Steve Aiken
South Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, as well as the move to reduce the cost to the Assembly of vacant non-domestic properties and to increase liability so that we will not have so many vacant properties, you will be aware of the Dilapidation Bill and of the conversations that have been taking place in Wales and Scotland about…”
“Instead, that most dysfunctional Department, under the most inept Sinn Féin Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly and a series of grossly over-superannuated permanent secretaries, gave the money back.”
“We know that her Department spends more on legal cases, fighting judicial reviews and being chastised by judges for legal ineptitude and on vesting land and ripping out hedges and fencing and then trying to unvest it and paying even more money to put back the fences and hedges that it took out.”
“We can hardly blame the current permanent secretary, as she has just taken up her post, but, surely, her predecessors must bear some accountability or responsibility, especially considering the senior civil servants' salary scale of between £146,000 and £163,000, with, of course, their taxpayer-funded pension contribution of 34·2% — £218,…”
“It must be said that £181·3 million is a lot of taxpayers' hard-earned money. It is money that is raised from local commuters, vehicle owners, farmers, local businesses, logistics companies and, above all, our constituents — those vital people whom we are elected to represent.”
“The Minister will be aware that, under the public appointments guide published by the Executive Office, it is clear that she is supposed to take independent advice before appointing board members. What independent advice did she receive, particularly about the board members selected?”
The complete record
Every one of 2,489 lines we hold for Steve Aiken, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 36 of 50.
“<BR /> <BR />The Bill's sponsor informed the Committee that amendment No 22 to clause 12 is essentially technical in nature. The Committee asked him to expand on the phrase:”
“During the Committee's deliberations, it noted the intention of the provisions in clause 11A to strengthen the overall scrutiny functions of Committees by providing them with enhanced authority to seek information from Departments without having to resort to section 44 provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. <BR /> <BR />Although the current Committee for Finance has not had to resort to section 44 since its formation, it has had occasion to consider its use in order to receive information to which we were entitled. For that reason, the Committee would like to have taken evidence on clause 11A. However, given time constraints towards the end of the Committee Stage, we were unable to do so. For that reason, the Committee was able only to note the amendment.”
“The Committee, therefore, welcomed amendment No 10, which addresses its concerns in that respect. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was content with amendment No 11, which provides for clause 5 encompassing only the Pledge of Office, the code of conduct for special advisers and the Nolan principles. That addresses a concern in the Executive Office that the original drafting included more of the ministerial code than was necessary. <BR /> <BR />In the Committee's deliberations, it accepted the Bill's sponsor’s explanation that amendment No 12 is a necessary but incidental amendment to add Ministers to the ambit of the Commissioner for Standards. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 21 introduces clause 11A.”
“Mr O'Dowd will be very happy that my remarks will be much shorter and more germane this time than they were the last time. <BR /> <BR />Concern was expressed in Committee that the provision in clause 5 to bring Ministers under the same procedure for complaints as MLAs could lead to large numbers of complaints relating to ministerial decisions on policy issues that may be considered unpopular. I am grateful to the Bill's sponsor for listening to and acting on those concerns. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was informed as early as July of the Bill's sponsor's intention to bring an amendment to enable the Commissioner for Standards to sift out complaints against Ministers or MLAs that are considered frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the complaints process.”
“I will conclude my remarks on the group 1 amendments. The Ulster Unionist Party will support the amendments tabled by Mr Allister. I strongly encourage all Members to join us in trying to help to restore trust in our institutions. It is regrettable that the Executive or, indeed, elements of the Executive who should be using their best endeavours to restore that trust are thwarting the efforts at reform. As that is the case, we, as legislators, must do what is right and make the necessary legislative changes that can help to restore that trust.”
“I thank the Minister for that rather short reply. Will the Minister consider introducing legislative changes to ensure that civil servants or those employed by public bodies who have been subject to a disciplinary process but have, subsequently, retired and are, therefore, under the current legislation, exempt from sanction can be prevented from being re-employed as consultants on boards or in any other official capacity?”
“I thank the Member for that. Indeed, in Committee, I apologised for it. While we are talking about that letter, to make sure that there was no break —.”
“<BR /> <BR />Furthermore, having a process for employing a spad, bearing in mind that some parties wish for a salary cap for these individuals to be removed, with a current salary band equating them to that of a Minister, probably says more about the relative power that spads have. Even a cursory reading of the RHI evidence, where Ministers would be directed by spads who spoke with the authority of the party or from offices on the Falls Road, again shows that there is more than enough reason for legislation.”
“I wish and hope that that is so but, without a strong legislative framework, how can we avoid the temptation, or worse, of political corruption? <BR /> <BR />The legislation also deals with detailed concerns. A code for special advisers that is fit for purpose is vital. Curiously, indicating perhaps the sense of commitment from the Executive to reform themselves, one of their first actions was to remove existing safeguards. The words of a former Commissioner for Public Appointments suggested that action was contrary to fundamental requirements for a code of appointment.”
“<BR /> <BR />Perhaps Members — this talks directly to the amendments referring to spads — who have read with a sense of incredulity, or even, like me, anger, of the activity of our Ministers, spads and senior civil servants in Sam McBride's book 'Burned' will, outside the diktats of their central committees and councils, realise that, unlike other Administrations, we now have to have a legislative framework. In his book, Mr McBride states that:”
“Thank you. One week later, they agreed to tighter restrictions. I will get to this point, Mr Deputy Speaker. That shows how far from the norm, and how immature, the Northern Ireland political process is. It is too fragile to be left to best practice and behaviour when clearly, in Northern Ireland, it is anything but. The crux of the issues is whether there is a need for legislation or whether codes and guidance are sufficient, or indeed preferable. The then head of the Civil Service, David Sterling, expressed a view that codes and guidance were sufficient, although this was the same official who, during the RHI inquiry, expressed a view that — I paraphrase — keeping appropriate records of meetings would not be conducive to the wishes of the two largest political parties.”
“Indeed, when observers from outside Northern Ireland think that the court of public opinion, or just doing what is right, will suffice, that view is countered by actions like those of the deputy First Minister and other Ministers during Bobby Storey's funeral, undermining the very health message that all of the Executive were pledged to support, or the First Minister, Economy Minister and Agriculture Minister utilising cross-community voting mechanisms to block a non-cross-community health proposal, only to, one —.”
“Thank you. I will, of course, refer to issues to do with spads and governance as I continue to make my remarks. <BR /> <BR />It should be a matter for all of us who believe in the devolution of power, and it was the belief of those like our party and the people of Northern Ireland in the Belfast Agreement, who thought that normal checks, balances and controls, like those available across the rest of the United Kingdom, would ensure that good and uncorrupted governance would occur, but it has not.”
“As my remarks unfold, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will find that they refer to the amendments in this group. A significant degree of indulgence has been given on other topics, so I am sure that the Member will understand.”
“It was the belief of our party and the people of Northern Ireland that the Belfast Agreement would ensure that normal checks, balances and controls —”
“Indeed, the flow of information that comes from Departments, the obfuscation of Ministers about issues such as non-orders of PPE, and the paucity and accuracy of replies by some Ministers, such as the Economy Minister, on virtually every issue show that there has been no change in the culture of the Executive. After nearly 11 months, there has been every opportunity to make change, but there has been no, or very little, attempt by the Executive to reform themselves. <BR /> <BR />The intent of New Decade, New Approach and the RHI inquiry has been not only thwarted but, in effect, buried by some of the political parties that should be embracing change the most. It is our party's firm belief that, without a legislative imperative, no change will occur. That should be a concern for all of us who believe in the devolution of power.”
“<BR /> <BR />When gathering evidence on the Bill, I was struck by how Sue Gray, the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance, commented that the court of public opinion would act as an incentive to good governance, as it would in Westminster, and by how other senior officials, including the now knighted Sir David Sterling, said that there was no need for a legislative approach because good behaviour and the commitment to New Decade, New Approach would encourage change. I wish that that were so. <BR /> <BR />However, the experience and evidence of the RHI inquiry showed that much needs to be reformed, and our lived experience since January of this year has shown us that the belief that change will be embraced by the Executive is, I am afraid, a forlorn hope.”
“Some of us hoped that, after a three-year hiatus of the Assembly that was caused by calamitous administration; very questionable, if not bordering on mendacious, practices; a dereliction of the normal processes of governance; and the failure to adhere to the custom and practice of government elsewhere in our nation, or even across the border, there would, at least, be a collective desire to reform from within. However, we have, I am afraid, all been let down.”
“Therefore, I cannot comment further as Chairperson of the Committee, except to say that, if agreed, those amendments would have the overall effect of reducing the complement of special advisers in the Executive Office, which was one outcome on which the Committee achieved consensus. <BR /> <BR />In consideration of amendment No 8 to clause 4, the Committee accepted the Bill sponsor's explanation that his proposed amendment is, essentially, a technical amendment that relates to drafting issues. <BR /> <BR />I will now make some remarks about the Bill as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Bill is — I choose my words carefully — a regrettable but necessary measure to restore a degree of confidence in the Northern Ireland Executive; confidence that, through a wide variety of issues, has, regrettably, been much diluted.”
“The Committee considered that and other evidence, and, having divided, agreed by a majority of one that the appropriate number of special advisers in the Executive Office should be four. <BR /> <BR />I note the Bill sponsor's proposals to repeal the Civil Service Commissioners (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order in Council 2007 through amendment No 7, the introduction of a new clause A2 and his intention to oppose the Question that clause 2 stand part of the Bill. While recognising that that will have the effect of reducing the complement of special advisers in the Executive Office from eight to six, by removing the facility for junior Ministers to appoint special advisers, I am cognisant that those amendments were tabled after the Committee Stage.”
“<BR /> <BR />In written evidence, the Institute for Government expressed the view that:”
“That goes back to my point that there is nothing to prevent them doing so in the future. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Finance's view was that reducing the number does not recognise the seniority or weight of the role. Similar views were expressed by the Executive Office. Neither the evidence from the Department of Finance nor the Executive Office was able to clarify how the seniority or weight of the role of a special adviser in the Executive Office differs significantly to that of a special adviser in any other Department, and neither did it explain how the seniority or weight of the role should be a factor in determining the complement. Surely, weight and seniority should be determined by job evaluation and grading, whilst complement should be determined by workload.”
“Together, those amendments if passed would result in a complement of four special advisers in the Executive Office. <BR /> <BR />Although the Committee agreed to clause 2 subject to the previously tabled amendments, there was considerable debate about whether four special advisers in the Executive Office was the appropriate number. When asked for his views on the provision for eight special advisers in the Executive Office, the then Head of the Civil Service stated that the First Minister and deputy First Minister:”
“The complement of special advisers in the Executive Office is eight. There is nothing to prevent the First Minister and deputy First Minister appointing up to eight special advisers at any time in the future. The intent of the legislation is, first, to reduce that complement, and, secondly, to establish an agreed smaller complement, whatever that number may be. <BR /> <BR />The Committee agreed an amendment to the original proposal, which was previously tabled by the Bill sponsor, to remove the provision for junior Ministers to have special advisers. That would reduce the complement of special advisers in the Executive Office from eight to six. The Committee also agreed to a previous amendment to provide for two special advisers each for the First Minister and deputy First Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />In its deliberations on clause 2, there was Committee consensus on the assessment that eight special advisers in the Executive Office is too many. There was no consensus, however, on what the appropriate number should be or whether there is a need to legislate in order to achieve the appropriate number. In consideration of the fact that the current complement of special advisers is provided for in legislation through the Civil Service Commissioners (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, the Committee's view was that amending that order, as provided for at clause 2, was the appropriate vehicle for achieving any reduction. <BR /> <BR />Although there are six special advisers in post in the Executive Office rather than the permitted maximum of eight, it is important to make the distinction between the number in post and the complement.”
“In consideration of amendment No 2, the Committee agreed with the Department's view that the term "ministerial involvement" in the Bill was not compatible with the position that a Minister is responsible for the conduct and discipline of their special adviser. The Committee was, therefore, content to support the amendment brought by the Bill sponsor on that principle. <BR /> <BR />During its deliberations, the Bill sponsor informed the Committee that amendment No 5 would be proposed in order to address a Department of Finance concern that there is a need to ensure that clause 1(6) relates solely to special advisers. The Committee was content, therefore, to support amendment No 5. The Committee also supported amendment No 6, which is a technical amendment.”
“In supporting this amendment, the Committee also noted that the revised code of appointment means that there is now no process for the appointment of special advisers with which to comply. That, in turn, renders the provisions under clause 1(4) largely nugatory. Amendment No 4 would make it a statutory requirement to have a due process of selection for special advisers. <BR /> <BR />During the Committee's deliberations, it considered the need to keep a job description for a special adviser as broad as possible to assist in appointing the most appropriate candidate for the position. The Committee came to the view that the amendment to clause 1(3) does not prescribe what should be in the job description and was, therefore, content with the amendment.”
“The Committee noted that, after the introduction of the Bill, the code of appointment was considerably revised. The revision removed many of the provisions that were in the previous code. The revised code, which is just over one page long, contains little information on any formal requirements. In the view of a former Commissioner for Public Appointments, that is contrary to the fundamental requirements for a code of appointment. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 provides for the reinstatement of the provisions that were removed from the original code. In noting criticism from the chair of the renewable heat incentive inquiry that the previous code had been ignored, the Committee was of the view that it was not appropriate to remove those provisions. The Committee, therefore, agreed to the amendment.”
“I will speak as the Chair of the Committee for Finance and will confine my remarks to those amendments that were considered by the Committee. <BR /> <BR />The amendment to clause 1(2), which was brought by the Bill's sponsor, is technical in nature, and the Committee was content with that amendment. <BR /> <BR />The Committee noted that amendment Nos 2 and 3 to clause 1(3) have been tabled by the Bill's sponsor to address the need to retain and respect the principle that a Minister should be responsible for the conduct of their special adviser. The Committee was content, therefore, to support the amendment. <BR /> <BR />Clause 1(3) proposes to bring special advisers into the Northern Ireland Civil Service's disciplinary process. Those provisions were drafted under the previous code of appointment for special advisers.”
“On balance, having considered the evidence and the unique circumstances in which we find ourselves in Northern Ireland, the Committee supported the legislative route as an appropriate means of providing the openness, transparency and accountability that the public demand. <BR /> <BR />The Committee also considered written and oral evidence on the independence of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, or the lack thereof. I am happy to provide more detail on that issue during the Final Stage debate. However, for now, I put on record that the Committee has made a recommendation in its report that the First Minister and deputy First Minister make legislative provision to bring the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland to international standards. <BR /> <BR />I will move on to the amendments.”
“A former head of the Civil Service informed the Committee that the strengthened codes and new guidance should be viewed as evidence of the commitment of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Indeed, the New Decade, New Approach agreement contains a commitment that the Executive would produce strengthened codes "as a matter of urgency". Yet, as I will outline later, at least one of those codes was stripped of any provisions that would have provided an appropriate level of openness, transparency and accountability. <BR /> <BR />Members will be aware that the Committee divided on every clause. That was as a result of a fundamental disagreement within the Committee on whether codes or legislation were the most appropriate way forward.”
“This was an important consideration as it goes to the very heart of the purpose and intent of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />A former head of the Civil Service informed the Committee that he was expressing the Executive’s view that codes and guidance were sufficient to address the issues that gave rise to the Bill. The Minister and the Department of Finance's permanent secretary echoed this view. However, a number of other stakeholders did not support the view that reliance on codes and guidance was appropriate, given the prevailing circumstances here. <BR /> <BR />The view of the Department of Finance was that many of the provisions that the Bill seeks to introduce are inherent in the codes and guidance that are already in place. The Minister and Department of Finance's officials referred to codes having been strengthened.”
“I thank the Member not just for his comments but for his work during the Bill's Committee Stage. As was expressed by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, having the Member there did indeed make it much easier. In future, we should look at allowing Members who are bringing a private Member's Bill to be an ex officio member of that Committee during that stage to enable the smoother passage of legislation. <BR /> <BR />As Chairman of the Committee for Finance, I will refer to some general issues that were considered by members during the Committee Stage. The Committee report outlines details of the considerable debate during Committee Stage in relation to the need for this legislation or whether codes and guidance were sufficient or, indeed, preferable.”
“It did, however, prove helpful to have Mr Allister as a member of the Committee, where he could hear at first hand the concerns of other members and respond to those concerns. In some cases, that was to provide clarity on the provision in the Bill, and, in other instances, it was to accept members' genuine concerns and to bring forward amendments that are among those we are considering today. <BR /> <BR />Before dealing substantively with the proposed amendments to the Bill —.”
“On behalf of the Committee, I also offer my thanks to the Bill sponsor, Mr Jim Allister, for providing oral evidence and for his willingness to bring amendments to address a number of concerns raised by the Committee, witnesses and stakeholders. I am grateful to Mr Allister and all members of the Committee for their input and engagement during the Committee Stage. I formally put on record our thanks to Jim McManus, the Committee Clerk; the Finance Committee staff and RaISe; and the Bill office staff, who worked hard to ensure that we got to this stage. We thank them all for their sterling and conscientious efforts. <BR /> <BR />Throughout the Committee Stage, the Committee was mindful of the distinction between Mr Allister's role as Bill sponsor and his role as a member of the Committee for Finance.”
“The Committee for Finance considered written evidence from 22 organisations and individuals. The Committee received oral evidence from seven organisations and individuals, including the Bill sponsor, the Minister of Finance, the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance and the, now retired, head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, whose post remains vacant. The Committee considered papers and presentations from the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe) to support it in its deliberations. <BR /> <BR />The Committee considered carefully the views of all who provided written and/or oral evidence, and, on behalf of the Committee, I thank all who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill.”
“I thank the Minister for her remarks. She will be aware, as will anybody who has visited one of Northern Ireland Water's waste water treatment plants in particular, that many of them were built with or provided with anaerobic digesters that, owing to Northern Ireland Water's contracting arrangements, they have never been able to use and have never been able to use for renewable energy.”
“<BR /> <BR />The issue with the grid is significant. Many of us will have had many constituents complaining that, when they tried to connect low-energy wind or anaerobic digestion to the grid, they discovered that they were being charged three or four times the rate that they would be charged in the south of Scotland. It is even more galling that the exact same contractors who do this in the south of Scotland are charging three or four times as much in Northern Ireland. <BR /> <BR />There are also issues with planning. How can it be that, after this length of time, we do not have a planning process that is fit for purpose? I say to the Committee Chairman and the Minister: let us have some ambition in Northern Ireland and set ourselves a target not of 2050 but of 2035. It is ambitious, but it is doable. Let us do it.”
“That is what we should be aiming for. To decarbonise energy, we need to get to the point where we send a signal to everybody in Northern Ireland who wants to invest in green energy that we are the place in which to do so. How can we do that? One example is biogas and the move towards hydrogen. We have a surplus of biogas. We have heard on numerous occasions about the problems that we have with anaerobic digestion and the waste that comes from our dairy and poultry businesses. We have a real opportunity to strip out that biogas and transform it so that we become a hydrogen economy. We can do that because we have the scale to make it work effectively in Northern Ireland, but there must be a signal to the market to make that happen. That ambition must be part of a strategy to try to make it happen.”
“Thanks to our geography, we have an abundance of wind energy. We have the ability to have an abundance of offshore wind energy. We have the ability, because we have suitable scale, to be a gateway between the Republic of Ireland and the rest of our nation, the United Kingdom. In the wider energy field, we have the ability to connect to the new developments that are going on in Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, and to the very large offshore wind energy fields in the North Sea. All of those things point to how Northern Ireland could be more ambitious. <BR /> <BR />I thank Dr Archibald very much for the report. My issue is that it talks about 2050. Our Prime Minister is talking about electric vehicles (EVs) being rolled out and being the only vehicles allowed on the road by 2030. That is much more ambitious.”
“<BR /> <BR />The second was the role of the regulator and the fact that, in many cases, the Utility Regulator seemed to prevent moves towards best practice, including in renewable energy. The third issue was the question of whether the Department for the Economy was fit for purpose and whether it had the breadth and scope to deal with the issue of renewable energy. Unfortunately, from what we have picked up from the RHI inquiry and other evidence that has come to light, the Department for the Economy was not fit for purpose and could not deal with that issue. We hope that that has changed. <BR /> <BR />The final issue was the lack of ambition in Northern Ireland to get to the point at which it could be a leader not only on these islands but globally when it comes to renewable energy.”
“I welcome the report and thank the Chair and members of the Committee for it. It is entirely timely. <BR /> <BR />I need to make a declaration: I was formerly the chief executive of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, and I was heavily involved in the renewable energy sector. It always struck me that, when I asked businesses in the sector from across these islands why they did not want to invest more heavily in Northern Ireland, they said that there were four reasons that prevented a greater output of renewable energy. The first was the monopolistic position that was, very clearly, held by the Electricity Supply Board (ESB) and EirGrid, the large costs that were involved in connection and the lack of investment in the grid.”
“I thank the Minister for her reply. I will refer to my learned friend from South Belfast on the issue, but there is about £2·6 million in air passenger duty (APD) mitigation that we still return to the Exchequer each year. Will the Minister explain whether she or her officials have been in discussion with Belfast International Airport about supporting new transatlantic or Middle East routes? If so, has she made the necessary commitments for funding for those to occur, thus allowing us to improve our economy and our tourism offer for next year?”
“If it was approximately £100 each, it would equate to £48 million. Is it to be £200 rather than £100?”
“We also ask what commitments you can give to assure those who are eligible for support that payments will not be subject to undue delay. <BR /> <BR />Further to the announcement of the expected £95 million for the household voucher scheme, whilst it will provide a much-needed boost to local business, it would be helpful if you could outline the rationale for applying the scheme to every household, particularly as many of the households will probably not need it; whether a targeted scheme, offering a higher amount, would have been a more sensible approach to support those most in need; whether any households will be excluded; whether there will be an expiry date for vouchers; and what will happen to money from unspent vouchers. I am looking at the Department for Communities website, and there are 487,000 households in Northern Ireland.”
“You are not going to get it that easy. It is not going to happen. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for meeting me earlier today and briefing me on the content of his statement before he came to the House. Minister, I thank you for your statement, and we welcome the much-needed funding as a means of supporting businesses. However, those businesses need the payments to be made without unnecessary delays. A number of businesses are still awaiting payments from previous announcements. Therefore, it would be helpful if you could outline what is being done to prioritise the payments for those still waiting and advise whether the applicable Departments have sufficient capacity to ensure that payments are progressed quickly. We note your comments about LPS and how quickly it has managed to repurpose itself.”
“I rise as the Chairperson of the Finance Committee —.”
“I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I appreciate that you have pointed out that it is an operational matter for the PSNI. However, I, and I am sure many other Members, continue to be contacted by constituents who are raising concerns about the illegal sale of fireworks. It is important that, where people do have information, they pass that on to the PSNI. <BR /> <BR />We have also seen in the media recent examples of the dangers of fireworks. What engagement have you had with Executive colleagues about educating and highlighting to our young people the dangers of fireworks?”
“I thank the Minister for his remarks and for coming to the House to give his briefing. The Minister noted in his statement that Peace IV and INTERREG Va are both at 103%. Some of us will be concerned about whether we will be able to brief a project that is already anticipated to be at 103%. Perhaps, in his closing remarks, the Minister will comment on that, and on how that is likely to come through. One might ask where the excess funding is going to come from. Will it be divided equally between the Irish Government, the EU and the United Kingdom Government? How will that be done? I welcome the Minister's remarks about progress towards COVID recovery. Will additional funding come to Northern Ireland as part of the COVID recovery actions and process? If that is the case, where is that funding likely to come from?”
“I apologise for our justice spokesman's not being here today, but I support the Bill. The UUP acknowledges the need for the changes and for this Bill. It is regrettable that this has been so long delayed, but we welcome at long last the reform of our justice system that is much needed. Streamlining and improving efficiency is needed, for justice delayed is indeed justice denied. The judiciary, the victims and the whole process of the justice service need to support these changes, and we need to also make sure that we have suitable resources and the ability to support the changes that have to go through our court system, which is in need of reform. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the changes.”