Rachel Woods
North Down · Green Party · Northern Ireland
“We have to get it right, but we are not starting from scratch. We only have to look across the water or down the road to the public and private sectors that already offer that type of leave. <BR /> <BR />I now turn to the comments of other Members.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is time to end the coercive control that criminal gangs have over our communities. Victim and survivors' voices must be heard and reflected in our laws and policies. Minority groups should not be sidelined or silenced. We need to educate from a very young age.”
“There is no direct cost to employers from safe leave, and it is needed to deal with the issues related to abuse. We need to destigmatise abuse and tackle root causes, misogyny and toxic masculinity. <BR /> <BR />I agree with Mr Weir's comments. We should not need to have the protections in place.”
“I thank every Member who spoke during the debate for their comments and support for the Bill. I will address the Minister's comments first. I thank him for being here, and I am glad that he is feeling better. <BR /> <BR />The Assembly cares, and we need to work constructively together to help.”
“<BR /> <BR />As I said at Second Stage, period poverty must be viewed through the lens of children's rights and how the Bill meets our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).”
“<BR /> <BR />I take this opportunity at Final Stage to thank officials and members of the councils who took the time to discuss with me their policies, the background to them and how they are working in practice: thank you for everything that you are doing for your staff, and I hope that, should the Bill pass, your regional Parliaments an…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,434 lines we hold for Rachel Woods, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 29.
“As I said at Consideration Stage, this has been fundamental to the effective roll-out and adoption of the Scottish legislation, the so-called gold standard. Amendment No 9 changes the former Committee amendment, now clause 30, to put the onus on the PSNI, PPS and Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service to provide appropriate training for their personnel and staff to allow for the effective discharge of their responsibilities. Whilst this differs from what the Committee amendment had done, placing a duty on the Department, I still think that it holds merit. I am glad that this now forms part of the Bill at Further Consideration Stage and has the backing of the Committee. Other wording has tidied up the clause, which I also welcome.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on this positive group of amendments. I will be brief as much of what I wanted to say has already been covered. I concur with the comments of the Chair, the Deputy Chair and other members of the Committee, all of whom have helped to get us here today. Crucially, I thank the Minister, her Department, the Committee staff and the Bill Clerk, who have all done a fantastic job in working with us. I express my immense thanks to my researcher, who has done an amazing job for me. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 9, which is on the training requirement, is crucial to the Bill, especially when it becomes an Act. I have pushed for this for months. In my view, training for the PSNI, PPS and the judiciary is critical to the effective implementation of this legislation.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. That is correct. That is why I said at the start that all three of the amendments that are tabled in my name should be read together in order to square that circle. <BR /> <BR />Therefore, in finishing, I fully support the Committee's amendment. I believe that we should take the opportunity now rather than wait more years to be told what we know. We must do all that we can in this place to give hope to those who have little left.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, that is what it does. However, it also ties in with subsection 3 in the Minister's amendment No 3, which clarifies the departmental guidance and sets out the criteria that the Department can use to assure itself that perpetrators cannot pose as victims in order to access legal aid. Therefore, it ties in with subsection 3 of the Minister's amendment.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. You will be glad to know that I have only a couple of lines left. <BR /> <BR />In the absence of such, I consider the Committee amendment which decouples the commencement of the legal aid provisions from the new offence and gives the Department 12 months to carry out the due diligence that it needs to do in order to properly implement it to be a significant compromise.”
“I think that I have been very generous with giving way throughout. I would like to finish —.”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. I do not have the figures. The Committee has not been provided with the figures. There are so many questions that have still not been answered to an adequate level of detail. We do not have a sufficient assessment —.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. <BR /> <BR />The Minister claims that this is about repercussiveness, but the Committee was provided with little evidence to back up the assessment of potential risks and so many questions remain unanswered. Why have the figures and estimated costs fluctuated so much? How can it be claimed that something might cost over £1 billion, then £400 million and then £500,000? How have those projected costs been calculated? What is the breakdown of the figures? Where is the referencing? I would like to know what assumptions have been made in the numbers. If there are differences between legal aid systems here and in other UK jurisdictions, how would this be allowed to develop, given the risk of repercussive costs? How many legal challenges have there been in relation to differences across regions? What effects —.”
“The opposition to amendment No 13 can be summarised in a very clear and succinct way. It boils down to the fact that there was always a desire to retain the option of never commencing or implementing the provisions with regard —.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. The Committee therefore has a job going forward in its budget scrutiny to reallocate budgets to appropriate places. <BR /> <BR />The lack of sensitivity to the actual issue, and the emphasis on costs, is misplaced. This is about victims, and that is why I found the Minister's comments last week about "RHI on steroids" to be deeply regrettable and unfortunate. There was never any need to make comparisons with a botched subsidy scheme that benefited many privileged people in society. Throughout this entire process, I have been fighting for and seeking to help some of the most vulnerable.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will. <BR /> <BR />Since the legal aid provisions were added, the only thing that I have heard is about cost implications, and it is the same in the Chamber today: risks and costs, costs and risks. What about the risks faced by victims and survivors of abuse? What about the cost to them of having to fight legal cases against their former abuser? What kind of message is it to send out to victims of abuse that, according to the Minister, the Bill was agreed to by the Executive only because there were no cost implications? To suggest that the Executive's budget is off limits to measures that will help victims and survivors of abuse is not good enough. It is also unrealistic.”
“Indeed, on a separate amendment, I was told that it was unusual for such an amendment from a Back-Bench MLA or MP to end up in legislation, even though it is the right of every Member to seek to amend and improve Bills.”
“What amendment No 13 is really about, however, is ensuring that victims and survivors get the access to legal aid that they need, and that is why I support it. Amendment No 13 would never have come about if the Minister and her Department had been constructive and engaged with us properly about how the legal aid provisions would work. <BR /> <BR />The Minister and her Department have continually sought to stymie the provision, by voting against it and seeking to remove it, dilute it or alter it. They are now attempting to restrict it so that very few would benefit from it. At times, I have been made to feel belittled in my attempts to get the provision into the Bill and to work out some of the issues arising from it.”
“This is my first opportunity to place on record how disappointing it is that we are having this debate today when it could have happened last week. The Bill will now not get to Final Stage and receive Royal Assent until the new year. That is frustrating for everyone who has a stake in the legislation: those who have worked very hard to get to this point and the victims and survivors who need it. <BR /> <BR />I understand the serious concerns around repercussiveness that emerged at the eleventh hour. I, of course, do not in any way endorse the risk that Northern Ireland's block grant could be reduced in order to cover the cost of legal aid in other jurisdictions. I made that very clear last week in Committee. That is simply unfair and unjust.”
“All of what the Minister claims may happen if perpetrators claim to be victims in order to access legal aid and bring cases against their former victim, thus increasing the number of cases, costs and so on, will happen only if the Department does not put anything in place to prevent it. Everything that it needs to prevent it is in amendment No 3, in subsection (3) of the proposed replacement clause 27. I therefore ask Members to support the amendments standing in my name — amendment Nos 4 and 6 — and amendment No 5, which Sinéad Bradley and I tabled. That will ensure that the legal aid waiver can be accessed by those who desperately need it. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to Committee amendment No 13 on the commencement of legal aid.”
“I am deeply disappointed by the level of fearmongering and by the derisory responses to my attempts to get more support for victims into the Bill and deal with the issues that arise from the waiver.”
“Although this provision could be strengthened to ensure that it does not result in a rigid tick-box exercise, the Department will have the freedom and licence to develop something that works well for victims and limits the misuse of the waiver. The House has a simple choice to make: vote for amendment No 3 as drafted, knowing full well that it falls short in helping victims; or pass amendment Nos 4, 5 and 6 and allow victims the access to legal aid that they need, with no artificial or unfair distinction between them. Passing these amendments will not prevent the Department from developing the necessary guidance and processes that the Legal Services Agency needs to prevent the abuse of the waiver.”
“If the Department spent time consulting the PSNI, the PPS, the public prosecution unit, social workers, solicitors, education authorities, health professionals, support organisations and victims and survivors, it would be able to develop the necessary guidance and processes that the Legal Services Agency needs to ensure the swift, sensitive approval of valid applications and the effective prevention of the abuse of the waiver. That is already provided for in amendment No 3, clause 27, which states, under subsection (2):”
“I thank the Member for her intervention. Mr Speaker, I told you that this would be a long speech. <BR /> <BR />I will address Ms Dillon's point. The Minister's amendment creates an arbitrary small group of potential victims, and we see that through the financial details that have come forward. It is up to the Department to ensure that its guidance and checks are in place. I agree with the argument put forward by officials that these detailed eligibility proposals do not belong in primary legislation but should be developed in close consultation with those in the sector and with victims and survivors themselves. That is the best way to prevent the misuse of the waiver.”
“What is applicable information? That is for the Department to provide, as outlined in the Minister's amendment.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention, but I think that people will bring those cases anyway, as a form of abuse. It happens now and will continue. This aims to level the playing field when it comes to financial eligibility for legal aid. <BR /> <BR />The Minister's proposed solution to stop perpetrators claiming to be victims does not solve anything; it just limits the opportunities for it to occur. In doing so, it limits victims' ability to access legal aid when they need it. The way to deal with the risk of perpetrators abusing the legal aid waiver is not to limit the scope according to which court the case is heard in, or to limit the scope to whether the client is a respondent as opposed to having initiated proceedings. These risks can be managed effectively through careful consideration of how a client's eligibility is assessed.”
“If a perpetrator were determined to misuse the system, they could also do so by claiming to be a victim when defending a case, in line with the Minister's amendment. The Minister's proposed solution to stop a perpetrator claiming to be a victim does not solve anything in that regard —.”
“As I have explained, that restriction is inherently flawed from the perspective of victims who need to seek orders in order to protect themselves and their children. It is illogical and unfair to suggest that, for example, the same victim or survivor would be granted access to legal aid only if the case was taken by their former abuser and not if they needed to appeal a decision that allowed that same perpetrator an opportunity to further the abuse. I do not accept the argument that that condition effectively deals with the issue of fraud or perpetrators posing as victims in order to get access to legal aid through the waiver and initiate proceedings. If someone is determined to misuse the waiver, they will do so. Limiting its scope to clients who are only respondents in proceedings will not prevent that.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I do apologise. These are the circumstances that we are discussing, and it has been clarified that the powers have not been used in these circumstances. I do apologise, and I put that on the record. <BR /> <BR />In fact, that discretionary power and clause 27 are not mutually exclusive, so the House can approve amendment No 5 and the Department can still work with the Legal Services Agency to develop a better system to support victims using the discretionary powers, if that is required. Without amendment No 5, we have no baseline from which to work, no safeguard and no guarantee that people will not be disadvantaged when their case moves to the higher courts. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 6 effectively removes the condition that the victim has to be a respondent in the proceedings.”
“There will still be victims and survivors who will miss out. Nor do I accept the assertion that the director's current discretionary powers — again, I highlighted those earlier and asked the Department for examples of their use, only to be told that they have never been used — might provide a solution and therefore that we do not need to widen the scope to the higher courts.”
“People just do not go and take out a child order without giving it serious consideration. It is a really big deal, and they need a lot of advice and assistance to get them there. Victims and survivors of abuse should have recourse to financial support for that and should not be excluded from the waiver. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 5 removes the restriction of the waiver to the lower courts, thereby granting victims access to legal aid in the higher courts. For all the reasons that I have just outlined, that is essential to ensure that the most vulnerable people do not miss out. I would like to say again that the family care centre is treated as a higher court. I do not accept the argument that widening the scope to the higher courts is not needed because a different financial eligibility test applies.”
“In short, my amendments solve the problems that I have outlined with amendment No 3 and the Minister's proposed new clause 27. They are a victim-focused, victim-centred way of looking at the issue and balance the concerns about costs and other risks. They are also interlinked, and I hope that Members read them as such. Amendment No 4 is linked to amendment No 6 and returns the scope of the waiver to cover the costs of legal advice and assistance for the victim not only in attempted pre-proceedings. If amendment No 6 were made, victims and survivors could access the necessary financial support to get the help that they need from legal professionals prior to initiating proceedings. As any solicitor will tell you, advice and assistance are key in complex law cases, particularly those that involve article 8 orders.”
“Without anything in the Minister's amendment to state what other protections will apply, the only conclusion that we can reach at this stage is that victims will be less favourably treated when the proceedings transfer to the higher courts. That is yet another reason why amendment No 3 as drafted falls short.”
“is not good enough for Members here at Further Consideration Stage, and nor will it help victims when the Bill and these provisions come into effect.”
“They are victims and survivors of abuse, with most complex needs, and they should have access to the financial support that is available through the waiver. <BR /> <BR />When I pressed the officials on this point, their response was:”
“That is according to the Minister's amendment. Cases that are referred to the family care centre or to the High Court are the very cases that involve the most vulnerable victims and survivors of abuse. Cases are often referred because a victim is struggling with their mental health, for example, or because of what the courts term an "implacable hostility" between partners or the two parties involved. Officials confirmed that, with regard to such complex cases moved to the higher courts that involve serious allegations of offences or where a party to the proceedings may be suffering from serious mental health issues, the waiver would not apply. That leaves the most vulnerable without access to the waiver — again, the very people whom clause 27 seeks to help. In my view, that is totally wrong. We cannot leave these people behind.”
“That would effectively be taken from them if their case were referred upwards. According to officials:”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I am unsure about the solicitors being paid for a second time. Surely that would have to come from the Legal Services Agency and would need to be looked at through its processes to make sure that that did not happen. <BR /> <BR />The other major problem with amendment No 3 is the issue of limiting the waiver to the lower courts. That will mean that the most vulnerable victims and those who have suffered through multiple cases of long-drawn-out proceedings — the very people whom clause 27 speaks to and tries to help — will lose out. This was again confirmed by departmental officials on 1 December when I asked them whether the waiver would no longer apply to any case in the higher courts, even when a case has started in the lower courts and the victim could be granted legal aid through the waiver.”
“I thank the Minister for her intervention. I am still unclear about the duplication, so we are just putting it in the Bill as it was in clause 27. <BR /> <BR />The absence of the provision for advice and assistance is yet another attempt to restrict the scope of clause 27 and to reduce costs, with the effect that victims and survivors of abuse will see less and less benefit from the waiver or, indeed, its actual uptake, which has already been affected by the changes previously made to legal aid. I do not agree with that approach. <BR /> <BR />The other major problem with —”
“According to officials, this would not be required if the client were only a respondent to the proceedings, but it was unclear whether advice and assistance covered legal costs for attempted mediation between parties or even pre-proceedings.”
“I am speaking here of the single mum who requires an occupation order to prevent an abusive partner from returning to the home, or the victim or survivor who needs to appeal a child contact decision to prevent further abuse by the perpetrator. All those people would miss out under the Minister's amendment No 3 and new clause 27, and that is simply not good enough. <BR /> <BR />As a consequence of or linked to the condition that the victim must be only a respondent to proceedings, the Minister's amendment also includes a stipulation that legal aid will be granted only for representation and will not be granted to a victim for advice and assistance from a solicitor.”
“That was the purpose of clause 27, and there should be no distinction between victims simply because they are taking or defending a case. Amendment No 3, as drafted, means that the very people that clause 27 should help will no longer benefit.”
“<BR /> <BR />When I asked officials, on 1 December, to confirm whether, under the Minister's proposed amendment, the waiver will only assist victims who are being taken to court by the perpetrator and will not help victims who need to take a case against their former abuser, even on appeal, they confirmed that this, indeed, is the case. The Department and the Minister may think that it is acceptable to make a distinction around access to legal aid through the waiver between a victim who is defending a case and a victim who has to initiate proceedings to protect themselves and their children. I do not. All victims and survivors of domestic abuse should be able to access the financial eligibility waiver for the purposes listed above.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. Amendment No 3, as it stands, will create an arbitrary distinction between victims, simply because they are either taking a case or defending one. The Minister's amendment will mean that only victims that are the respondent to proceedings will be granted access to legal aid through the waiver of the financial eligibility limit. Those who have to appeal decisions or initiate proceedings to protect themselves and their children will not have access to the waiver. That is unfair and unnecessary.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention. Again, this is something that we need to look at. Sinéad Bradley spoke at length in Committee about the unfairness of a system where there are those who can afford justice and those who cannot. These are the people that we are trying to encapsulate with this amendment on legal aid and child contact — people who are just over the line but cannot get access to legal aid.”
“It is about helping them financially; helping those working people and single parents who are pushed into poverty because of legal fees. That is what clause 27 is about, and it should not be forgotten in the debate. Victims and survivors should be front and centre when Members decide how they will vote on these amendments. Whilst I appreciate that the Minister and others are concerned with costs and risks, as am I, there is a balance to be struck between these issues and how we best support victims. I do not agree with the approach that has been taken in amendment No 3. The proposed new clause 27 is all about limiting costs and risk to the detriment of the very people that the Bill seeks to help.”
“I thank the Minister for that intervention. I appreciate that, in responding to the gaps, we must plug them. That is why I am supporting clause 27A. None of this is an excuse for the problematic approach that is evident in amendment No 3. <BR /> <BR />Before I go on to discuss amendment No 3 in detail and address my amendments, I want to remind Members that clause 27 is about helping victims and survivors of abuse in family proceedings, and it is confined to the orders listed in article 8 of The Children (Northern Ireland) Order, namely, child contact orders, occupation orders, prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders only. This must be reiterated as, for some reason, it keeps causing confusion. <BR /> <BR />It is also important to state again that clause 27 is about victims and survivors.”
“Yes, that is exactly the kind of provision that we need to critically assess the operation of clause 27 and how victims can be protected further anyway. Yes, that work needs to commence urgently. Ideally, we should not have to legislate for that; it should already be being done.”
“However, amendment No 7 does not and cannot justify the shortcomings of amendment No 3 in any way. It is not a credible position to claim that you know that something will not work for victims but that you will keep an eye on it for a year after it comes into effect and then suggest some solutions. I do not need to remind the House that we will have gone through an election by then and entered a new mandate. <BR /> <BR />First and foremost, I urge the House to reject the idea that amendment No 3, as drafted, is palatable or acceptable, in spite of its shortcomings, because of amendment No 7. That is not a credible position. In fact, it is an insult to the very people who will be unable to access the waiver if amendment No 3, as drafted, is made. Yes, I support new clause 27A.”
“A report about the issue in a few years' time would never have sufficed, compared with a limited measure that deals with the issue. <BR /> <BR />There is another very important point to make about amendment No 7, and proposed new clause 27A, which is apparent from the debate and came to light at the Justice Committee on 1 December. That is the convenient role that amendment No 7 plays for the Minister and her Department in their attempts to gloss over the deficiencies of amendment No 3. Amendment No 7 and new clause 27A is the crutch that officials have lent on, and it is the one that has been relied on today in attempts to mask the problems with amendment No 3. <BR /> <BR />The argument is that, if victims are missing out, it will be captured in the report, and the Department will bring forward proposals to fix that.”
“Therefore, I was relieved when the Department eventually departed from its initial position on clause 27, which I had always stated was not a comprehensive solution but something that could make a real difference until more detailed measures came into place. <BR /> <BR />That is the origin of amendment No 7 and proposed new clause 27A. It was initially drafted by the Department to prevent clause 27 coming into force, to prevent victims and survivors from getting access to the legal aid waiver, and to kick the can down the road. Let that be known to the House. I fully welcome the provision in the Bill to conduct a review into the availability of legal aid for victims of abuse, but not as an alternative to clause 27. It is not an either/or situation, nor should it be.”
“As I, and other members of the Committee, made clear to officials, that was not what the Assembly voted for at Consideration Stage, and the Department's proposal appeared to fly in the face of the Assembly's rules on admissibility at Further Consideration Stage. I, and other members of the Committee, welcomed the suggestion of a report to investigate and bring forward possible solutions to the issue of victims and survivors of abuse being dragged through the courts and having their finances drained by their former abusers. However, a report would be of little use and bring little comfort to those who would encounter such horrible circumstances between now and when any such proposals are fully implemented.”
“With regards to victims and survivors' access to legal aid, I would like to speak to amendment No 7 and then move on to amendment No 3 and the amendments listed in my name and in Sinéad Bradley's. I am glad that she, too, saw the merit in not excluding the lower courts. I would like to place on record the origins of amendment No 7 and proposed new clause 27A. <BR /> <BR />Following Consideration Stage and the addition of clause 27, which was opposed solely by the Minister and her party, the Department's initial response was to ignore the will of the House and attempt to change the entire purpose of clause 27; from giving victims access to legal aid to simply producing a report on victims' access to legal aid.”
“Why a person aged 16 or 17, who can do all those things — it must be stressed that they can be prosecuted for domestic abuse via the Bill as it stands — cannot be subject to a protective injunction to prevent them abusing their victim is baffling. I ask the Minister to outline how those victims will be protected, especially in the case of a young couple. I would appreciate the Minister outlining in her summing up on this group of amendments what protections will still exist, what the Department will do to develop effective and holistic approaches for addressing abusive behaviour among our children and young people and whether it will commit to working with children's organisations to ensure that the best possible system is in place.”
“A protective injunction against an alleged perpetrator of domestic abuse is not simply a case of criminalising a young person. The measures and mechanisms that could be developed could be developed in a way that prevents criminalisation entirely, but leaving the gap in protection is a concern. <BR /> <BR />As the Department ably demonstrated in its rationale for lowering the age of the parental responsibility exclusion, a person who is aged 16 or 17 can be prosecuted for domestic abuse, join the armed forces and get married with parental consent, and I point out that they can also work full-time and leave their family home if they wish.”