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 40 of 50.
“I have to confess that I am somewhat reticent about the idea of a multidisciplinary panel to carry out what is effectively the review process that we are looking at introducing. There are clear issues around the complexity, the cost and the ease of getting a speedy decision for those who seek to be referred to the panel. If it can be done correctly by a single reviewer, there may be no need to look at the wider panel. The clear issue will be to recognise that significant progress is being made, and I am grateful to Mr Maginness for acknowledging that, and to ensure that we get a speedy way for individuals to have their case reconsidered that is not overly bureaucratic and that ensures that we make the right decisions as far as possible.”
“The new process will include an automatic referral for cases with offences committed only under the age of 18. I am happy to continue to engage with NIACRO and others on the issue to ensure that the right balance is struck.”
“The filtering arrangements that the Assembly agreed last year have seen a significant number of old and minor offences removed from the standard and enhanced criminal record certificates issued to those who want to work or volunteer within regulated activities. Shorter timescales for removal are applied to those who are under 18 in recognition of their youth and the importance of their rehabilitation. As a further step, and one that goes beyond the position in England and Wales, I am preparing to bring forward a review mechanism for filtering as part of the Justice Bill. That means that people will be able to ask for an independent review of their case, even after the application of filtering, if they believe that the disclosure of the information is disproportionate.”
“Always happy to help out, Mr Speaker. With your permission, I will take questions 4 and 7 together. <BR /> <BR />The campaign referred to, concerning the removal of childhood offences, is being led by NIACRO. I met NIACRO, with Bob Ashford and Simon Weston, when they launched the campaign. Bob and Simon's cases are compelling. However, it is a complex issue that requires the careful balancing of public protection with the need to ensure that young people are not stigmatised for the rest of their life because of a single poor choice, leading to a record for a minor offence at an early age. One aspect of that is disclosures by Access NI. I have already taken important steps towards achieving a more balanced approach.”
“However, the issue of how confidence is carried forward in the operation of the arrangements on both sides will depend to a considerable degree on goodwill on both sides.”
“It is not always easy to have confidence in how other people will perceive things. I certainly believe that the individual who was selected has a background that shows a degree of independence and understanding of the way in which the prison operates, as well as the ability to do the task that was requested of him.”
“My Committee's Chair asks a very serious question. There is absolutely no doubt that threats are being made, and there are concerns for the safety of prison officers outside and inside the prison. That should stop. Those who wanted the agreement to be reached in August 2010 should accept it, live up to it and encourage their colleagues outside to accept it as well. That includes ending any threats to any member of the prison staff, whether on or off duty. <BR /> <BR />The key issue of maintaining the safety of prison officers and that of all others outside the jail rests with the Police Service. I know that the Police Service is very active in its work to protect those most under threat.”
“Mr McElduff first asked whether everybody was adhering to the agreement. Sadly, it is the case that threats on Roe House and through social media continue against prison officers. If we are talking about everybody adhering to the agreement, let us be clear that a number of prisoners and their support groups are not doing that. <BR /> <BR />On the specific question of individuals, I believe that a small number remain in the care and supervision unit because they have not met the criteria for admission to the separated accommodation and have been unwilling to integrate into the remainder of the prison. That is clearly an unfortunate situation, but, if individuals do not meet the criteria, which are set not by me — they are for the Secretary of State — there is nothing else that the Prison Service can do to manage those prisoners safely.”
“However, that will be only in an environment where the security of the establishment and the safety of staff, visitors and prisoners remain the priority. <BR /> <BR />I made it clear when the stocktake was published that addressing the recommendations was a responsibility shared by the Prison Service and the prisoners. If momentum for change is to be maintained, I would and others with influence should encourage the prisoners to fully engage with that process.”
“I received the stocktake report from the independent assessors on 25 September last. The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) accepted the nine recommendations within its responsibility and continues to work towards their implementation. Progress that has been made includes my appointment of an independent chair for the prisoner forum. The Prison Service has taken a first incremental step towards normalising the regime by allowing four prisoners onto each of the two landings. NIPS has also made changes, in line with the recommendations, to the approach to full-body searching, which is now more acutely focused on intelligence and risk. Those are clear signals that the Prison Service is prepared to normalise the regime offered to prisoners as and when it is appropriate to do so.”
“In round terms, the pressure that was anticipated for the incoming year is £36 million. With additional funding having been allocated in the Department's work between draft Budget and now, the pressure remains in excess of £20 million. That £36 million pressure on legal aid — not the total cost of legal aid — exceeds the cost of running the core Department. That is the scale of it. Given that the Executive's decision was to provide additional funding to the PSNI — ring-fenced to the PSNI — it actually gives very little room for manoeuvre in the 30% of departmental spending that is not policing. The pressure across the rest of the Department is unsustainable if we do not get significant reductions in legal aid. That is why I trust that I will see the Executive and the House support those necessary measures.”
“The position is that expenditure in each year from 2010-11 has been between £101 million and £110 million. That is the estimate, obviously, for the current year. All of that takes into account the significant reductions that I have already referred to, with over £20 million being taken from the criminal defence budget. The reality is that it is an indication of rising demand that, even though significant sums have been reduced, the cost continues at a very similar level. That is why we need to look at further significant reforms.”
“I am happy to confirm to Mr Lynch, as I confirmed to one of his colleagues at the Executive last week, that any changes will be subject to an equality impact assessment.”
“We will certainly do our best to ensure that we protect the vulnerable as far as is possible given the extremely difficult Budget that we now have.”
“As I intend to speak to the Justice Committee on the issue tomorrow, I do not really wish to go into the detail of the potential. However, recognising that there will be a need to remove some items from the scope of legal aid, let me say that the emphasis will be on protecting those who are most vulnerable and ensuring that family cases, for example, continue to attract legal aid for the basic hearing; that, where we look at changing matters, it is because we are better implementing financial controls over, for example, criminal defence work, where there have been allegations of some defendants who have significant resources being supported by legal aid; and that, when money damages are being taken into account and there is the potential for payment through an insurance scheme or something similar, those are the areas where we will look to reduce scope.”
“I have made and will continue to make strong representations at the Executive for support. I hope that all Members will also support my reforms.”
“I have set out my plans to reduce expenditure on legal aid on a number of occasions. In my response to the Member in November, I outlined some of the pressures facing the legal aid budget. I have already reduced the fees paid to lawyers by over £22 million, with further significant reductions to be implemented shortly. However, the demand for legal aid continues to increase, and, in reality, this cannot be addressed without reducing scope. I am consulting on a range of measures. <BR /> <BR />I cannot, however, deliver the changes on my own. The reforms will be significant, and, as I have already advised my Executive colleagues, support across all areas of government will be required. I was disappointed that the reference to support for legal aid reform was removed from the Budget paper issued last week.”
“I have not been the least bit vague; I have answered the questions that were put. The question related to the terms and conditions, which have not been set because there is no agreement. It is absolutely clear and a matter of public record that Michaella McCollum has made an application that has been accepted in this jurisdiction but has not yet been accepted in Peru.”
“Without discussing any individual, the Prison Service's emphasis in general is on rehabilitation. One of the key reasons why prisoners can be repatriated to their home jurisdiction is to aid rehabilitation through maintaining family contacts. That is an established process under, as I said, the European Convention and a number of bilateral agreements, and that is the basis on which we seek to work with all those who are in custody in Northern Ireland.”
“I cannot provide details of the cost in relation to Michaella McCollum, but I can outline the costs as they apply in the case of any prisoner who is repatriated. MPs and MLAs from a variety of parties have suggested a number of measures about the repatriation of prisoners in different circumstances. The costs are met by the receiving jurisdiction under the UK convention and bilateral agreements that the UK has. The expectation for any prisoner being repatriated to Northern Ireland is that they pay the cost of their fare. Once they are a prisoner here, their costs are met by the Prison Service from its budget.”
“I am not sure of the circumstances in which the issue of legal aid would arise. There are set arrangements that apply to the way in which sentences are carried through, and the precise details depend on the nature of the sentence in Peru and how matters would be considered on the basis of a sentence in Northern Ireland. Those issues will have to be worked out, if there is consent on the part of the Peruvian authorities.”
“I cannot go into the detail of that, but the expectation is that sentences will be worked out on the basis of our normal provisions from the time at which somebody is repatriated to Northern Ireland. That is a matter of detail that will have to be worked through if there is an agreement by the Peruvian authorities to repatriation.”
“I understand that the Peruvian Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has yet to indicate that it has consented to Michaella McCollum’s repatriation. Therefore, the terms of her transfer have yet to be agreed.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Newton is very welcome as Deputy Speaker, but if we are to have a Principal Deputy Speaker, it should be a post that is shared and not carved up.”
“<BR /> <BR />I shared the views that Dolores Kelly expressed when I heard power-sharing being mentioned by Caitríona Ruane. When the two largest parties take everything, down even to nominating a Principal Deputy Speaker, which is of no more significance than a Deputy Speaker, it does rather look as though it is not just a matter of an understudy coming into place a few years ago, but it is now an intention to hold on to the top office between the two of them. <BR /> <BR />That raises real questions about the way that the Assembly functions and the attitude of the two largest parties to it. So, like Mrs Kelly, I cannot support the concept of a DUP Principal Deputy Speaker now being an automatic expectation because there is a Sinn Féin Speaker.”
“You perhaps had a rather longer apprenticeship than might have been expected initially, but it was an understanding that the position was changing and an understanding of full buying-in to the institutions by members of Sinn Féin. That does not mean that we need to continue forever with the presumption that the two largest parties will have a carve-up of what should be a post and a series of posts — the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers — to represent all of the House, to stand for the House as opposed to the Executive, and to stand in a different position. On that basis, the concept that, because there is now a Sinn Féin Speaker, there must be a DUP Principal Deputy Speaker, with no specific role, is not something that appeals to me.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Can I start by congratulating you on your election as Speaker, since this is the first time I have spoken in the Chamber since your election? <BR /> <BR />I congratulate Robin Newton on his election as Deputy Speaker. I do not need to add to the tributes that were paid by those who proposed him for both the offices for which he is being proposed. Certainly, we will be very happy to work with him in his role as Deputy Speaker, alongside others. <BR /> <BR />I do, however, share many of the reservations that were just expressed by Dolores Kelly about the concept of Principal Deputy Speaker. When you, Mr Speaker, were appointed Principal Deputy Speaker, it was clear that you were there as an understudy as part of an agreement that the post of Speaker was to be shared in this Assembly term.”
“I also believe that, if the House is to elect a Sinn Féin Speaker today, it will make a very significant statement about people who have been at times reticent about fully buying into the institutions of the Assembly. That is a fundamental, significant and important point that should not be lost on the wider community. With that, I have great pleasure in endorsing the Member for South Antrim as Speaker of the House.”
“First, when agreements are made, they should be honoured. It should not have required the Sinn Féin rollover on welfare reform to get the agreement on who should be Speaker of the House honoured. Secondly, Mitchel McLaughlin, as Principal Deputy Speaker, has acted as impartially as any who have been Deputy Speakers and has shown that he was preparing himself to be an impartial Speaker in the same way as William Hay was and in the same way as John Alderdice and Eileen Bell were in previous Assemblies. On that basis, he should be supported for Speaker today, not out of any disrespect for John Dallat or Roy Beggs — there is no suggestion that they are not fit to do the job — but because an agreement was reached, and he has been acting as Principal Deputy Speaker. That should carry through.”
“I suspect, Mr Acting Speaker, that, last autumn, you did not imagine that you would have to do the job twice, but I suppose that today is probably a case of better late than never. <BR /> <BR />I join others in paying tribute to William Hay and the role that he performed as Speaker. He did at least break the apparent constitutional requirement that the Speaker of the House be a member of the Alliance Party, so he must be thanked for that, as well as for his work whilst in the Speaker's Chair. There is also a sad and interesting parallel: when Willie Hay was proposed, he was proposed as Speaker on a cross-community basis. We still have not reached that point today. <BR /> <BR />When we last debated the issue of the Speaker, I made it very clear that the Alliance Party would support Mitchel McLaughlin on two grounds.”
“<BR /> <BR />I congratulate Lord Morrow on his achievement in bringing the Bill this far. I commend the Bill to the House and trust that we will see it pass shortly.”
“In intent, it is clearly the original Bill that Lord Morrow introduced, but it has been significantly improved in its practical operation by the input of the DOJ, the OLC and a range of others who were consulted. It is an example of what can happen when we work constructively together in this place — a private Member, a range of NGOs, the Department, the Committee and other officials. It is an example that we should perhaps celebrate because we have few enough examples of that constructive good work to celebrate. We now have important legislation that I believe will make Northern Ireland safer and freer from these kinds of criminals and from those who would exploit others in such a horrific way. I believe that it will make a material difference to the lives of vulnerable people.”
“<BR /> <BR />Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, if I could digress and ignore your earlier suggestion that we should stick to what is in the Bill, I would like to refer briefly to Part 5 and the provision for the Northern Ireland rapporteur, which is no longer there. I emphasise that that was the result of good work done between Lord Morrow and his team and my team in persuading the Home Secretary that we had a better solution, which we saw when we passed the LCM yesterday. <BR /> <BR />There are very significant aspects to the Bill. On the great majority of them, Lord Morrow and I are as one, along with, I believe, the great majority of the House. I am grateful that we have been able to work together on shaping the Bill. I believe that we now have a robust Bill.”
“They are, of course, the responsibility of DHSSPS, and I have no doubt that, had the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety taken part in the debate, he would have agreed with the points that I have just expressed on his behalf. <BR /> <BR />The provisions in Part 4 will also enhance the protections available for victims of these offences in criminal investigations. Those are important measures that I believe will help to give victims renewed confidence to take a stand against their exploiters without facing additional trauma and, in many cases, will protect them from prosecution for certain crimes that they might have been compelled to commit.”
“The DOJ is not in the business of commissioning shoddy, prejudiced work. Work was commissioned to assess the nature and extent of prostitution in Northern Ireland. Some Members may not like the result of that research, but it was commissioned to be genuine, and it was on the basis of that evidence that the DOJ took its decisions. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at the remaining aspects of the Bill on which there is significant agreement. In particular, there is a focus in Part 3 on providing assistance and support that will help vulnerable individuals, victims and potential victims to take the necessary steps to rebuild their lives. It will also provide essential protections for children who have been trafficked or who are considered to be separated. On behalf of the Executive, I welcome the inclusion of these vital measures.”
“While we still have disagreements on Part 2, that should not detract from the areas on which we all agree about the positive aspects of the Bill. Lord Morrow has made it clear — I entirely agree with him — that victims are at the heart of the Bill and have to be at the heart of our work in future.”
“Lord Morrow has stated that the motivation for this new offence was to reduce the market for women trafficked into sexual exploitation but, invariably, other reasons were put forward. <BR /> <BR />My view has always been that policy cannot be developed properly, and the Assembly should not make law without a sound evidence base. I remain disappointed, therefore, that the research on prostitution that I commissioned from Queen's University, which was published before Consideration Stage, was ignored and, indeed, derided at times. In part, it was because it portrayed the views of sex workers who had until then not been heard and because it destroyed a lot of the stereotypical imagery of prostitution. <BR /> <BR />As we look at Part 2, I can do no better than briefly quote one of the sex workers who was interviewed as part of the research.”
“In short, taken together, the package of provisions set out in the clauses of Part 1 will improve our understanding of these types of crime and help to protect the public as well as boosting our capacity to respond effectively and robustly to perpetrators. <BR /> <BR />Of course, there is one small part of the Bill, originally clause 6 and latterly clause 15 in Part 2, on which Lord Morrow and I did not agree: the criminalisation of the purchase of sex. This one clause took up more than the lion's share of debating time and, I believe, diverted the focus away from some of the other important measures that I just outlined into the moral issues surrounding the purchase of sex.”
“<BR /> <BR />We will see the introduction of new slavery and trafficking prevention orders (STPOs) to help to bolster public protection as well as adding a further layer of personal risk to those who are involved at whatever level in exploiting others and so act as a deterrent. <BR /> <BR />Law enforcement has described human trafficking and slavery as high profit and low risk. I believe that the new powers to confiscate criminal assets and to force perpetrators to pay reparations not only will help victims but will disrupt this profit/risk dynamic and so dilute the economic driver that fuels these crimes.”
“It consolidates and reinforces the legislative framework around human trafficking and slavery and brings together new offences for the first time in a single piece of legislation so that the law is streamlined and simplified to assist investigators, prosecutors and the courts. In doing so, it importantly gives equal weight to human trafficking and slavery-like offences. Both types of offence will be triable only on indictment, with each attracting a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The new sentencing framework provided by the Bill will enhance public protection and send out a powerful message to would-be traffickers and enslavers that Northern Ireland will simply not tolerate these evil practices.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), which has tirelessly provided the usual sage advice and guidance to ensure that the Bill is effective and appropriately written to match the sponsor's intent. <BR /> <BR />I have said before on many occasions that the nature of human trafficking is such that no one individual Department or agency, working alone, can tackle it. We need to build an effective partnership, and I believe that the Bill exemplifies the common goal and the partnership that we have done. <BR /> <BR />While Final Stage is not the place for a clause-by-clause analysis, I want to take a few minutes as Minister to remind the House of what we hope to achieve through the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />As others have said, I should also acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee, which has also played an integral role in shaping and informing the Bill, has done the detailed scrutiny and deserves our thanks for that. In particular, I thank Paul Givan and Raymond McCartney, the Chair and Deputy Chair, but I also thank all those members who played a part in helping to develop the legislation. I also thank Christine Darrah and her staff on the Committee. <BR /> <BR />There has been very valuable contribution from around the Assembly, and I am confident that we have robust, comprehensive and effective legislation, which, despite the changes due to the massive number of amendments we have passed, is still very much Lord Morrow's intent.”
“She probably has not seen the back of him, and I am not sure that she would be pleased to. However, I suspect that we will all be pleased at the end of this laborious process to see the back of the Bill. The important issue is seeing that the work goes forward with the Department, the Department of Health on other aspects, a range of justice agencies and a range of our NGO partners, to ensure that the Bill's provisions are implemented. Certainly, the input from a number of those NGO partners, through our engagement group in the Department, as well as through those who have worked with Lord Morrow, has been key.”
“<BR /> <BR />When I praise Lord Morrow, I also praise those who worked with him, particularly Mark Baillie from CARE in NI, who has provided support to Lord Morrow throughout the Bill's passage and has worked very closely with my officials to resolve concerns and identify effective policy solutions to make the Bill so effective. Lord Morrow also referred in particular to one of my officials, Julie Wilson. Unfortunately, I do not think that she heard him directly; no doubt, he will repeat his praise in a few minutes' time. I add my thanks to Julie Wilson and her team, who have put an awful lot of effort into ensuring that the Bill is the best possible. Lord Morrow said that he expected Julie to be:”
“I am pleased that we have been able to work so collaboratively, as so many Members, not just Mr McCrea, have highlighted, on the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />So, I again put on record my thanks to Lord Morrow for the openness, the flexibility and the willingness that he has shown throughout the process to ensure that we make the Bill the best that it can be for Northern Ireland. His desire to combat human trafficking and modern slavery is absolutely clear. He has firmly established himself as a key figure in highlighting these appalling crimes, and he has played a part in the Westminster legislation. I have no doubt that he will continue to engage with my Department as it works to implement the measures in the Bill. I say that on the presumption that we are about to pass the Bill.”
“Indeed, when I was attacked by Mr McCallister's former colleague at the Second Reading for supporting the Bill when I had some reservations, I did a quick sum and said that, if you support a third of the clauses, believe a third need some amendment and are not too sure of another third, that is no reason to oppose a Bill at Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is rather longer than it was when it appeared at Second Stage. It is rather more complex and bears the mark of a lot of work. It is much more agreed than it was at Second Stage. Whilst we have disagreed on some measures, Lord Morrow and I — and, I believe, the House as a whole — are united on the Bill's fundamental principles.”
“I am grateful to the Member for that intervention; I should clearly allow DUP Members to intervene in my speeches more often. <BR /> <BR />When introducing the debate, Lord Morrow referred to me being "sceptical" in the early days. That is a correct assumption. The Department was looking at the potential for secondary legislation. While that would have covered the bulk of what is now in the Bill, it was clear that, as developments occurred, particularly in terms of linking up across the UK jurisdictions, there was a wider need to look to primary legislation.”
“He has demonstrated dedication and tenacity in driving the legislation forward to reach this significant milestone. In introducing the debate, Lord Morrow said that —”
“<BR /> <BR />Members will, I am sure, agree that the landscape has changed significantly in the three years since Lord Morrow stood here and announced his intention to introduce this Bill. The Bill that was subsequently introduced in June 2013 sought to make Northern Ireland a more difficult place for traffickers to operate in and to improve the provision of support for victims. It also sought to achieve improved compliance with international obligations. I have been clear from the beginning that those are worthy aims that I fully support. I am satisfied that they are being preserved intact and, indeed, strengthened in the final Bill before the Assembly today. <BR /> <BR />I pay tribute to Lord Morrow for bringing the Bill forward and for leading it through what I know has been a very challenging journey.”
“I feel that I should deal with the important business first of all: I actually had a private Member's Bill prepared in the first Assembly, but when the Assembly was suspended in 2002, it was lost. <BR /> <BR />Speaking on behalf of the Executive on the substance of this Bill, I welcome this final informed debate on what I believe is a groundbreaking Bill that puts Northern Ireland at the forefront of the fight against human trafficking and slavery. In reinforcing our stance against those crimes, it will act as a deterrent for would-be traffickers. Where people are exploited, it will help to ensure that the perpetrators are properly punished. Crucially, it will enhance the protection and support available for victims whose lives have been shattered by these abhorrent crimes.”