Linda Dillon
Mid Ulster · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“It is important to have that acknowledgement for the sake of history — so that the generations who come after us will understand what happened to you and what you went through. It is also important for our present and future: we must make sure that what happened to those women, girls and children never happens again.”
“I begin by offering the apologies of my colleague Carál Ní Chuilín, who cannot be here today owing to ill health. Carál has been very much invested in the work on the legislation. The Bill is very important to her, given the work that she does in the Assembly and the people with whom she has personally worked and engaged over many years.”
“My colleague Áine is the Member who probably comes closest to having a true understanding of what you have had to live with and endure, and continue to live with and endure, because it has affected, and will affect, you all your life, and we know that those effects are transgenerational. I acknowledge that.”
“We can never allow that to happen. <BR /> <BR />You showed bravery by speaking up. You spoke up, yes, so that people would know what had happened to you, but you also spoke up so that it would not happen to others.”
“Some lived to see the beginning of the campaign but not the Bill getting to this stage. Many did not even see the beginning of the campaign and did not believe that, in their lifetime — or anyone else's lifetime, for that matter — there would be an acknowledgement of what happened to them.”
“I apologise for not being in the House from the beginning of the statement and thank you for your latitude on that. <BR /> <BR />Thank you, Minister. You have outlined some of the benefits that Waterways Ireland ownership can bring to waterways and local communities.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,578 lines we hold for Linda Dillon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 32.
“I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with you: the £400 million, £600 million or whatever it is is crazy money, but that is in relation to the repercussive nature, which would mean that it would not be spent on victims of domestic abuse here; we would, effectively, have money taken out of our block grant, which would go to England, Wales and Scotland. It would not be for here. That is where the issue arises. I agree with the Member that we should not be looking at how much it costs; we need to look at how we protect those people. We, as an Executive, could not take on the responsibility of looking after victims of domestic abuse across the water.”
“They said that we should not limit who a victim was because, potentially, that would limit the number of people who could access this.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. She has been very generous with her time. <BR /> <BR />This is at the heart of one of the concerns that I raised. If we place such tight limits on who is a victim, we know that, with the best will in the world, victims will be limited to those in relation to whom there is a conviction or those who are almost in that situation. We will create a bigger barrier for victims. I accept that this is not perfect, which is why clause 27A is so important. I spoke with organisations that represent these people and asked them how we could help the largest number of victims. I asked how we could give the most help to victims and whether it was by limiting who a victim is or limiting this to respondents, which was the Committee's initial intention.”
“I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Maybe we can ask the Minister to speak with officials, because there is a bigger piece of work even than legal aid to be done here in relation to the family courts. I accept that the Department and our Committee have a heavy legislative workload and probably, realistically, very little room to do anything else, but I think that there needs to be preparatory work done now for the next mandate to see what we can do to address those issues in reality and totality, rather than just trying to address it in a piecemeal manner through legal aid and other means. We need to address it fully.”
“Does the Member agree with me that the fact that there will be a cost saved somewhere within the system is exactly why access to legal aid should not be about cost savings? We know that there are people who leave their job to be able to access legal aid because they can no longer afford to stay in work.”
“I am not asking Members to oppose the amendments that we oppose. That is not my argument to make. I outlined the reasons why we will oppose them, but I am certainly not asking Members across the House to follow our lead. I ask only that Members consider the points that I have made.”
“It will only be as good as its roll-out, and it will only be as good as how well the Committee scrutinises it. We have put a lot in the Bill — we will speak to it in the next group of amendments — on the reporting and the independent oversight. That is extremely important, and I am glad that it is there. However, as a Committee, we have oversight of anything in the Department. We know what we have added to the Bill, why we added it and why it is important. We will therefore have a responsibility in relation to that. It is helpful to us that somebody independent will have oversight and to have the reporting processes in the Bill. That will give us the information that we need to ensure that we do the best with this Bill. <BR /> <BR />It is my hope that Members will support the amendments that we have asked to be supported.”
“None of us knows how long we will be here and no Minister knows how long they will be in post, so we need to ensure that, when we start something, we do it with the intent that those who come behind us will complete the job. By doing that, we will truly regain some belief in this House and in us as individuals. <BR /> <BR />Unfortunately, we are unable to support amendment No 13, and I had already given a commitment that we would not support the original amendment No 15, which was around linking the commencement. It is for the reason that I just outlined: we all have a responsibility to ensure that what is in the Bill is delivered. Again, I will give an absolute guarantee on the record that, as long as I am on the Justice Committee and as long as my party has members on the Justice Committee, what is in the Bill will be delivered.”
“However, I would like to think that we have placed this on the record today to ensure that it will be honoured by any Assembly and any Member who sits in the Assembly and that any future Justice Committee will look at whatever proposals are brought forward and understand why they are so important to the sector. <BR /> <BR />I can certainly speak for myself when I say that, regardless of whether I am on the Justice Committee or whether I am an MLA, I represent my party and my party's views. My party is well aware that I expect members of my party to deliver in relation to this on any future Justice Committee. It is not just for me as an individual but is absolutely for whoever comes behind me to ensure that this is delivered.”
“That is not to say that, when the proposals come forward, we should not then widen the scope based on those proposals. <BR /> <BR />Sinéad Bradley said earlier that faith in this House and the faith of the organisations and victims in us to deliver for them is at an all-time low. That is faith in all of us. Remember that: it is faith in all of us, including every member of the Committee, every MLA and Ministers, so, if we want to ensure that we deliver for them, we all have to do it. We should not put that responsibility on any individual, on any Committee or on a current Committee, because there will potentially be different MLAs on different Committees in the next mandate.”
“I agree that it is the Department's role to do that, but that is exactly where my fear lies. I fear that the definition of who constitutes a victim will be narrowed so much that we will almost, if not actually, be at the point where people are considered to be victims only if the perpetrator has been convicted, and that will rule so many people out. That is not where we want to be. It is certainly not where the Member wants to be, because she brought the issue of the legal aid forward. That is vital, and we know from listening to the organisations and victims how important access to legal aid is. I absolutely support the Member's intent around this. It is nothing but good, honest and proper intent to help those who most need it, but I fear that we will end up helping fewer people by widening the scope.”
“We will not support amendment No 6, and that is based on what I have already said about opening it up to applicants and our concerns around that creating new victims through the very fact that you will either allow perpetrators to be able to abuse this or you will narrow the definition of a victim so much that it will not be of any use to the people who need it most — that is, the many victims who are being dragged back through the courts repeatedly because of issues relating to access to their children.”
“We have not fully established whether that is because that is not there for them, whether it is just that they do not know how to access it or whether it is because of the challenges that the Minister outlined. I am not really sure, and that is the reason why I will support amendment No 5, which is in the name of Rachel Woods and Sinéad Bradley. We cannot take the chance that we will have cases moving from the lower courts to the higher courts without access to legal aid. It is important for that to be addressed.”
“People need to recognise that domestic abuse is not just something that goes on in private homes and is private business. It is a criminal act. It is the most heinous of criminal acts because it is carried out by someone who is supposed to love and protect a person, but they are abusing that person in the place where they should feel most safe. We need to say that, and the legal aid issue needs to be addressed in a more fulsome way. <BR /> <BR />I will support amendment No 5, which removes the lower courts. While I accept that this caused some issues for the Department, which it has highlighted, there is not a strong enough argument against it. It has been raised with me that some people cannot access legal aid for serious child access cases that go to the High Court.”
“The Department has already outlined to the Committee that, if legal aid is widened for applicants, the definition of what constitutes a victim will be narrowed. From discussions with Women's Aid and others, we know that, if the definition is narrowed to only those cases with a conviction, very few victims will be able to avail themselves of legal aid, as there are very few convictions for domestic abuse and violence. Hopefully, what is about to be put into legislation will address some of that problem, but it will not address all of it because there are many issues. It is not just about what is in legislation; it is about the victims, and some do not want to go through the process. There are many challenging issues in that area. <BR /> <BR />I put this on record because it needs to be heard by the public.”
“They also highlighted the fact that there are issues for applicants, as the Committee is well aware. I understand why Rachel Woods wants applicants to be included — so do I — but it would be better if it were done through the Department's amendment as it would give a fuller picture and limit the opportunity for it to be abused by perpetrators. <BR /> <BR />My biggest concern is not money. The Chair is right: money can be saved in legal services, and we need to look at how that could be done. There needs to be an overall review of legal aid that will show where money can be saved. The amendment is not about money; it is about protecting victims and ensuring that, whatever is put in place, will not create new victims.”
“I do not intend to repeat everything that the Chair said on legal aid issues, but the Committee debated the issue at great length and found it difficult to agree on. That was not because the Committee thought that victims should not have more access to legal aid, because that was the one thing that the Committee did agree on. Every member of the Committee believed that victims need additional access to legal aid, as they currently do not have enough. <BR /> <BR />Last weekend, I spoke to Women's Aid, a number of other organisations and legal professionals who do pro bono work for victims. I spoke to those legal professionals because they are a good source of information. They highlighted the fact that respondents are being repeatedly dragged through the courts and are being financially and psychologically abused.”
“We need to ensure that the PSNI has the right training and understands how to use tools effectively to protect victims. Training will be referred to later in the debate. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister and the Department for meeting the Committee halfway with the DAPOs and DAPNs. There was some resistance to that, but the Department listened and understood why it was important to the Committee. The Committee understood the challenges that the Department faced, but the Department has now gone out to consultation. I am hopeful that not only sectors and stakeholders will engage with the consultation but the individuals who come to our constituency offices day and daily for help and who need the protective notices and orders to be put in place. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 is the Minister's amendment on legal aid.”
“We see victims repeatedly go for non-molestation orders, often at their own cost, because they are low paid and therefore just above the threshold for assistance. We see people go to court and get a non-molestation order for two weeks, only to be brought back to court by the perpetrator. <BR /> <BR />I have seen in my constituency office people in this circumstance, particularly women but also others, who are at their wits' end because they cannot afford to go back to court for another non-molestation order. These are instances of serious domestic abuse and violence. Perpetrators are allowed access to the victims repeatedly, because their victims are not in a position to protect themselves. For me, it is important that the PSNI can issue the notice so that it happens immediately and does not mean waiting for a court process.”
“This is another addition to nurture. Having this phrase in the Bill is important even for those who are not young but who are exposed to domestic abuse, as schools and teaching staff are aware that none of us knows what any young person coming into our teaching facilities has experienced at home. We must always be conscious of that. Therefore, amendment No 1 is extremely important for me, and I thank both Ministers for the work that they did, and for the speed with which they did it, to ensure that preschool children could be included. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 relates to domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs) and domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs). Again, I see this as important. All members agreed, at the beginning of this process, that the current operation of non-molestation orders is pathetic. They do nothing for victims.”
“I place on record my thanks to the Departments of Justice and Education for working so well together to ensure that the amendment could come forward and that we could deliver something that will make a real difference in young people's lives. I said that in the original debate, so I do not need to go over it again. Nevertheless, it is important. We have focused on it over a number of years, and I want it placed on the record again. I thank Sinéad Bradley for her addition to it, with respect to preschool children, and for asking the Department to have that addition placed into the amendment, as it has further enhanced it. <BR /> <BR />In our schools and among our teaching staff, we have much to be grateful for. There have been many changes over the last number of years in recognition of what nurture is all about.”
“We talk about people we have "engaged with", but we have not engaged with the many people on whose lives this Bill will have the biggest impact. We need to be conscious of that. <BR /> <BR />I place on record my thanks to Women's Aid, Cara-Friend, the Men's Advisory Project, The Rainbow Project, the Children's Commissioner and many others who have engaged with us and been really helpful. We are here to legislate, but we have to take advice from those who know what they are talking about. That is particularly so from a human rights perspective, and that is what this is about — human rights. <BR /> <BR />In group 1, amendment No 1 was very important for me. It was probably the most easily agreed amendment between the Committee and the Department. I appreciate the work that the Department did in enhancing this amendment.”
“I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. We concur with much of what the Chairperson said, particularly his remarks about the assistance that organisations, and individual victims, have given us. At the end of the day, it is all about those people. <BR /> <BR />As I outlined at the Committee meeting last week, we talk about "stakeholders". In this place, we really get into that language: talking about "stakeholders" and who you "engage with". The language becomes very similar. However, when we talk about "stakeholders" in this Bill, we mean victims and the many people who suffer terrible abuse. Most of those who will benefit from this Bill do not yet know that this is for them; they have not yet been a victim or do not yet know that they are a victim.”
“Will the Minister engage with some of the residents in my constituency, particularly around Coalisland and Donaghmore, where a number of estates and streets have this historical issue?”
“I thank the Minister for her answer, but I refer more to the historical issue with unadopted roads, developments and streets. This is not a new thing since 2007, where you have the bond, and we have been able to resolve a number of those issues in my constituency. There is an inequality and a real-life issue for people every day. This has been going on in some areas for up to 50 years, when the old councils built the developments and did not do what needed to be done at that time. We have a responsibility to these people, and we need to start delivering for them now. There are no developers for them to go back to and nowhere that they can turn. The Executive really need to start to deal with the issues.”
“I thank the Member for taking a second intervention in such a short space of time. You talked about that provision and people finding themselves at shops without a mask. I have seen that for myself on many occasions. It is an issue, even more so if you have travelled by public transport; it is different if you only have to go back to your car. Some shops do provide them. Some shops and retailers — the big retailers — have been able to stay open right through the pandemic and have done fairly well because of that. They will be in a good position to provide free masks.”
“I thank the Chair for taking an intervention. Does he agree that it is important that the PSNI continue its course of action around engagement, encouragement and enforcement — the three Es, as were talked about at the start — to address exactly the issues that he has just raised? We have to accept that, in some circumstances, people will not understand the regulations, because they are complex, even for those of us who are going through them every day. They are therefore difficult for ordinary people on the street to understand. The PSNI needs to continue in that vein so that people fully understand the implications of what they are doing.”
“My question has been answered by what the Minister has just outlined. I was well aware that, unfortunately, domestic abuse points are not included in intimidation points. I think that you, Minister, have just given a time frame, but, to clarify, when might we expect those points to be in place? It has been an outstanding issue, certainly in my constituency, for a long time.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. I appreciate some of the issues that were outlined. <BR /> <BR />For the future, it might be beneficial for us to get a wee bit more information about what is coming from the other side, meaning what is being said by the Justice Minister in the Twenty-six Counties about the updates that Department is giving us. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister give some more detail about the new pilot scheme and the legal advice for adult complainants in cases of serious sexual offence, including the number of complainants that might have access to it, where it will be based and how long it will run for?”
“Speaking as somebody who once worked in the lower levels of the Civil Service and who knows what the pay was like at that level, I commend many of our civil servants who are working at that level, trying to deliver all the schemes that Members have been talking about in the Chamber today. It is not an easy job to do. <BR /> <BR />Will the Minister outline, given the recent Audit Office report on the capacity and capability of the Civil Service, whether he agrees that we now have an urgent need for a review? He outlined that we need to look at the age profile, but we also need to look at what we are asking of some of our civil servants for the pay that they get.”
“I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House and for his answers. Can the Minister outline how this will affect urology services not only in the Southern Trust but across the North? As was outlined, we have delays in normal circumstances, but, in the current circumstances of COVID, we have further delays. The dent in confidence that was alluded to in doctors and urology services may lead to some people not bringing themselves forward for services? What impact will that have? Those patients will have to go to other consultants now.”
“Can the Minister give the House some detail on the difference that it will make to the grant that housing associations get if they are able to achieve zero carbon?”
“As we highlighted during this debate, none of us knows who is going through this, and it affects every single aspect of our life. There is no way on this earth that there are not people in political life who are impacted by this. There are people in every single sphere of life, and I would like to acknowledge that, in solidarity with all those out there who are suffering this. I say this to the perpetrators: think, reach out and get help, because you may well have been a victim once yourself, and you should get help, because you are putting your family through what you once went through yourself.”
“<BR /> <BR />My final words tonight are just to say that, although we have joked about the lateness of the hour, we have talked about how important this is and therefore how we do not mind being here this late. I know that, when I go home tonight, I will go home to a warm, safe home. I will go home to my child, who was minded by her daddy, with whom she was very safe, and I did not have to worry about her being cared for or looked after. I know that, when she gets up in the morning, she gets up in a home with a mummy and daddy who love her very much. Many people will not have that experience tonight, and that is why we are here, why we are doing what we are doing and why we will continue to do what we do. We have a responsibility to look after those people. <BR /> <BR />I am also cognisant of the fact that I only speak for myself.”
“John Gillen's 2017 review of family justice concluded that it is absolutely essential that steps are taken to address these inconsistent positions in criminal and family law, and, again, I thank the Minister for addressing that through these amendments. <BR /> <BR />I do not intend to speak any further, because both the Minister and the Chair of the Committee have outlined what the amendments will do, but they are really, really important. Like every other amendment and every clause that we have debated and discussed during this process, these amendments will have an impact on people's lives. We need to be cognisant of that. This is about protecting people, looking after people and, as has already been outlined, delivering for people.”
“It is a good and important piece of work. It has been highlighted time and time again that what is happening in these cases in criminal courts needs to be reflected in family and civil proceedings, and that domestic abuse that has been proven in a criminal court has to be part of the family and civil proceedings and has to form part of what comes out of that. It only makes sense that a judge should know if somebody who wants access to children has been convicted of the domestic abuse of his or her family. The abuse is not just of your partner but of your family. Everybody is impacted, and we have already outlined that sufficiently today.”
“The House will be delighted to hear that this will be the last time that I will speak tonight. I do not intend to repeat many of the remarks that the Chair made. However, I want to point out that, even though a lot of the discussion has been on the new domestic abuse offence and criminal proceedings, it is equally important that we address the family and civil proceedings. That was borne out by the many witnesses who came before us. Well done to the Minister and her Department for taking that on board and for tabling the amendments. To be clear, we will support all the amendments, which are amendment Nos 27 to 34.”
“I attended a women's event at which there were approximately 140 to 150 women, and each table was asked to highlight the five top issues in their community for the PSNI. We know from the figures that one of the top issues for the PSNI in every community is domestic violence, but not one single table mentioned that even though the three speakers prior to that had spoken to the issue of domestic violence. <BR /> <BR />We have a duty to express that to our community so that it understands that this is a community problem. This is not a problem that is behind doors and is for others to worry about in their own homes. It is our problem, and, as a community, we have to look after those people.”
“I am sorry for interrupting you in mid flow. I thank the Member for giving way. We explored this during our Committee scrutiny of the Bill. It is a conversation that we would certainly like to have with the Minister, and I hope that she will be open to that conversation. <BR /> <BR />You made a point earlier about the House not doing enough to address domestic abuse. I think that that is the case across the board. I do not think that anywhere can say, "We have done enough". We know from the statistics that no legislature has done enough, and that is a fair point to make. However, there is a wider issue in that the wider community does not do enough and does not recognise domestic abuse as a community problem. I have raised that repeatedly in the Committee.”
“Will the Member, in his role as Chairperson of the Education Committee, keep an eye on that when it comes through and see whether it is working effectively in the manner in which it should? The Justice Committee would appreciate the Education Committee doing that because it would be more difficult for us to keep an eye on that end of things.”
“I thank the Member for highlighting the La Dolce Vita Project. As a Committee, we met its representatives during the process, and I have met them as an MLA. Some of their ideas about how we can deal with parental alienation do not fall in the legislative sphere, but they have some really good ideas about types of pilot projects and things like that that could be done. I think that they have a lot to offer, and I have suggested that they should come back to the Committee and discuss that specific issue, outside of the Bill, and that we would want to look at that as a wider issue. Those issues are not always dealt with through legislation, and I think that that is what the Member had alluded to.”
“Does the Member agree that, for this issue, as with all the other issues, training will be vital, because we want to ensure that information is shared in the appropriate way to protect everybody? We want to support and protect those children.”
“If this is not the right way to do it, as I said, the Minister will be bringing forward amendments at Further Consideration Stage.”
“Apologies to the Member. Thank you for taking the intervention. We agree with you about who should be responsible for the training. That is why we have spoken to the Minister about an amendment at Further Consideration Stage. However, I am sure that the Member — as a previous member of the Policing Board — knows well that, sometimes, we find it difficult to tie these issues down because they are not there in legislation for us to hold them to account to. When we ask the PSNI about training, we can be given all sorts of reasons why that training cannot happen — that the training has been pushed back, that it will happen, and that it was done three years ago and they will try to do it again in two years. We have real challenges around that. We need to have something to hold them to account to.”
“I hope that the PSNI and the education sector buy into that because it will make a real difference to children's lives. I know that that is what most teachers want to do; that is why they are there. They want not only to give those children an education but to see them come out of school as better and more resilient people — young people who are able to have a better life because of what they did for them.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 26 is also from Rachel Woods. We will support it, and the Minister has said that she and her Department will support it. It calls for statistics to be broken down by council and policing district, and the PSNI has confirmed to the Minister that it can do that. That is important because it boils down to resources. Where will resources go? They will go to where you have data and information, so you need to be able to break that down. As elected representatives, to break that down to a constituency, council area or policing district gives us information on what we should be focusing on. <BR /> <BR />All those amendments are positive, and I support them. I say again that I welcome the Minister's indication that she will add to Operation Encompass.”
“The Bill will affect people every day, so we need to ensure that those who will be delivering it will get adequate training. <BR /> <BR />I would love to support Miss Woods's amendment No 25 to include section 75. It calls for everything that I just outlined that we need. We need the data and the statistics. Unfortunately, I know from experience on the Policing Board that it is a requirement that the Department and organisations may not be able to meet. Therefore, I am not able to support the amendment at this time but would like to have further conversations with the Minister and the Department on whether it could be included at Further Consideration Stage. I would like more detail on how it could be done because that is what it boils down to. I want to see it done; I just need to understand how it can be done.”
“<BR />I read through it and understood bits and pieces, but, truthfully, could I have spoken to it on that day and said that I fully understood everything that was in it, its implications on people's lives and the issues that were raised? No, I could not. However, I gained that through a very steep but good training and learning curve on the Committee. <BR /> <BR />We had a good mix on the Committee of people who had experience, and those of us who were new to the experience, to say the least. However, we all had life experience and experience of previous roles, my own on the Policing Board, as I outlined, and dealing with constituents. All those things added to the Bill because this is about real people and real life. It is not about something that is pie in the sky or does not affect people every day.”
“I want good training, I want effective training and I want the right training. When those officers get the training that they need, I want them to able to implement the legislation in the way in which this House intended. We have scrutinised the Bill. We are debating it tonight. We are giving it every bit of attention that we possibly can to ensure that it will have the biggest impact on people's lives. We therefore need those who are going to deliver on it at the other end to do the same, and they can only do that with effective training. <BR /> <BR />I can certainly say that, when the Bill was put down in front of me at the beginning of the process, it looked like double Dutch.”
“Hopefully, the reporting will answer some of the queries that Mr Allister raised about how many cases will be brought to court. We will know that. If people come to us and ask, "How good is your legislation? How effective is it? How well does it work?", we will not say, "We're not sure. We can't give you statistics". We will be able to say, "This is how good it is; this is the report on how effective it is on the ground". <BR /> <BR />Lastly, I want to speak about training. Training is vital. The PSNI has said that it could take up to a year for it to implement the legislation. I know that some of my Committee colleagues challenged the Chief Constable on that and said that it needs to be quicker and that a year is too long. Maybe it is, or maybe it is not. I do not want quick training.”