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 20 of 29.
“I turn now to amendment No 14 and the need to help victims and survivors of abuse in family proceedings. Again, Mr Frew set it out. I am going to have to stop making a habit of this. I am sure that this will come soon, no doubt, or is that possibly tempting fate? The issue was first raised at the Committee on 17 September during the informal deliberations, when Mr Frew said:”
“I welcome amendment No 12, which would strengthen the child cruelty offence to amend the definition of ill treatment.”
“Nevertheless, I agree with the view that there should be no such arbitrary distinction in legislative protection or a sentencing ceiling that is based simply on age, and that is why I raised the possibility of introducing an equivalency in the maximum penalty across the two offences. Officials responded by saying that it was not possible to do that in the Bill given that it was a matter for the Department of Health. Even though amendment No 12 would change the child cruelty offence, it is also a matter for the Department of Health. So, I hope that the Justice Minister can work with Executive colleagues to look at that, and I also encourage the Health Committee to gather the relevant evidence in order to consider any possible solutions.”
“The Department has stated that no other jurisdiction locally provides for criminalisation in relation to parental responsibility under domestic abuse legislation and that the provisions in the Bill covering the offence on children go further than others already provide for.”
“The abuse committed against a 14-year-old as opposed to a 17-year-old carries different consequences. Whilst I understand that the amendments in question — amendment Nos 9 and 11 — are necessary right now, they do not address those differences; in fact, they create an arbitrary distinction between children of different ages and mean that abusive behaviour receives different maximum sentencing depending on age. That concern was brought to the Committee by children's organisations, including the NSPCC and NICCY, and I fully support them in seeking to resolve it.”
“It was indicated that having considered the matter further, and taking account of the concerns, the Minister was going to table this amendment to make it explicit that, where a child was ill-treated, it would include non-physical abuse. I welcome that. <BR /> <BR />Discussion on that and how it interacts with parental responsibility exclusion in the Bill raises important issues, essentially due to the fact that the legislation that covered child protection and the child cruelty offence applies only to those under the age of 16. Therefore, amendments to clauses 11 and 17 had to be tabled to ensure that non-physical abuse of 16- and 17-year-olds in a parent/child relationship was provided for and to ensure that there was no gap. It exposed clear differences between the two pieces of legislation on what constituted an offence.”
“I seem to be rising quite a lot, with a lot of Members needing me to clarify things. Hopefully, I will be able to do that. <BR /> <BR />Initially, I want to speak to the amendments laid by the Minister that deal with necessary changes to legislation residing in the Department regarding the child cruelty offence and the issue of parental responsibility. I hope that further work can be carried out to fill in the cracks that have been uncovered by this, as others have stated. <BR /> <BR />In response to concerns raised by organisations around the parental responsibility exclusion, the Department stated that it had given:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I believe the term was "double-figure millions".”
“According to one key stakeholder in that jurisdiction, the Scottish clause was a significant compromise in the legislation between those who wanted to see children treated as victims in their own right and those who had reservations about attempting to do so. We cannot and should not accept lesser provisions than those that exist elsewhere. We should bring forward the best possible legislation for the people of Northern Ireland. These amendments would mean that the aggravation could be applied where a reasonable person considered the domestic abuse likely to have a negative effect on the child. They would help to prevent the potential of many children having to give evidence in court, where they would be forced to relive the trauma that they had already suffered. I encourage all Members to support amendment Nos 4 and 7.”
“Yet, there are many ways in which domestic abuse negatively impacts on children, and we must make sure that that is captured and reflected in the legislation and the sentencing. It is about coercive control. <BR /> <BR />There are victims with dependent children who suffer from economic abuse, which leads to financial strain and an inability to provide for their children. There is psychological abuse or coercive control in which the child has never witnessed behaviour but the effects on the victim have a knock-on effect on the child through the victim's reduced capacity to provide care, support the child's basic needs and so on. <BR /> <BR />The Scottish provisions are there for a reason.”
“<BR /> <BR />Subsection 2(B) does not take anything away from that provision but clarifies that nothing in subsection 2(A) prevents people from consulting the child or young person. It is not a requirement for evidence, but a simple clarification. There are times when we need to reflect the child's voice, as well as deploying adequate protections and support that is covered in different parts of the Bill, but there is nothing in the amendment that forces or even encourages children to have given evidence. That is all covered in subsection 2(A) <BR /> <BR />Not all children see, hear or are present during incidents of abuse, not all perpetrators make use of children in abusing their victims, and not all perpetrators abuse children directly.”
“<BR /> <BR />My second amendment to clause 9 — amendment No 7 — resolves the mess and confusion that are tied to the misinterpretation of the Scottish legislation and fills the legislative gap that I have outlined. It means that the aggravation can be applied where the other options do not apply but where a reasonable person would consider the abuse to have adversely affected the child. <BR /> <BR />Subsection 2(A) of the amendment works in the same way as it does for the offence to reflect that the child may not be aware of how the abuse has impacted on them or even that abuse is abuse. That subsection is also crucial to avoiding a scenario in which the prosecution is forced to rely on evidence given by the child in court in order for the aggravation to be applied.”
“The Committee sought clarity from officials that that provision would capture circumstances in which the accused had threatened to abuse the child as part of the course of abusive behaviour that was directed at the victim. Unfortunately, that is a common occurrence in domestic abuse cases in which children are involved. In my view, the amendment provides the required clarity. <BR /> <BR />Clause 9, as drafted, does not take into account that specific issue explicitly in its wording. It should fall under one of the options to apply the aggravation and, in my view, sits clearly in clause 9(2)(a)(i). The amendment strengthens the clause by making it clear that threats to abuse children will be captured by the aggravator and sends a clear signal from this place that such abusive behaviour should be treated with the utmost severity.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. We must look at the impact on the children as well. We have so much to do with the Bill, but we have to put the alleged victims and children at the centre of it. I look forward to working together with you again in the future. I am certainly happy to do so, especially when we have common ground. <BR /> <BR />My first amendment — amendment No 4 — deals with a very specific issue that was raised during discussions between the Committee and officials. Mr Frew, in particular, sought clarity on what scenarios would fall under clause 9(2)(a)(ii), which states:”
“<BR /> <BR />There is nothing anywhere else in the Bill that states that those involved in abuse or affected by it have to be a resident in a particular place, so why is this in now? What if the child lived with Granny? A child could live with C, visit A and B regularly and perhaps stay over, but does not reside with A or B, or both. Perhaps the child is next door, with the headphones on during an incident. Perhaps A abuses B, but the child does not see or hear it or is not present. What would happen then? Contrary to the further confusion and uncertainty that would ensue with a residency condition, my and, now, Mr Paul Frew's amendments would finally put clause 9 to bed. I urge all Members to support them.”
“<BR /> <BR />I also put on record my thanks to Mr Frew, who stuck to his word and added his name to the amendments that I had tabled, and for his ongoing commentary, scrutiny and support. <BR /> <BR />While the Minister's amendments reflect similar provisions in Scotland, it is not clear why a residency condition is included, given that the scope of our offence differs so greatly, in the sense that it applies to a much broader range of personal connections and relationships beyond simply partners and ex-partners, which is captured in the Scottish law. The Minister's amendments added another hoop to jump through, an unnecessary condition that the Department, throughout this whole debate on clause 9, was seeking to avoid.”
“As we know, Members, the EFM is not legislation. We were then left with a suboptimal clause compared with Scotland and weaknesses in the Bill with respect to the operation of the child aggravation. <BR /> <BR />It is also worth noting that, two days after I published my amendments to clause 9, alternative amendments were tabled at the eleventh hour, so to speak, which, it is important to mention, the Committee had no notice of and was able to discuss only by virtue of the postponement of the Consideration Stage debate. I welcome yesterday's letter to the Committee from the Justice Minister outlining that she will not be moving her amendments today, specifically amendment Nos 5 and 6.”
“<BR /> <BR />A further option to apply the aggravation that exists in Scotland was removed by the Department because it was not understood and was an unnecessary hoop to get through. That meant, with clause 9 as drafted, we would have no option to apply the aggravator where a reasonable person would consider the abuse to affect the child adversely where it is not possible to apply it using the other three options. <BR /> <BR />To be clear, this provision exists in Scotland, so we would be left, essentially, with a legislative gap. Even though the error was acknowledged, before the Committee finalised its report, remarkably, no solution to this gap was offered, other than suggesting that they would add some wording to the Bill's explanatory notes to clarify that the child did not have to be aware of or understand the abuse.”
“The crux of the mistake and the misinterpretation of the Scottish provisions had formed the basis of the Department's rebuttal of the recommendations and suggestions, which were based on the evidence provided by all stakeholders up until that point. This should not be glossed over. <BR /> <BR />The Department correctly claimed that there were three options to apply the aggravation under clause 9 as drafted. It also claimed that that was preferable to the Scottish legislation because, under the provisions of its Act, the options to apply the aggravations were coupled with the requirement of a reasonable person to consider the abuse to affect the child adversely. However, that was wrong. The reasonable person test is, in fact, an additional option to apply the aggravation in circumstances or cases in which the other three may not apply.”
“<BR /> <BR />After considering the Committee's draft amendment, the Department reiterated its stance that clause 9 as drafted had fewer hoops to jump through to apply the aggravation in comparison with Scotland and that the proposed Committee amendment would be unnecessary, add nothing to the clause and could risk confusing matters. <BR /> <BR />It was not us who were confused. After further discussions between the Committee and officials on 24 September, the Department advised that its interpretation of the Scottish legislation was wrong and therefore the advice given to the Committee up until that point was incorrect. The Department apologised for the error and clarified how the Scottish provisions work.”
“It was continually reiterated that there were three options for applying the aggravation and stated that they did not consider that an amendment reflecting the additional provisions of the Scottish legislation was required. <BR /> <BR />In my view, that represents a complete disregard for the evidence that was in front of the Department. Needless to say, the Committee began work on an amendment to strengthen the clause. It also asked whether the Department would consider adding greater clarity by amending the EFM to address the concerns.”
“The view was that the requirement in the Bill is simply that the child sees, hears or is present during an incident of abuse: in other words, that, in comparison with Scotland, there are fewer hoops to jump through in order to apply the aggravation. <BR /> <BR />As mentioned in the Committee report, we discussed extensively with officials the wording of clause 9 and particularly clause 9(2). I continually pressed for an explanation of the Department's rationale for adopting a different approach to the Scottish legislation on this clause. To this day, I do not believe that the Committee or I have been give a satisfactory explanation.”
“In the light of the sheer weight of evidence, the Department's initial refusal to consider properly the concerns and issues raised, not just by me, or by Mr Frew for that matter, but by all those organisations that I have mentioned, is frankly baffling. When the Committee reiterated its concerns and suggested possible solutions, the Department claimed that the conditions for applying the aggravation under clause 9 as drafted were wider in scope than the Scottish provisions because there is no requirement for a reasonable person to consider that the abusive behaviour would adversely impact on the child.”
“The Bar of Northern Ireland indicated that the current wording of clause 9(2)(b) suggests, in practical terms, the child being required to give evidence as to their awareness of the accused's behaviour and any adverse impact caused by it. The Bar also noted the similarities between clause 9 and provisions in the Scottish Act. It queried why the Department did not include subsections similar to that legislation that would address the concerns and issues raised, specifically section 5(5) of the Scottish Act, which reads:”
“The NSPCC also noted that the Scottish legislation, on which clause 9 is based, includes a reasonable person test, which means that the aggravation can be applied where a reasonable person would consider the abuse likely to adversely affect a child. It said that that provision was included in the Scottish Act in large part to avoid children having to give evidence in court about their experiences. For that reason, the NSPCC recommended adding the reasonable person test to clause 9. <BR /> <BR />The Human Rights Commission agreed that children should provide evidence directly to the court only when absolutely necessary and, where that is done, in an age-appropriate manner, with consideration given to alternatives such as live links. It also recommended age-appropriate counselling for the child before, during and after the trial.”
“The Children's Law Centre also recommended extra provision in clause 9 to account for circumstances in which the child does not directly witness an incident but has still been aware of, or affected by, the abuse. <BR /> <BR />The Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) reiterated the fact that children are adversely affected by domestic abuse beyond only occasions when they see or hear an incident and called for further consideration of how that could be reflected in legislation. NICCY also noted that the Scottish Act provides that children do not have to be aware of, or understand the nature of, the abusive behaviour for the aggravation to apply and that the provision effectively captures the impact on children who may, for instance, reside in a different household from that in which the abuse occurs.”
“does not adequately address the issue or recognise the persistent, ongoing nature of the impact of the abuse on a child living in a home with domestic violence and abuse. It called for children to be recognised as victims in their own right and not as associated persons. Action for Children agreed with that assessment by Women's Aid, noting that the experiences of those children and young people are often overlooked. Barnardo's highlighted the importance of recognising that a child can be aware of, and impacted on, by domestic abuse in the home even if the child does not see or hear it. Barnardo's specifically mentioned clause 9(2)(b) in that regard and suggested that it should be expanded to recognise that children do not need to witness the abuse to be negatively affected.”
“It does not mean that a perpetrator's actions are any less harmful, nor should it mean that the aggravator in clause 9 should not apply. <BR /> <BR />A number of organisations raised concerns over the wording and potential operation of clause 9. I will outline a few of those concerns for Members' consideration. Women's Aid stated that clause 9(2)(b), where:”
“The Committee engaged with many children and young people's organisations as part of its evidence gathering, hearing a variety of concerns about the legislation and ideas for moving forward on children's rights and children's safety and well-being from abuse. That included discussions of abuse in the home, abuse between family members, abuse in youth relationships, parental responsibility and child abuse. Organisations such as Women's Aid also pointed to the realities of domestic abuse in the home and to the experiences of many that involved their children, with perpetrators directing their abuse towards the children to hurt and control them. In effect, Members, that is coercive control. Not every instance of domestic abuse will be heard or seen by a child, but that does not mean that the child cannot be affected by it.”
“The second option, where the accused made use of the child in the abuse of the victim, may include instances where, as mentioned in the Committee report, the accused directs a child to spy on the day-to-day activities of the victim or alleged victim so as to enable the accused to control or monitor their movements and interactions. The third option is also clear: when the child sees, hears or is present during incidents of abuse.”
“Under the clause, as it is currently drafted, the aggravation would apply where it has been shown that the perpetrator directed behaviour at the child, or the perpetrator made use of the child in directing behaviour at the victim, or the child saw, heard or was present during an incident of behaviour. Therefore, in order for the aggravation to be applied, one of those conditions would have to be met and appropriately evidenced by the prosecution. <BR /> <BR />The first option to apply the aggravation is clear: where the accused abused the child.”
“Children can pick up on a parent's distress or be impacted by the parent's compromised capacity for parenting in the context of fear. Threats to hurt and abuse children are often used as part of the course of behaviour that seeks to control, isolate or frighten the victim. Crucially, that is what the amendments capture. <BR /> <BR />Clause 9 has been debated extensively by the Committee, and I am sure that some Committee members will be glad when I stop talking about clause 9. I am looking to the Chair, in particular, but, of course, I make that assumption based on my experience of it. Clause 9 provides for the domestic abuse offence to be aggravated where it involves a child.”
“Domestic violence, as we know, has a devastating impact on children and young people that can last into adulthood, and Kellie Armstrong outlined her experience with a constituent in that regard. <BR /> <BR />A UNICEF report estimated that as many as 275 million children worldwide are exposed to violence in the home, and children are often the hidden victims of domestic abuse, and the long-term impact on children includes a detrimental impact on their mental health, child development, risk of harmful sexual behaviour, future cycles of abuse and potential for youth offending. It is important that legislation reflects that a child can be aware of and negatively impacted by domestic abuse in the home, even if they do not see or hear the moment in which it occurs.”
“Like others, I want to begin my remarks by thanking all the individuals and organisations that submitted evidence to the Committee; the Committee staff for all their hard work; the members who scrutinised the Bill in great detail; the Minister for bringing the Bill forward; and Claire Sugden for starting this process. <BR /> <BR />Paul has probably already made my arguments for me, so I could probably just sit back down, but I am not going to. I will address only the amendments to clause 9, which are amendment Nos 3 to 7. I take us back to what I said at Second Stage, which was that, if we want to give our children the best start in life, we must also look to the effects of domestic abuse on them and ensure that the home is a place of safety for children and young people, now and for the future.”
“I thank the Member for giving way again. I appreciate that the Member has outlined his position very clearly. Can he account for the conditioning of victims of coercive control and psychological abuse not to recognise behaviour that has occurred? I have a practical question for Mr Allister, given his inherent experience. Is there a requirement for B in this case, where A is the perpetrator and B is the victim, to recognise or claim the harm caused for prosecution?”
“Minister, you will be aware that I have been asking lots of questions about CSUs for some time now. I agree that it is a complex issue. Surely the situation with drugs supports the need for body scanners to be implemented in our prisons to weed out the ones who are carrying and those who are not. The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) was mentioned. It plays a crucial role in inspecting CSUs, monitoring their use and speaking to prisoners, but its volunteers' work is often hampered by their not having remote access to communications facilities; they have to travel to Maghaberry to pick up an email. Minister, when will your Department provide volunteers with adequate, secure, remote IT systems that will assist their work, especially in the context of COVID-19 and your recently announced review of CSUs?”
“Is a trial sufficient to safeguard the rights of the defendant and scrutinise evidence? If it is — and, surely, that has been suggested in Gillen with regard to sexual offences, as well as reforms to proceedings elsewhere in the UK and Ireland — this Bill needs to address that. We must go beyond this Bill to do our best to sort out the speed of justice. <BR /> <BR />Overall, I welcome the introduction of the Bill and look forward to scrutinising it as part of the Committee to get the best possible justice system for victims.”
“<BR /> <BR />In 2012, the Justice Committee was also told that part of the issue with abolishing committal in its entirety was that so many consequential changes would be required if it were uprooted and got rid of entirely. I am aware that it will be done in a staged process through this Bill, but the Committee was told that there would be a queue of cases waiting to get to the Crown Court, and there would be a fear that if the rest of the system were too slow, the Crown Court would end up becoming a remand court. <BR /> <BR />So, where are we now? Eight years later, have we got the necessary changes in the court system that mean that there is no queue? What front-loading has occurred to prepare for the changes? What safeguards are in place already? Do we need to go further?”
“<BR /> <BR />I welcome information, from a purely financial perspective, on how much the current system costs and any projections of what those reforms would save and where the finances would be redirected to in the courts process. <BR /> <BR />I would also appreciate information on what lessons have been learned from other countries that have implemented committal reform, such as Scotland and England, as well as lessons from Australia on the different approaches taken there. In Canada, too, this has come up in much discussion, and recent issues have been raised with committal proceedings around the country's extradition laws. Have any studies and research been done to make sure that this legislation will do what it says on the tin, that is, remove undue delay?”
“<BR /> <BR />Committal hearings add to the already significant delays and mammoth costs of our justice system, but, unfortunately, the Department was not able to provide any assessment of the costs of these proposed changes to the Committee during the oral evidence session. I note that, in 2012, when the Justice Committee was presented with the consultation on early guilty pleas and committal reform, the Department had not conducted detailed costings on abolishing the committal process altogether. I hope that that information and the other effects of the Bill will be provided at the earliest possible stage to the Committee.”
“The oral committal system can add an additional layer of evidence, given that it has been recognised by the Department of Justice and those working in the criminal justice arena as unnecessary, not least because of the physical and emotional toll that giving evidence at this stage has on those who have already had to live with the after-effects of criminal activity. This has most loudly been advocated by groups and organisations such as Victim Support, and I look forward to engaging with them further on this. Perhaps the Minister can outline in her closing remarks what recent engagement she and her Department have had with organisations such as Victim Support, which I know was incredibly active on this issue even when the Assembly was down for some years.”
“I am glad to see this being part of the Bill and the additional offences added to the list of direct committal. I also note other Members' commentary on the delays in the system for sexual offences along with the conviction rates, and I agree that it must be addressed. So, there is much more to do as well as this Bill. <BR /> <BR />With preliminary enquiries, the situation is even more traumatic for victims and witnesses, as they are called to give evidence in what is experienced by them as an actual trial, leaving them hostage to a system that claims to be intent on ensuring that victims of crime will have to give evidence only when it is necessary. So, do we actually need a dress rehearsal of the case or are there other safeguards in the system that could prevent this?”
“Sir John Gillen, in his review of serious sexual offences, recommended that current proceedings should be discontinued, stating that they:”
“The committal proceedings as they stand have been described as a redundant, unnecessary and traumatising addition to the justice process for victims, and we know that there are fundamental problems that must be addressed.”
“Therefore, I initially extend an invitation to, in particular, Mr Allister, who was vocal on this earlier today, to speak with me on this matter and outline his position and his experience with this in practice to me and to the Justice Committee. <BR /> <BR />As has already been discussed, the primary purpose of the Bill appears to be improving justice procedures by reforming the committal stage of cases moving through the court system. The Department's overall aim is to eradicate the traditional committal process entirely through rolling out direct committal. Fundamentally, it is to make the experience of victims and witnesses better, removing unnecessary steps and improving the speed of cases throughout the justice system.”
“<BR /> <BR />Also, in 2018, Jonathan Hall QC provided an independent review of terrorism legislation across the UK, and he highlighted a finding that one of the reasons why difficulties are encountered in Northern Ireland in bringing successful terrorism prosecutions could be because of the aggressive adversarial court processes, with all of the defendants requesting old-style committals during which every point is fought over. I am also aware that this formed part of the debate in 2014 with the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, where, at Second Stage, proposals to reform committal proceedings were generally supported. So, this is not a new issue, but I, unlike many other Members here, was not part of that process.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Second Stage debate, and I welcome the Minister back to the Chamber. As many Members have alluded to, committal reform has been discussed for many years and has featured in a number of reports pertaining to the justice system in Northern Ireland, notably the Gillen review, the Audit Office report and the 2016 Northern Ireland Executive action plan on tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime, which recommended that the Department remove the need for victims and witnesses to provide oral evidence before a trial and abolish committal proceedings in respect of offences most frequently linked to so-called paramilitary groups. There was also the Intelligence Committee report that Mr Frew mentioned.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member regard bars opening on Christmas Day, which currently happens, as an assault on the Christmas holidays? That forms a huge part of Christmas celebrations for communities.”
“I thank the Member for giving way again. Does he not agree that if people do not want to have a drink on Good Friday at lunchtime, they do not have to have one, and there is nothing in this legislation that removes anyone's Christian beliefs from being adhered to and respected over the Easter weekend by those who want and need to?”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I want to clarify, and, hopefully, get some agreement, that domestic abuse behaviour is not caused by drinking alcohol and that the perpetrator alone is responsible for their actions.”