. I wrote it down, and I hope that it is accurate. No doubt, Hansard will tell.”
“We are continuing to protect PEs, and we are continuing to give the circumstance that a judge will have to consider matters on the papers, and the defendant will have the right to put his case at a PE. That is significantly greater protection than is the case in the two most equal neighbouring jurisdictions. <BR /> <BR />I believe that clauses 7, 8 and 9 as proposed strike the appropriate balance between upholding the rights of the defendant and protecting the needs of vulnerable victims. Surely, that is the interest of justice that really matters to the people whom we represent. That is what we want to see, not people being subjected to the kind of cross-questioning that leads to some withdrawing their evidence before it gets to the Crown Court because of the way in which they have been treated.”
“Mr Maginness said that we might need to find some other way of protecting victims and witnesses, but none of those who have spoken against my proposals and in support of Mr Allister's amendments have explained to the House today what further protections there could be if we were to require vulnerable victims and witnesses to appear in court twice. We have no indication of how we will protect them, and nothing has been put forward today to suggest how that could be done. <BR /> <BR />The reality is that PIs were abolished in the Republic of Ireland in 2001. Abolition started in England and Wales that same year and was completed a decade later, and there is no suggestion that there has been a serious impact on the interests of justice in those two jurisdictions. We are not going as far as England and Wales.”
“I do not believe that the hardship faced by victims and witnesses in circumstances where they may be required twice, at committal and again at trial, to give evidence that is often — frequently — traumatic is in the interests of justice. The evidence has to be presented at trial; it does not need to be tested. <BR /> <BR />Mr Ross clearly highlighted the fact that the key issue for the Committee, from its first independent inquiry, has been to ensure that victims and witnesses are treated properly and fairly in the court system.”
“I hear Mr McCartney say that he sees merits, but I see demerits. I see the danger that vulnerable witnesses and victims will be put into court twice and subjected to questioning. That does nothing to enhance the interests of justice. If it puts people off giving evidence at a Crown Court trial, it is damaging to justice, and that was the clear evidence from bodies such as Victim Support, an organisation with experience of supporting people in court. <BR /> <BR />All too often, as I said, the experience in the courts is that cases scheduled for PI or mixed committal proceed on the day as a PE without calling oral evidence because the evidence in the papers is not disputed. However, the distress to victims and witnesses who have been preparing to give oral evidence in difficult circumstances has occurred.”
“For me, the fundamental question is this: do we go with the work that the Committee has done over the last five years on protecting victims and witnesses, or do we go with the "Traditional Legal Voice"? Mr Speaker, I know whose side I am on in that debate.”
“Mr Allister's amendments would essentially retain preliminary investigations and mixed committals where they were required in what he has termed the "interests of justice", but I believe that the amendments are unnecessary because the safeguards that I have just outlined already uphold the defendant's rights to a high standard. <BR /> <BR />I listened carefully during this section of the debate to the comments from Mr Allister and Mr Maginness. At particular times, we need to take account of those in the House who have legal experience, but we do not have to go with them entirely. Mr Maginness described Mr Allister as representing the "Traditional Legal Voice", although from his words it is clear that there are two members of the "Traditional Legal Voice" in the House.”
“In the PE process, the defendant would still be able to make representations on their own behalf that could include making a submission to the court that there is insufficient evidence to return him for trial. The decision on the sufficiency of evidence is a judicial one, and, where the judge believes that the evidence is inadequate, the defendant can be discharged at that stage. Furthermore, as has been highlighted, if the defendant is committed for trial, he would still be entitled to make an application for a "no bill" to the Crown Court to be discharged before arraignment. Of course, as I said earlier, importantly, the Crown Court determines the sufficiency of all the evidence against the defendant in determining innocence or guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.”
“It is worth noting, however, that, although it would be no longer possible to require witnesses to give oral evidence, there are safeguards built into the process that would protect the interests of the defendant. Mr Allister acknowledged that the vast majority of cases proceed by PE. In fact, what needs to be taken account of is that many of them will have started off as PIs and become PEs only during the process, with witnesses having been summoned and potentially vulnerable victims and witnesses subjected to a degree of concern. Then, on the day itself, they may not have to give evidence but will have had all the concerns about potentially having to do that.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Allister suggested that there would be a potential saving of resources in a number of cases — it appears to be a very small number of cases — that might not proceed to full trial if we continue to maintain PIs and mixed committals, but the reality is that they are, in themselves, resource-intensive. Frequently and generally, counsel are instructed, sittings have to be arranged and slotted into court timetables, witnesses have to be called and there is an estimate that it adds significant time to the process. <BR /> <BR />Clauses 7 and 8 would abolish PIs and mixed committals, meaning that all committal proceedings would take place by way of PE.”
“Mr Maginness referred to the committal process as an important filtering process. When we see that 99·7% or 99·8% of cases progress through the filtering process, it does not seem to me, as it did not seem to the Committee Chair earlier, that there is much of a significant filter. <BR /> <BR />At present, as Members have said, committal can occur in two ways: either the preliminary investigation (PI), in which witnesses give evidence and are cross-examined, or a preliminary enquiry (PE), where the judge in the Magistrates' Court decides if there is sufficient evidence to commit the defendant solely on the basis of the examination of the papers. We also have mixed committals, which essentially are a combination of both approaches, with some people being subjected to questioning.”
“<BR /> <BR />Let me turn to the proposals by Mr Allister and his opposition to three clauses standing part, opposition to schedule 2 and his alternative measures as amendments. This measure was put forward by the Department with the support of the Committee in direct response to the views that had been expressed by victims' organisations about the impact on victims and vulnerable witnesses of often having to give traumatic evidence twice: once at the preliminary investigation or a mixed committal and again at the full trial itself. <BR /> <BR />Committal is the process that is used to determine whether there is sufficient evidence against a defendant to justify sending them to the Crown Court for trial. It does not determine innocence or guilt; that is the job of the trial in the Crown Court.”
“It is worth noting that the policy content of the Bill at introduction and my proposed amendments to introduce new policy additions to the Bill have survived the Committee's scrutiny without any significant change, and I am grateful for its support for the vast majority of amendments. I take it as a measure of the success of the hard work that has been done by my officials and their dedication in ensuring that properly developed policy proposals were put to the Committee. Whether or not it is appropriate, I add my thanks to the Committee staff for their reciprocation of that work. There was just one aspect of the Bill that the Committee felt unable to support: the clause that deals with supplementary, incidental, consequential and transitional provisions. We look forward to dealing with that later.”
“The Deputy Speakers are so much kinder than you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />I would like to start off, initially, by thanking the Justice Committee for the very detailed work that it has done in the consideration of the Bill and progressing it to Consideration Stage today. In particular, I thank the previous and current Chairs — Mr Givan, who, unusually, is not here to hear me praise him, and Mr Ross, who is — and the Deputy Chair, Mr McCartney, who has been around throughout. I thank them for their support and commitment in ensuring that such a long and complex Bill with such a large number of amendments was properly scrutinised by the Committee.”
“Before I respond to the points made in the debate, I trust I will have the same indulgence as other Members to make a few general points and to start off —”
“I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The Department's proposals do not remove the opportunity for the defence to put the case; what they remove is the opportunity for the defence to cross-examine witnesses. The key point, as I understand it, both in the Committee's first report on victims and witnesses and in its consideration of the Bill, was the pressure that can be put on vulnerable victims and witnesses.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. He talks about not extinguishing the process. In fact, that is exactly what happened over a decade ago in the Irish jurisdiction and in the England and Wales jurisdiction. That is not what is being proposed here, although there was a strong body of evidence that we should have moved to complete extinction. We will be maintaining PEs and, therefore, we will be maintaining the bulk of the process that has been abolished in the two most equivalent jurisdictions already.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way, because there seems to be a little confusion about the figures. I have the figures for the number of cases not committed, which were sent to the Justice Committee by the PPS in March. It had originally been suggested that 51 cases out of 1,743 were not committed in 2013; in fact, as Mr Ross said, only six out of 2,289 were not committed in 2013, and only four out of 1,938 were not committed in 2014. It seems that there was a bit of confusion, because there were other reasons — for example, when cases were withdrawn or a caution was accepted. Those kinds of issues have made the difference. However, we are talking about minuscule numbers that proceeded to full hearing and that were not committed.”
“The Alliance Party is not afraid to accept that difficult decisions have to be taken at difficult times. When people reach an agreement, they should stick to the agreement five months later. We will, therefore, support the Bill, not because we want Tory cuts to be implemented but because we want to stop future Tory cuts being implemented.”
“I am sorry; I am devastated. If somebody cannot tell the difference between a mathematical formula and a principle, we have a real issue. <BR /> <BR />If people are prepared to throw out the Bill without recognising the effects that doing so will have on those who are most vulnerable in this society and the dangers that lie ahead for public services in general, those who are dependent on those public services and for victims of the past who are expecting something to emerge from the Stormont House Agreement, they really are contradicting the principles of the Good Friday Agreement as well as those of the Stormont House Agreement. <BR /> <BR />It looks like Alliance will end up being the only party that is in support of those principles and the only party that is prepared to be fiscally responsible and socially progressive.”
“It is leaving them with a loss of public services, whether those be health, justice or job skills services, and leaving people worse off because of continuing fines that are being paid back to the Treasury rather than being put into any services here. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP claims to be the guardian of the Good Friday Agreement. The Ulster Unionists gave up on the Good Friday Agreement a while ago, we were never quite sure exactly how much Sinn Féin was committed to the full detail, and the DUP would claim that it never supported it. If we cannot work the system of power-sharing that is before us, we call into question whether Members have any commitment at all to the Good Friday Agreement. Members who signed the petition of concern are in danger of abandoning the Good Friday Agreement along with the Stormont House Agreement.”
“A lot of hopes were built on that, which now stand the risk of being crushed because people cannot agree the Bill. It will mean an immediate loss of last year's £100 million loan, with an expectation that it will be added to the burden of repayments this year, and there will be nothing at all for the additional funds that were expected to be invested in integrated education and shared education. If we do not agree the Bill, we have the prospect of full-blooded Tory cuts with no amelioration whatsoever. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin is making much about its claims to protect those who are dependent on social security benefits. The reality is that Sinn Féin is leaving them in a worse position.”
“Power-sharing requires compromise, rising above narrow ideology and reaching an accommodation, and it means aspiring for the common good. That is what was required, and that is what I believe we achieved at Stormont House on welfare reforms. If we do not pass the Bill, all that we agreed in the Stormont House Agreement potentially falls. <BR /> <BR />Do Members really want that? That will mean nothing at all for the voluntary exit scheme for those civil servants who wish to leave and have built up their expectations over the last months that they will get the chance to go. It will mean absolutely nothing for dealing with the past, new institutions, additional funding for inquests and all that was promised to victims, the bereaved and those who were injured.”
“It is great to be in government at a time of expanding finances and nice opportunities, when Ministers can appear in front of cameras and smile at things, but the reality of government is that we need to learn to take difficult decisions, to deal with the difficult hand when we are played it at difficult times, and to be realistic and accept those. <BR /> <BR />In that respect, it seems to me that Sinn Féin and the SDLP have to prove that they can be responsible around budgetary matters in difficult times in just the same way, frankly, as Members on the other side of the House need to prove that they can be responsible and recognise reality in other respects. The critical aspect is that the Government have to make the decisions based on the context in which we are living at the time.”
“The £93 million in the Stormont Castle Agreement that is being put into social security funding will result in a direct cost, if it is proportionate, of between £6 million and £7 million on policing in Northern Ireland, and we could look at many other examples. We have made that balance; we have sought proportionate changes that would ensure that we maintain essential public services at the same time as we ameliorate welfare cuts, but we cannot go any further than we have gone, and that was a reasonable accommodation. It is the job of a responsible Government to make those difficult decisions.”