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 9 of 50.
“The Prison Service contributes to the strategy by making rehabilitation central to how prisons operate and by providing opportunities for people to change and make a positive contribution to their families and to wider society. <BR /> <BR />The prisoner development model supports, challenges and motivates people throughout their time in prison. Individual risks, needs and strengths are identified so that a structured, tailored personal development plan is agreed with the prisoner to assist them as they prepare for release. When appropriate, people in custody may also participate in programmes to address the distorted thinking and attitudes that led to their offending behaviour, thereby reducing the likelihood of future offending.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will take questions 4 and 9 together. Both questions go to the heart of what prison is for. I have often said that people are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. Recognising that the vast majority of prisoners will return to our community, we have done much in recent years to ensure that we use the time that people spend in prison to address the types of behaviour that put them in prison, to rehabilitate them and to prepare them for return to society. <BR /> <BR />In September last year, I published 'Supporting Change: A Strategic Approach to Desistance', setting out my Department's commitment to provide a flexible, person-centred approach that reduces reoffending.”
“The answer to Mr McCarthy's question is fairly simple, Mr Speaker: no media organisation responded to the consultation on court closures. I think that one raised the potential closure of Enniskillen, when a local newspaper representative talked about travelling times for journalists. However, as Members will recall, Enniskillen will remain as a hearing centre, so that problem has been addressed. There were certainly no formal responses from any media organisation.”
“I certainly think that Mr Givan raises an interesting point when he talks about the Court of Appeal giving judgements. However, I am not sure, given the time that it can take for a judgement in the Court of Appeal, that the public would necessarily see everything. They might well have something filtered through television editors rather than television reporters selectively reporting from the street outside. The issue merits consideration, but I must confess that it is not my first priority in managing the courts at this stage.”
“Mr Beggs's latter point, though interesting, takes us into a very different area, which is around the whole issue of putting courts online. You will know that that has been done in only a very limited way in Scotland or in the Supreme Court when giving decisions. I think that we are long way from seeing the benefits of that. I must say that, living not that far away in the council area adjacent to that of Mr Beggs, I see no difficulty in my local newspapers reporting the activities of either Mid and East Antrim Borough Council or Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, where reporters have to travel a bit. I cannot therefore see that they would have much problem reporting on the courts.”
“This, in addition to the services of press teams in NICTS and the office of the Lord Chief Justice, has reduced the need for reporters to attend court for every single hearing, which clearly frees up staff time.”
“The role played by the media in reporting cases and their outcomes is an essential component of the principle of open justice. Access to courts by the media and the public is not affected by a reduction in the number of courthouses. In this digital age, it is possible for reporters to submit articles directly from courthouses or to avail themselves of other technologies, such as Skype. Wi-Fi access in courts outside Belfast has also been factored into the Courts and Tribunals Service future ICT modernisation programme. <BR /> <BR />NICTS provides a specific online service for the media, allowing them to access full case details seven days in advance of the hearing.”
“I am afraid that, no, I cannot give that level of detail at Question Time. Groups that work with people with special needs is a fairly wide category. I have no doubt that some of them are included within a general categorisation. If Mr McMullan has a specific question and wants to write to me, I will certainly answer it.”
“It really is a matter of a variety of imaginative ideas coming in from community groups, through PCSPs right across Northern Ireland and I think that it has been very positive in that respect.”
“I could probably stand here all afternoon doing that, Mr Speaker, but you would cut me off after two minutes if I gave some of the examples. For example, Mr Hilditch has just highlighted the midnight soccer scheme that is run in a number of areas and which deters young people from getting engaged in antisocial behaviour. I have seen schemes that are directly aimed at providing crime-fighting materials such as door chains, spyglasses and so on, to older and vulnerable people. So, there are a variety of ways in which confidence can be provided and in which crime can be fought, both in the sense of deterrence and direct provision of whatever resources are needed to make it more difficult for crimes to be committed.”
“I can certainly give a commitment that, as long as I am Minister, the scheme will continue. Arrangements are going ahead for the scheme to run in 2016-17. We should be very clear that this was money that we only got after devolution. Prior to devolution, the half of the money that goes to the agencies responsible came back to the agencies within Northern Ireland, but the half that we distribute in community grants was simply not available in Northern Ireland. That, in itself, is good news. It is £3·5 million in community grants that would not have been made otherwise. I cannot imagine that there are any prospects under which the scheme would not continue. The difficulty is that we have to spend the money in the year we receive it and it is not as flexible as one would hope it might be.”
“I can assure Mr McKinney that the principal aim behind the scheme is to fight crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour. The issues that he has highlighted on a number of occasions about burglaries in his constituency clearly come well within the scheme. At this stage, I do not have details of the 30 Belfast applications and what they might be, but they are being assessed. If there are schemes that score highly enough, they will certainly get a grant.”
“I am afraid that I did not come with the full detail, but I will happily write to Mr McQuillan with the details for his constituency. Certainly, at the point when awards are made, the full details will be published. Part of the issue, of course, is that we are not sure, from month to month, how much will be received through the scheme, so there will be, in effect, a first list, and a reserve list should additional money become available.”
“The recently launched 2016-17 competition has received around 150 applications, and their assessment is under way. <BR /> <BR />Applications are assessed individually against the criteria for the scheme. Although submitted via policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), they are not considered geographically. Those meeting the criteria are then scored on areas including evidence of need, actions proposed and value for money. These scorings are reviewed by a panel of senior officials before I reach a final decision. <BR /> <BR />Details cannot be given about allocations in South Belfast, as most projects extend across the city. In the last four years, projects in the Belfast area have received in the region of £170,000. In the current round, there are 30 applications from the Belfast area.”
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2, 7 and 11 together. <BR /> <BR />First and foremost, I believe that this is a good news story. In 2011, we changed the law to keep recovered criminal asset money in Northern Ireland. Since it was launched in 2011, the assets recovery community scheme (ARCS) has awarded nearly £3.5 million to a variety of projects. This funding is money that has been taken out of the hands of criminals and returned to the community. It is clear to me from witnessing a number of projects at first hand that they make a real difference. ARCS is a popular scheme and, perhaps influenced in part by the current economic environment, is greatly oversubscribed. In the 2015-16 competition, 75 applications were received, and the available funding allowed awards to 23 groups.”
“Along with the usual insults that we expect from Mr Allister, he asks me to answer a question that simply cannot be answered. I do not control the location of solicitors' offices, which are private businesses that locate where they wish. That was the point that I made very specifically to Mr Swann. I do not know whether Mr Allister, with his extensive legal experience, can tell solicitors where they will locate in the future, but I am afraid that I cannot.”
“I do not have those figures with me. I have given them previously, and I can confirm that all the figures given to me were net of the cost of continuing to maintain businesses until such time as they are disposed of.”
“I appreciate the Committee Chair's question; indeed, he wrote to me recently about the issue. There are questions about whether it is possible to do alternative work beyond that which is being provided for and whether there is a displacement issue. I have asked officials to look at the Chair's suggestion, but that is a promise to look at the suggestion and not a promise to deliver anything specific at this point.”
“I thank Mr Swann for his supplementary question. A small number of direct Courts Service jobs will move from Ballymena to Antrim. Living between Antrim and Ballymena, I have some knowledge of both towns. I would have thought that a significant number of solicitors' practices, given that they have a variety of interests and do not solely concentrate on business in courts, will continue in Ballymena because it is a significant shopping and market centre. The likelihood of any significant number of jobs moving, other than the small number of direct jobs in the Courts and Tribunals Service, is, I suspect, quite small.”
“I welcome the indication from the Lord Chief Justice that the judiciary is prepared to consider the timings for court proceedings and to explore the benefits of a more flexible court sitting day to alleviate any difficulties that individual users may have. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) has invested significantly in improvements to operating models and to the services that it provides to court users, particularly its IT infrastructure and the ability to support video links in all major courthouses. The retained venues are some of our more modern or larger courthouses, which offer advantages for vulnerable victims and witnesses, including better facilities for segregation.”
“As I set out in my ministerial statement on 8 February 2016, access to justice is not simply a matter of physical proximity or about having courthouses in every town. In this context, it is about ensuring that court users are treated fairly and have access to appropriate services when they are needed. The closure of six courthouses will not see a reduction in scheduled court sittings, as business will transfer on a like-for-like basis to the new venues, so there is no reason that there would be any negative impact on access to court time. <BR /> <BR />The remaining courthouses in the estate will ensure that access to justice, within a reasonable travelling distance, is preserved for court users.”
“I commend and move the motion, Mr Speaker.”
“Although it is not directly part of today's discussion, I think that I can give Mr Kennedy the assurances that he wants. <BR /> <BR />I condemn all three codes to the House in the terms in which I and the Chair outlined them.”
“Given that POCA is purely a UK piece of legislation, there are clearly limitations on its applicability to our cross-border relationships, but, as the Member will know, the new cross-border task force that is being led by the two police services will be a key way of ensuring that cross-border criminality is addressed. In the near future, I hope that we will be launching the revision of the cross-border policing arrangements. That will show that good work can continue across the border. Certainly, when assets are being seized, which is a key part of the draft orders, there is very significant cooperation between the various agencies involved, including the two police services and the National Crime Agency, to ensure that work is coordinated as far as possible.”
“Once again, the debate satisfies Ford's rule of Assembly business. It has been a brief debate, but it has covered very significant issues. As I frequently do, I thank the Committee Chair, but in a genuine way, for his comments and for the consideration by the Committee of the necessity of getting the codes of practice into place. <BR /> <BR />In response to the very specific points made by Mr Kennedy, I say that it seems to me that he has put his finger on it: we now have codes that are consistent across the UK but that are tailored to match devolution.”
“Used to its maximum effect, it will, ultimately, disrupt and deter criminality, and the Northern Ireland codes of practice are an important part of that. I commend the three orders to the House.”
“The strengthening of the POCA regime, reflected in the codes of practice, will help to disrupt, deter and reduce organised crime and will, ultimately, help to protect the public from the serious harm that it causes. <BR /> <BR />In the UK, between 2010 and 2014, criminal assets worth more than £746 million were seized across all methods of recovery, and assets worth more than £2·5 billion were frozen. In Northern Ireland, in 2014-15, £2 million was recovered through confiscation orders. There is still more to do to reclaim the proceeds of crime and facilitate more effective enforcement. The changes being addressed today are a step in that direction. <BR /> <BR />In conclusion, POCA removes criminal assets that could be used to support further criminality; it stifles criminal activity and sends a clear message that crime does not pay.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 1 March 2016, POCA amendments will be commenced in Northern Ireland, including the following: powers to allow the search of a vehicle for criminal cash, similar to searching a person or property; powers to prevent the dissipation of property that may subsequently be used to satisfy a confiscation order; expanded civil recovery powers; and the change of court jurisdiction for detained cash investigations from the High Court to the Crown Court. <BR /> <BR />Those changes will be introduced by secondary legislation at Westminster, as the responsibility has not been devolved. My Department has worked closely with the Home Office, and the changes have been reflected in the Northern Ireland codes. <BR /> <BR />Removing the profits that fund crime serves to disrupt the cycle that sustains criminal enterprises and fraudsters.”
“I will outline briefly the content of the three codes. <BR /> <BR />The search, seizure and detention of property code of practice provides guidance to constables and accredited financial investigators on the exercise of powers to search, seize and detain property that may be needed to satisfy a future confiscation order. Those new powers will be introduced to Northern Ireland on 1 March 2016. <BR /> <BR />The recovery of cash search powers code of practice provides guidance on the operation of the powers to search for cash where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that it is obtained through, or intended for use in, unlawful conduct. <BR /> <BR />The investigations code of practice provides guidance on the exercise of the investigation powers in POCA.”
“<BR /> <BR />POCA has been subject to review and amendment to strengthen its powers. The codes have been updated with all the changes and, in that way, form a consistent and consolidated manual for those using the powers. They provide reassurance to the general public and provide information for those who may be affected by the powers. <BR /> <BR />POCA stipulates that my Department must prepare and publish a draft of any new or revised code of practice. Consultation on that was undertaken over a 12-week period between August and November 2015. Representations were considered, and the codes were subsequently amended where the Department thought it appropriate. The consultation did not recommend policy changes or raise any equality or other impact issues. The updated codes were laid before the Assembly in draft.”
“They tailor guidance on the use of POCA powers to this jurisdiction rather than previous arrangements under which guidance was issued on a UK-wide basis in UK-wide codes of practice. I believe that it is only proper that local codes of practice should apply where the functions fall under devolved responsibilities, as is the case in Scotland and Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland codes under scrutiny today mirror previous guidance that continues to apply in codes issued by the Secretary of State, with appropriate updates and modifications for Northern Ireland. They also closely follow codes with which we are perhaps more familiar under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). The codes provide important safeguards to ensure that powers are used appropriately in a targeted, effective and consistent way.”
“The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is designed to provide law enforcement agencies with tools to recover the proceeds of crime and deny criminals the opportunity to accumulate assets secured by illegal means. The Act empowers law enforcement officers to seize cash that they believe is crime-related and to secure its forfeiture in court proceedings and enables courts to freeze a suspect's assets at the start of a criminal investigation. POCA gives investigators the power to seek court orders directing financial institutions in certain cases and places an onus on any professional person working in regulated industries to immediately report any suspicion of crime. <BR /> <BR />The purpose of the orders before the Assembly today is to give effect to the first Northern Ireland-specific codes of practice.”
“<BR /> <BR />I believe that amendment No 61 provides compassion for women, their partners and their families who find themselves in dreadful circumstances, including, I have no doubt, some who are facing that in Northern Ireland at this moment as we talk. I believe that it is entirely within our competence, and I am quite happy for that competence to be tested by the Supreme Court if necessary. I believe that, with a minor amendment at Further Consideration Stage, it could provide legislation that would improve the welfare of women who feel incapable of carrying to full term foetuses with fatal abnormality whilst also providing full support to those women who wish to carry to full term. I commend amendment No 61 to the House.”
“As Mr Lunn said, we will see about the Members who are not here. I note what Mrs Kelly has said. <BR /> <BR />I also find it very difficult to take talk about due process from those who, on a previous occasion, produced an equally significant amendment at Further Consideration Stage, where there had been no consultation whatsoever as opposed to amendment No 61, based on the consultation of the Department of Justice. I find it quite difficult to take the serious misrepresentation being made that a modest amendment dealing solely with fatal foetal abnormality is being dressed up by some Members as if it were the 1967 Act by the back door.”
“It has kept us much longer than any other group of amendments to the Bill, and it taken us to a late hour. I would like to see Members in a few minutes' time deciding this issue by exercising their individual right of conscience and walking through whatever Lobby is right for them and not be subject to a whip, either for or against. There are people who tonight will go through the Noes Lobby as I go through the Ayes Lobby for whom I have significant respect. I will respect them because I will know that they are voting in line with their conscience, but I find it very difficult to hear talk about yet another consultation from those who have refused the opportunities to engage in consultation up to now over a period of years.”
“It was drafted with assistance in the Assembly by private Members, not with the normal process of legislative counsel, but my advice is that it requires minor amendment by legislative counsel, which can be made relatively easily, to make it fully competent and that the principle of what is in amendment No 61 is absolutely correct and can be turned into a finely crafted amendment at a later stage. I must also say that I believe that the consultation carried out by my Department aired all the issues for those who wished to engage in it, and I must also make it clear that I will not be supporting amendment No 68 and would not have supported any of the other amendments that seek to deal with sexual crime. <BR /> <BR />This is, I accept, a serious moral issue for Members.”
“The fact that the Ulster Unionist Party was able to provide two Members who eloquently argued contradictory positions is at least something for which that party should be complimented on — its ability to allow freedom of conscience. <BR /> <BR />In closing, I must make my position clear and emphasise that it is my personal position, although it does appear to coincide with at least the majority, if not the unanimity, of my party colleagues. I favour legislation to allow for abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality. I accept that amendment No 61 is not the finished article.”
“Like most people in the House, I give my opinion, but I give it honestly after a period of detailed consideration with the resources of the Department of Justice behind me. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the comments made by a number of Members. I did not name them because they were largely agreeing with me, at least on amendment No 61, though some would have gone further. For the sake of the record, I should thank Caitríona Ruane, Mike Nesbitt, Kieran McCarthy, Chris Lyttle, Basil McCrea, Steven Agnew, Anna Lo and John McCallister for their support on at least amendment No 61.”
“I think that those who talked about imperfections as though this is seeking to provide abortion in the case of any disability have not read the amendment and are doing a significant disservice to the limited proposal that is being made.”
“One might say that, when the Bourne judgement was delivered in the court — technically the Bourne direction to the jury — that might have been interpreted as a slippery slope because, prior to that, it might have been said that only an imminent risk to the mother's life was grounds for abortion. The Bourne judgement extended that to risk to long-term health and welfare. It did not open up the floodgates or create a slippery slope. It was not the thin end of the wedge. It was a narrow definition that dealt with a small number of cases, just as amendment No 61 is a narrow definition that deals with a small number of cases of FFA. It is not, as Mr McNarry and Claire Sugden said, about imperfection. It is about fatal abnormality with no prospect of viable life.”
“I do not think that comment is particularly worthy of a barrister and a QC to boot. He knows how these matters are accessed. <BR /> <BR />Mr McNarry concerned me when he referred significantly to the concept of the slippery slope. Let me make it absolutely clear: there is no slippery slope as far as I am concerned, nor do I believe that amendment No 61 will lead to one. From my discussions with Stewart Dickson and Trevor Lunn, I know that is not their intention. The slippery slope is a concept that some people wish to flag up as though it is an inevitable consequence. This is a modest significant change.”
“That is why I have to say to Anna Lo, Steven Agnew and Basil McCrea that I cannot agree with them on the amendments that they sought to table on sexual crime. I also say to Anna that, whilst I fully accept the graphic description she gave of the work she did with the police as an interpreter some time ago, as a result of an initiative by the PSNI and the Department of Health, at least the Rowan sexual assault referral centre is operating in Antrim hospital. One of the key treatments there is to allow somebody access to emergency contraception in whatever circumstances they are in, and that at least ensures that pregnancy is less likely. <BR /> <BR />I think I probably answered most of the points that Mr Allister made, to my satisfaction if not to his, though he did suggest that I had perhaps shopped around for legal advice.”
“It may prolong the brief time, but it does not improve the chances. It was also quoted that the Royal College said that it is not possible to draw a line around the survival time. Yes, I accept that. If Members had looked at the detail of the consultation that was done by my Department, they would have seen that that was one of the issues that was considered. It was considered that it is not a realistic option, but it is realistic for two doctors to say that there is no prospect of a viable life and that the precise timing, whether it is minutes, hours or a day or two, is not relevant to that. <BR /> <BR />Again, in the spirit of agreement, just as I agreed with Danny Kennedy, I will agree with Fearghal McKinney that there are major problems with establishing whether a crime has taken place if we are talking about sexual crime.”
“I do not know whether I need to repeat the point I made in my intervention to Mr McKinney about the consultation process, but I probably should, just to get it clearly on the record at this stage. The consultation process from the Department had recommendations on fatal foetal abnormality and sought opinions on sexual crime. On the basis of that, I made further recommendations on FFA and there were no easy recommendations to make on sexual crime. <BR /> <BR />Some examples were given, and although I accept that the words "likely to prove fatal" are perhaps problematic and should be addressed at Further Consideration Stage, things like the use of a ventilator, which is not necessarily relevant in all the conditions we are talking about, do not improve the chances of survival.”
“That sounds to me actually extraordinarily like what is currently being proposed in amendment No 61 and ties in with the policy proposals that I had made. Indeed, my feelings that I was in line with the stated position of the Church were reinforced by a recent conversation that I had with a former moderator, though I must say that I do agree with the specific point that Mr Kennedy ended on, which was that the issue of a foetus that is conceived by sexual crime and has a prospect of viable life is very different from the concept of a foetus with fatal abnormality.”
“I have made it clear that I believe that it would need to be made more precise at Further Consideration Stage if it were to pass. Nonetheless, it sets the basic tone, which is solely around fatal foetal abnormality and nothing else. Again, to talk about guidelines is talking only about defining the current law. <BR /> <BR />I notice that Mr Kennedy, in his contribution, started off by referring to his membership of the Presbyterian Church, which I should, perhaps, also declare. To the best of my knowledge, the last time that this issue was considered by the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church was as far back as 1982, when there was reference to accepting the concept of abortion in what I believe was termed "gross malformation of the foetus".”
“<BR /> <BR />I noticed that Mrs Pengelly said that we should listen to the experts. Then, she said that there was no such term as "FFA", despite the fact that I have already highlighted that it is a term used by the Northern Ireland chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. It is clear that it covers a number of conditions. It is not a single medical condition. She also said that we should take time to be informed. How long does it take? It has taken from late 2013 for people to be informed enough to produce a specious argument like that today. <BR /> <BR />Mrs Kelly, in her contribution, quoted extensively around the 1967 Act as it applies in GB, but amendment No 61 is far more precise, and offers were made by the proposer to make it more precise.”
“On 25 January, I sent a further paper to the Executive responding to a request for an update. Yesterday, on 9 February, the day before this debate, there was an announcement by the DUP of a commission to look at the issue. <BR /> <BR />Mr Speaker, we have had a long period of time in which any genuine consultation or discussion of the issues was rejected by the Health Minister and other DUP Ministers. I must say that the coincidence of timing with regard to a number of factors and the way in which these things have been addressed suggests to me that there is little to assure us that there is a genuine intention to consult. That could have been done at any time over the last year-plus, and it has not happened. I really have some doubts as to why it was proposed yesterday.”
“<BR /> <BR />On 16 April, I issued the response to the consultation and policy proposals. On 1 June, that was conveyed in an Executive paper seeking approval to draft a Bill on the law on fatal foetal abnormality. That Executive paper was refreshed on 1 July. After lengthy delays through the summer and autumn, I invoked the three-meeting rule to request that it be tabled at the next available Executive meeting, which was 10 December. I am grateful to Stephen Farry and Carál Ní Chuilín for supporting me in that request. On 30 November, we had the ruling in the High Court from Mr Justice Horner about incompatibility with article 8 of the ECHR. That afternoon, a further draft paper was issued about guidelines from DHSSPS. On 10 December, the Executive discussed my paper and agreed to give it further consideration after final determination.”
“On 5 December 2013, I announced my intention to consult on changes to abortion law. From January onwards, there were discussions between various people on how that might be defined. On 28 March 2014, I shared a first draft of the consultation paper with officials in DHSSPS. There were responses from them. On 16 May, I wrote to the Health Minister with a draft consultation paper suggesting that it would be best done as a joint consultation paper by the two Departments, given that there were issues which spanned Health and Justice. On 1 October 2014, I shared a draft consultation with a justice paper, having had no reply from the Health Minister about doing a consultation. On 8 October, that consultation paper was issued. The consultation closed on 17 January 2015.”