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 29 of 32.
“The life of a person who is attacked or killed as a result of domestic violence has no less value than that of any other member of our society, and we need to acknowledge that. <BR /> <BR />We also need to look at all of the mitigating factors where people have mental health or addiction issues. I am not saying that they should get away with attacking members of our front-line services, but there are many incidences where front-line workers would not want to see the book thrown at those people. They work with such people day and daily and understand the challenges that they face. There are people with all types of learning and social disabilities who have great difficulty in communicating with others. We need to acknowledge all of that, and we will not do so if we do what the original motion asks us to do.”
“I am certain that many of the remarks that will be made today will be fed into that consultation. In our response, we asked that a sentencing council should be established to look at the sentencing tariffs. The original motion removes the ability of a judge, who will have all of the facts of the individual case at their disposal, to look at mitigating and aggravating factors when applying the sentence. That concerns me deeply. There is no doubt that those who attack our emergency services and front-line workers should most definitely be brought to justice. As in all cases, we want to see that the sentencing reflects the crime. In that, again, we say that we cannot have a hierarchy of victims.”
“Any attack on our front-line workers, particularly those that result in serious injury or death, are completely unacceptable. Those staff, whether in our hospitals, our prisons or on our streets, need to have maximum protection measures put in place to prevent and reduce such attacks and to ensure that they do not happen in the first place. That is really where we want to be. Punitive measures are OK, but the harm is already done. We really need to look at what we can do to prevent such attacks from happening in the first place. In that regard, I welcome some of the Minister's actions so far on what can be done to reduce attacks on prison officers in prisons. <BR /> <BR />The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently carried out a public consultation, and I am sure that many Members will have responded to that.”
“I intend to make my contribution brief, so hopefully that will assist in letting other Members in. <BR /> <BR />It is unfortunate that Mr Givan made some remarks about how he was against or voted against the Belfast Agreement because it allowed people who had killed police officers and others out of prison early with no thought for the families who lost loved ones at the hands of police officers through collusion and directly. I agree, therefore, with Mr Blair's comments about a hierarchy of victims. I will leave that aside for now, because that is not really what we are talking about today. <BR /> <BR />I support the amendment. First, I would like to place it on record — it is stating the obvious, but it cannot be said enough — that we support all of our front-line workers.”
“If something needs to be done, either in Westminster or in this Chamber, we need to ensure that it is done because it is something that all Committee members spoke in support of. There is no one who would not be keen to ensure that if something happens outside this jurisdiction, whether it is across the border or involves people who are on holidays or honeymoon, we can ensure that the victim has some redress in dealing with the issue and the perpetrator in this jurisdiction. I ask the Minister to respond to that. If she is not able to fully respond today, we understand, but it is important that we get a full response.”
“I echo the sentiments of the Chair: the Committee are supportive. My party and I are very supportive of ETJ, particularly given that we have a land border. Many incidents take place on a night out in Dundalk between people who live in Newry, so it is extremely important that we have this legislation in place. <BR /> <BR />However, as the Chair outlined, the Attorney General raised some concerns on the competency issue, and it is essential that we negate any possibility of us passing legislation that does not have competence. I plead with the Minister to look at that to see whether there are issues around the legislation and whether it could be the subject of a legal challenge. The Attorney General highlighted what could be done in Westminster to deal with the issue, and we should look at that.”
“Mr Temporary Speaker, I join the Committee Chair in congratulating you on your appointment, and wish you the very best. <BR /> <BR />I am not going to repeat what has been said. There really is a limit to what can be said about this legislative consent motion. Our party supports it, the Committee supports it, and I think that it is non-controversial. However, it may well become controversial. The Chair is right in that there are privacy issues. I would like to think that the rules that apply if someone takes your photograph in the street would apply to where drones can be used. We will, no doubt, have to look at that. The Minister was right to bring this matter before the House to have future-proofed legislation.”
“I thank the Minister for her very detailed response. Does she agree that not every young person wants to be an apprentice? Some would like to be an entrepreneur. Many of those whom we encouraged to be entrepreneurs are now in a very disadvantaged position because they have been given no financial assistance as someone who is newly self-employed or a sole trader. Does the Minister have any plans to address that issue?”
“Thank you, I appreciate it. To make a quick point, I think that I did address that in that I think that you are right; prison officers are not starting from the same point and that is why we need to have a proper process in place in order to support them.”
“Does the Member agree that we should not offer services after a mental health issue has arisen and that protections should be put in place prior to that? If we know that there is a prevalence and an issue, why are we not putting a strategy in place to deal with it in advance?”
“Will we ask people to join a Prison Service where we tell them, "We know that your mental health will suffer massively, but we will put nothing in place to deal with that strategically. We are just not going to send you a letter"? That is not good enough. It is not the way to move forward. <BR /> <BR />I cannot support the motion, but I absolutely support the intent of it. I support the prison staff in looking after their mental health and in trying to do the best job they can. We need to ensure that people who come into that role are carers and rehabilitators. It is the prison governor's job to look after security. The prison staff's job is to care for and rehabilitate those in prison, and we need to give them the tools with which to do that. In that, we will help them with their mental health.”
“We may not be able to support the motion, but it is absolutely only the beginning of a conversation about how we look after our prison staff, change the processes and circumstances under which they work and how we change things for prisoners. In all that, there needs to be a proper strategy, and we all need to work together. Doug is on the Committee with me, and Paul Givan is the Chair. We need to work together on the Committee to see what we can do, together with the other Departments — the Department of Finance and the Department of Health — and the Prison Service. What can we put in place that will make a real difference to these people's lives? It is not just about, "Don't give them a letter telling them that they are inefficient": we need to help them and fix the problem. We will need prison officers in the future.”
“We need to look after prison officers and support them. If there is an issue that they are being treated in a harsher way than others in the Civil Service, it needs to be reviewed. I absolutely accept that other parts of the Civil Service and people working in this Building are not facing the issues that prison officers do. Those people are going into work and potentially dealing with really serious issues of self-harm. We have to ensure that, when things like that happen, they get proper support and are not expected to go home, deal with it and go back into work the next day and just get on with it as though nothing has happened. <BR /> <BR />This is the beginning of a conversation.”
“We cannot do by this working in silos, as has been done so often in the past. We have talked about this around mental health: the need for cross-departmental working. That has to happen in this instance also.”
“Those people will come out of prison, and we have to deal with them when they do. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have proper processes in place for the prisoners. <BR /> <BR />However, this is about the staff. If the prisoners have proper processes, then life will be easier for the staff. We have a responsibility to look after prison officers. I accept that responsibility, and I am sure that the Minister also accepts that, as should the Minister for Justice. We need to ensure that we put in place a proper, robust regime that looks after prison officers. We need an overarching strategy that involves the Department of Justice, the Prison Service, the Department of Finance and the Department of Health. We all have to work together to put something in place.”
“<BR /> <BR />First, I accept that there is a real issue with prison staff. I accept that the circumstances in which they work are very difficult and that the challenges in their workplace are very difficult. They are working with some of the most challenging people that we have living here in some of the most challenging circumstances. They are expected to care for those people and rehabilitate them, and that is where we need to focus. <BR /> <BR />We need to focus on how we support prison staff to care for those in prison and to rehabilitate them. I know that might not be a popular thing to say because people want prisoners to be punished and that is OK because it is one element of this. However, if we put people into prison and treat them badly or do not put in place good mechanisms for them, what are we getting on the other side?”
“I support the intent of the motion and much of what has already been said. However, I do have some concerns. Specifically, the motion is narrow as it is only about prison officers and, potentially, has equality issues. I do not take away from what Mr Givan has just said about the fact that it needs to be looked at, and maybe it does, but that is not what the motion is asking us to do. We have to look at the motion that is in front of us, and, unfortunately, its wording makes it very difficult to support. <BR /> <BR />I have some concerns about whether the motion is actually compliant with employment law. In that vein, I find it difficult to support this motion. However, I want to outline the reasons why I support the intent of the motion and also the things that I think we should be doing.”
“I thank the Minister for coming before the House, although the more appropriate place for operational matters is the Policing Board, as she has outlined. In the Assembly and in the Chamber, we need to focus on the fact that the accountability mechanism for the PSNI is the Policing Board, and that is where it must be held to account, not through the Justice Minister in the Chamber or Assembly. Those accountability mechanisms are helpful —”
“I have very little to add to what the Chair has already outlined, other than to thank the Minister for bringing this forward. It is a very positive move. It is important that those who live in the same home as their assailant are treated the same as anybody who suffers outside of that circumstance. I think that is important, particularly given the context of some of the issues that we are dealing with moving forward around coercive control behaviour, domestic violence, stalking and all those other issues. It is extremely important that we address that, and I welcome it.”
“As the Chair has outlined, the Committee is supportive of the LCM, as is my party. They are minor technical issues, and it is important that legislation and laws are modernised and are fit for purpose, and, as the Minister outlined, that is what this is about. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. Through conversations with her, I know that the Minister has a focus on this and, more importantly, going forward, she has a focus on sentencing. All the sentencing issues are about rehabilitation and early intervention, and that is where our focus needs to be in the future. I know from conversations with the Minister that that is her focus, and I appreciate that. Thank you.”
“I have spoken to some individuals who say that that is not the case. I would like to be very certain that everyone on the list has been informed and that they are given the information at the earliest opportunity so that they have the proper support in place. I have concerns about that.”
“I am delighted to hear that there is to be a separate investigation and that it will be prompt. I acknowledge that the Executive Office has no control over the Information Commissioner's office. It is extremely important that those people get all the information that they can, because we are dealing with people, and I have worked with them on this issue over a long period, who have no confidence in the government hierarchy — with good cause. Those who were in power in their lives before let them down badly, and we have to acknowledge that, on many occasions, we have let them down. On this occasion, we need to ensure that we do not let them down. Therefore, I am grateful for the First Minister's announcement. <BR /> <BR />Can the First Minister assure the House that all those on the list have been informed?”
“It is extremely important that the Committee has an opportunity to look at anything that comes forward, whether it is legislation, policy or guidelines, or whether it is technical. We have an important role to play. Having said that, as has been outlined, it is not an issue over which we should block this LCM, so we support the LCM today. I thank the Minister for coming to the House.”
“I am sure that you will be glad to hear that my comments will be very brief. I want to put on record, as the Chair outlined, that we highlighted some concerns about the fact that this simply comes back to the Minister and does not come to the Committee. Regardless of what the issue is or how small the matter is, the Committee has a very important role to play, not only in scrutinising and ensuring that it is content with what the Department is doing but so that the Minister has us as a sounding board and as an advisory board, because there is a wealth of experience in the Committee. I am not sure that I include myself in that just yet because I am fairly new to the Committee, but there is a wealth of experience there and people who have been on previous Justice Committees can give advice on certain matters.”
“I thank the Minister for her statement. I concur with Kellie Armstrong's remarks about the phenomenal work that the Minister and her staff have done so far. On the back of the last question, what she has done for self-employed people highlights the failures of the Economy Minister. Moving forward, what recovery plan do we have to help self-employed people and ensure that the Economy Minister picks up the responsibilities? Those matters should not fall to the Department for Communities; they should fall to the Department for the Economy. Those people should not be left behind.”
“It would be helpful if the Minister could have some conversations with the Minister for Communities around the housing points system because, currently, you can get intimidation points if your intimidation is sectarian or religious or relates to your sexual orientation or disability, but you cannot get intimidation points if you are a victim of domestic violence. In some areas, that has led to the perpetrator being able to get intimidation points because they stated that they were being intimidated because they were an aggressor against their partner or somebody who lives in their household, and the victim cannot get points to be rehoused. So, ten days' leave, very often, is no good to them because they cannot get points to even get emergency accommodation. That needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.”
“It is not a problem within an individual's home and, as a community, we need to look out for those people and reach out to them, not wait for them to reach out to us.”
“One of the things that has not been achieved yet is that the wider community and society accept that this is a community problem. This is not a problem within the home. With all of the work that has been done, that has not yet been achieved. <BR /> <BR />I was at a meeting where there was around 140 women and two speakers, in the morning session, spoke about violence against women — sexual and domestic violence. When they were asked what the five main problems within their community were for the PSNI, not one single person in that room, other than myself, said domestic violence. We need to get that message out and we can use this time while we are discussing the Bill to do that. If the Minister could take the lead, we will certainly give her every support. This is a community problem and it has community impact.”
“I just wanted to ask that the Minister look at Operation Encompass. The PSNI has told us that the reason it cannot contact a school after a domestic violence incident is that there is a legislative gap. If there a way in which the Bill can fill that gap, we should look at that. Operation Encompass has proven to be a very useful tool in that the police can contact a school before 8:00 am when a domestic incident has happened, and that leads to greater protection of children when they go into school, because the school knows the circumstances that the child has suffered on the previous evening.”
“We gave that commitment to the Minister, and she has welcomed that we will do that. In taking evidence, we are faced with difficult circumstances, but we will meet those challenges and make sure that we get evidence. As I outlined, we need to meet the needs of the victims and ensure that what we come out with at the other end is something that will let them say, "I have faith now that, if I go to the police or the authorities, I will get the outcome that I need to protect me and my family and to ensure that the perpetrator is held to account." <BR /> <BR />We support the Bill.”
“Obviously, as a Committee, we have an opportunity to bring forward amendments, and as individuals. I would prefer not to. I would prefer us to have a good Bill that we can all support and not to have to make amendments to that. <BR /> <BR />I welcome the fact that the Minister has included the protection that families, children and victims cannot be cross-examined by a perpetrator. That is very welcome. As a party, we responded to the consultation to say that we would support that. <BR /> <BR />In the round, this is a good Bill. We will, I imagine, support most of what is in it, but we will have to scrutinise it. Paul is right: we will need to look at it to see whether it is all doable and will give the best outcomes. As a Committee, we will ensure that we scrutinise the Bill in a timely manner.”
“My main concern is that the notices and orders could possibly be a way to give victims the space that they need to get things in order, meaning that they could leave their home or stay in it in a safe way. <BR /> <BR />For me, this is not about punishment. It is about protecting life. It is about protecting victims. It is about protecting families. Therefore, when you send the perpetrator of this type of abuse to prison, although there is a punishment element — the perpetrator will feel that it is very much a punishment — for me, it is about protecting the victim. It is about ensuring that the perpetrator can no longer carry out those kinds of activities against that victim. That protective element needs to be recognised, first and foremost. That is why, for me, the public orders and notices are very important, Minister.”
“<BR /> <BR />Therefore, the notices and orders, for me, are extremely important. One of the issues that I have met repeatedly when dealing with victims of domestic abuse, and other types of issues as well, is around non-molestation orders. In cases of domestic abuse in particular, the non-molestation orders are not working. They are not effective. First, because many of the people who need them most cannot afford to get them. Furthermore, where they do succeed in putting a non-molestation order in place, the perpetrators can bring them back to court very quickly after it has been put in place, which means greater cost, and, very often, the orders are removed very quickly. They have been very ineffective to date in many of the cases that I have been dealing with for constituents and with people who I know.”
“I understand what the Minister said about the orders and notices and not wanting to delay this Bill, but, again, we want to get it right. I want to make sure that when we come out the other side of this, we have a Bill that will genuinely and effectively meet the needs of victims. I have some concern that the notices and orders do not feature in the Bill. I know that the Minister said that she will include them in the miscellaneous Bill, and I do not doubt her intention. However, I am concerned that, with everything that is going on with coronavirus, and we do not know when that will end, and then we will have Brexit, we could end up in a position where the miscellaneous Bill does not get introduced in this mandate. However, I accept that it is very much the Minister's intention that it will, but what the reality will be, I do not know.”
“People ask, "How did that happen?", and they never raised their hand and there was never any physical violence, but that is because they had the control. The minute that they lost that control is when they went to the other extreme. They never did the in-between. Therefore, we need to make sure that those who are the perpetrators of very serious coercive control do actually receive the maximum sentences, even if they have never carried out any acts of physical violence because it is equally as bad. Some of what has been said about what victims have said will tell you that, for some, it is worse. We need to look at all those issues. <BR /> <BR />As a Committee, we will look at the detail of the Bill. Again, some of the issues have been raised here.”
“We can no longer have Ministers working in silos on these issues. We talk about Ministers needing to work together on mental health — this is the same. We need to have a proper, good and robust strategy on domestic abuse. <BR /> <BR />The Minister said earlier that maximum sentences would most likely be applied in cases where there is this type of coercive control in conjunction with physical violence, and I understand why that might be the case. However, I do not necessarily accept it, because we have seen many examples where a hand has never been lifted during the entire relationship — it has been coercive control the whole way through it — and, very often, those are the cases that end up in murder.”
“<BR /> <BR />As has been outlined, very often, for young people who grow up in homes with families who have unhealthy relationships, that is their normal. We talk about the new normal in relation to coronavirus, but that is the normal for many of those young people. Those unhealthy relationships, whether it is physical or psychological torture or sexual abuse, it is their normal, and it is very difficult to break that cycle. We need, as an Executive and as a Government, to find a way to break that cycle. I do not want to be at the point where we have to enforce the legislation, where we have to put people in prison. I want to be at the point where we stop abuse from happening in the first place. Therefore, for me, there needs to be a big focus on that, and this legislation gives us an opportunity to have those conversations.”
“The lived experience will tell us what will meet the needs of those victims. This legislation, at least, is only one part of that. <BR /> <BR />I am hopeful that the Minister will work very closely with all her Executive colleagues in relation to addressing domestic abuse because this is not just about bringing forward legislation and creating the circumstances in which people can be imprisoned for carrying out this kind of abuse. It is about, first of all, trying to prevent it. It is about education. It is about educating ourselves, first of all, it is about educating those around us and educating our young people as to what a healthy relationship looks like and what an unhealthy relationship looks like.”
“Even in the very difficult circumstances that we are in, the Committee has given a strong commitment and the Chair has outlined that we will move forward in as timely a manner as is possible, but we need to get this legislation right. It is not good enough to come out at the end of this and say, "We are all wonderful. We passed this Bill. We did what we said we would do" if it is not effective and it is not going to meet the needs of the victims. For that reason, we need to listen to the organisations that represent them, whether it be Women's Aid, the Men's Advisory Project or any other organisation, and very particularly and specifically, as has been outlined, the victims themselves, because lived experience in any of these issues has to be what guides us in what we deliver.”
“So, maybe when we move forward, those are the kind of things that need to be our priority. When we come out of this, is it those sections of people, is it those who suffer from mental ill health, is it young people who are in very difficult home situations who need to be looked at first? That is not something that we have to discuss in this Chamber right now. Those decisions will be taken by our Executive, but we could make those proposals to our Ministers and Executive. There is nothing to prevent us from doing so. <BR /> <BR />I thank the Minister for bringing this forward. I am glad that we are in the situation now where we can move forward with it.”
“I do not propose to repeat everything that has been said. I am sure that a lot of what we will say here today will be or could potentially be repetitive because, thankfully, most parties in the Chamber are on the same page in relation to the Bill. We are very supportive of the Bill and are grateful to the Minister for bringing it forward. We are grateful to the previous Justice Minister for the work that was done on it also. That can only be a positive. <BR /> <BR />I agree with much of what Paul said in his opening remarks, particularly around the content of the Bill. I probably agree with him also in relation to the fact that those victims of domestic violence find themselves in a prison at this time with the perpetrators, and that is not acceptable.”
“I appreciate the Minister taking the intervention. The issue is not only the availability of affordable childcare; in circumstances where parents have children with profound and severe disabilities, the availability of any suitable childcare is the issue. Does the Minister agree?”
“Thank you for giving way. On a fact-checking point, Mr Allister stated that Irish-medium education prevented integration: Irish-medium education can be non-denominational. I know that from experience, because my daughter is taught through the medium of Irish and there are children from a Protestant background at her school.”
“Has the Minister had any conversations with the Minister for Communities on the point that Mr Carroll raised, that people with immunodeficiencies who have to go to assessment centres should possibly not have to attend those centres and either be assessed at home or have assessment delayed until the scare around coronavirus is over?”
“I welcome the Minister's confirming that she will meet the families, because that is very important. In your short time as Minister, you have been very proactive in meeting victims about all the issues. That can only be positive. <BR /> <BR />Obviously, an element of Helen's law relates to sentencing. Could that be encompassed by the sentencing review?”
“I appreciate you taking the intervention. Does the Member agree that a review is good practice whenever a new scheme is implemented and that the outcome of that review should not have resulted in these payments being removed, given all the evidence that we have heard today?”
“Will the Member agree with me that the withdrawal of EU direct support will have an impact on much more than just farming, in that it will also have a potentially serious environmental impact?”
“Does the Member agree that more work needs to be done, particularly to bring older and younger people together? I know that some PCSPs and, in my area, the Youth Service, do some really good work and there needs to be more of that.”
“Does the Member agree that we are absolutely not forgetting about victims in this, because very often the perpetrators were themselves victims and that is how they became perpetrators?”
“The need for nurture in his school to address this is where it begins.”