Jon Burrows
North Antrim · Ulster Unionist Party · Northern Ireland
“It is invasive for someone to be cross-examined by the person who has caused them grave trauma and great hurt — the person who has victimised them. Cross-examination can be done by legal counsel, which is sound.”
“It is adversarial for good reason, but there are really important things that we can do when it comes to process, the system, dealing with cross-examination, disclosure and character references. I hope that we have a victims and witnesses commissioner who is the loudest and strongest voice for victims.”
“I agree. I rang one of the victims on the evening after the conviction and apologised. Even though I had no role over Mr Campbell, I said that I was ashamed that that man, Lloyd-Lavery, was ever employed by the party or by an MLA and ashamed that the man who gave him a character reference was a former chair of our party.”
“I welcome the Bill. It is long overdue, because our justice system in Northern Ireland is tilted towards the interests of suspects and perpetrators over and above the interests of victims and the general public.”
“There is always a balance to be struck between the rights of an unconvicted person who has been accused of a crime and the rights of the victim, and we need to get that balance right. We should never forget that there have been miscarriages of justice in our country down through the years.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Education Minister should have included the measure in the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. That would have achieved it far more efficiently, but it was not done.”
The complete record
Every one of 773 lines we hold for Jon Burrows, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 16.
“If you think that there is very little chance that you are going to get caught but that they might throw the book at you, you might still think, "I'll just do it". However, if you think that you are going to get caught, it changes your behaviour. That is why people stop committing crime and run away as soon as the police bring out an evidence-gathering truck, or why rioting stops as soon as the police publish images.”
“That needs to be gripped. The impact on the victim needs to be put into the heart of everything that we are doing in the criminal justice system. <BR /> <BR />We also need to have hard conversations about prison capacity. Is the fact that we have insufficient prison capacity affecting the sentences that judges pass? I ask that because some of the sentences are inexplicable. If you keep having those soft sentences, you are not going to get outcomes. I studied criminology at master's level — I went into deterrent in crime, which is at the heart of the motion. Deterrence comes from two things, principally: one is the severity of the sentence, and the other is the likelihood that you are going to get caught.”
“In any offence that has been committed, the judge can take into account the fact that race or racism was a factor and a motivator, but they do not use that enough. Northern Ireland's system is too soft. We are spending too much time worrying about the perpetrators and not enough about victims. We need to speed up our criminal justice system, and we need to support our police service so that we show, swiftly and with certainty, that crime does not pay. <BR /> <BR />Why would we start to see increases in sentencing with new legislation — I would support new legislation, once I see the detail — if there is already an aggravating factor in our sentencing guidelines that judges are not using? We need to change the culture in our judiciary and entire criminal justice system. Our judges pass very soft sentences — day in, day out.”
“<BR /> <BR />At the minute, our criminal justice system is slow and soft. That sends out a signal that people can act and commit hate crime with impunity. As politicians, we have, collectively, starved the PSNI of the resources that it needs. You can have all the laws that you want, but unless someone is enforcing them, what are we going to do? That is why Mr Frew's amendment is so important. We need to have a PSNI that is investigating crime, swiftly and robustly; able to prevent crime and be out on patrol; and able to be in schools, engaging with young people, and tackling the kind of behaviours that lead to hate crime. If we do not invest in our police service and criminal justice system, the new law simply goes unenforced. A good example of that is this: there is already an aggravating factor in Northern Ireland.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I condemn, unequivocally, hate crime and all forms of crime. It is an evil act, and we should have no hesitation in condemning it; I have done that my whole life. <BR /> <BR />I value the role that lawful migrants play in society. That is an important part of tackling the intolerance that can lead to hate crime. If it was not for those migrants, we would not have enough people working in our hospitals and care homes; we would have fewer doctors; and we would not have enough people processing things in our factories. Those are important things that we need to value. Condemning things is easy, and passing new laws can be relatively easy in the sense that you pass a law, but we need a criminal justice system that deals with hate crime when it happens.”
“I make no apology for opposing the Minister's proposal. No matter who was consulted, it is the Minister's proposal. It is clear: Ministers decide. The reason is clear. To give a ticket for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm that includes knocking someone unconscious, smashing their teeth out, leaving them in need of stitches or breaking minor limbs such as fingers is not acceptable —.”
“The Member talked about having a unified voice condemning all sectarianism and hatred. Will she condemn unreservedly the sectarian assassination of 10 people at Kingsmills?”
“Will the First Minister agree that, given that public money was invested in Ebrington Square, all lawful organisations, including the UK armed forces, should be welcome at events there?”
“The call is for independence in the investigatory bodies in Northern Ireland: we want to see independence in any Garda Síochána unit, with someone from Northern Ireland making sure that it is disclosing and cooperating and that the Irish Government are no longer trying —”
“<BR /> <BR />We will be asking serious questions about the Irish Government and the reported amnesty that was given to republican violence. Michael McDowell confirmed in 'The Irish Times' that he was asked to give that amnesty by leaders of Sinn Féin, and he gave it. We are very concerned that that amnesty may scupper any attempts to bring people to justice. <BR /> <BR />In relation to the legacy unit in an Garda Síochána, we will make sure that, if it goes ahead, there will be legal requirements for it to give unredacted intelligence to the UK bodies and that there will be independence in that unit too.”
“Before any proposals have our support, we will ensure that they recognise fairness for our veterans and police officers. Thirdly, we will ensure that history cannot be rewritten. It is the strategic intent of some people, including some in this place, to rewrite history. We will make sure that that does not happen. Fourthly, we will uphold the rule of law and justice in our country. <BR /> <BR />With those four principles, I will address just one aspect of the legacy agreement, and that is the belated commitment of the Government of the Irish Republic to investigate Troubles-related crimes. Why has it taken until 2025 for them to make a commitment to investigate such crimes? How many people have died who were victims? How many suspects have died who were never brought to justice? How much evidence has been lost?”
“Blind eyes were turned to punishment shootings so that they did not upset the apple cart of negotiations. That cannot continue, so we will be guided by victims' needs and not by the needs of perpetrators. <BR /> <BR />Secondly, we will make sure that there is fair treatment for the vast majority of servicemen and police officers who put on a uniform and went out to serve our country with courage and distinction.”
“I want to address, in very introductory terms, the legacy agreement reached between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. So many people were murdered and maimed in our Troubles, and so many more, perhaps too many to quantify, have been affected by mental ill health and other suffering. We owe it to those victims to give any consideration serious and solemn reflection. That is what we in the Ulster Unionist Party will do, but we will have some guiding principles. <BR /> <BR />First, we will be informed mostly by the victims. Too often in our peace process, the needs of perpetrators have come first and those of victims have come second. Blind eyes were turned to violence for the greater good, if you define the "greater good" as ignoring violence.”
“I released images of people engaged in sectarian crimes, and I had condemnation from parties in the House, so we need to be consistent. That is my take on it. <BR /> <BR />I fully support the motion. Let us have honest conversations, and let us stand by and build up our justice system so that we can bring people to justice and start preventing things.”
“If we do not articulate the problems with asylum — the fact that the system is so slow, and the fact that there is an affront to the rule of law with people getting off a dinghy and coming into the United Kingdom — those things cause the toxification of relationships that feeds the far right. When we do not talk about those issues, we give the space to the likes of Tommy Robinson, who can send a tweet and get tens of thousands of people to support him. In our language, we need to occupy and elevate the space of talking about public policy issues, while starting that by saying that violence is always wrong. I call for the police to release images, but, in this motion, we talk a lot about sectarian and racist violence.”
“OK. I will come back. <BR /> <BR />Let me move on to our language about immigration. When we do not articulate things, we vacate the space that is then occupied by the far right. We need to show the language of leadership and discuss the issues that people have. One thing is to value legal immigration. I keep repeating it, but, in the last years of her life, my granny was cared for by Filipino nurses. We rely on them. People in north Antrim who love their meat would be vegan if it were not for foreign nationals. We rely on them, and we should value them. That is a key part of the strategy. <BR /> <BR />The next point is that illegal immigration is a law-and-order issue.”
“Thank you. We need to invest in our Police Service. <BR /> <BR />I also fear that we are going to undermine attempts to bring cohesion in how the justice system deals with those who commit hate crimes. We are walking ourselves into a two-tier policing scenario, and I will tell you why. It is because the Justice Minister is bringing in extra penalties for hate crime — that is a strategy that I welcome — but, at the same time, is decreasing the penalties for ordinary crime. The difficulty with that is —.”
“The reality is that there will always be a level of crime. There is always crime.”
“Thank you for that. It sounds lovely to say, "I wish that there was never any hate crime". I wish that there was no crime whatsoever, because we would not need our Police Service. We could close down the prisons. We could close down half the hospitals because I have wished that there be no disease. It is a meaningless statement.”
“I would have had a detective dealing with that, but we do not have detectives any more to deal with such crimes, so we do not solve them. All the really advanced investigative work that you can do is not done, because cuts have consequences. The fact that we have demoralised and not funded our Police Service has a —”
“People up and down the country grimace when they hear that dreaded word, "strategy", because there are so many strategies, but they are never delivered on. What I will say about the strategy and the words about bringing people to justice is that the people in the Chamber are responsible for running down our Police Service. Today, I typed an email to the police about a victim of hate crime in Ballymena. There was no result from the investigation. It was conducted by a response constable who does 24/7 response policing — they get in their car and drive to the next incident. I can guarantee you that the level of investigation into that hate crime was far inferior to what was done 10 years ago when, for example, I was the area commander in Derry.”
“It is good to support the motion, and it is good to hear unequivocal support for it from across the Chamber. Any conversation on the issue should begin with unequivocal and unreserved condemnation of violence. I will use a phrase that the Members for Foyle will be familiar with, because we used to use it when I worked with them up in Londonderry/Derry, whatever you want to call it, and that is: "An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us". That is a really good phrase that unified our response to any attacks, because no matter who you are, violence against you is wrong. That is a red line that we should all agree with. <BR /> <BR />Of course, condemning such attacks is not enough in itself. The word that jumps out at me in the motion is "strategy".”
“The Member asked for a unified voice. There has been a unified voice from this side of the Chamber that the Moygashel bonfire, with migrants in a dinghy, was wrong, should not have happened and should be condemned. Will she join that unified voice and say that shouting "Ooh aah, up the 'RA" at republican festivals is wrong and should be condemned?”
“I will give way in one second. <BR /> <BR />We should not come in with an arbitrary commission or anything else that will just be another quango. That would be to delegate all our responsibilities to someone else.”
“Address the Chair. Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will always respect the office of the Chair. I apologise for that profusely. <BR /> <BR />The essence is that a little respect in our language towards people who have been badly traumatised and hurt in the past would allow us to have a better and more rational conversation. The way to deal with it is through leadership and from the bottom up.”
“You have no authority or legitimacy when you speak. <BR /> <BR />The Alliance Party, I am afraid to say, while it has a great strapline, tends to be more vocal about issues concerning unionism than those concerning republicanism. I never hear its members on 'Talkback' or 'The Nolan Show', banging the door down to call for investigations when "Ooh aah, up the 'RA" is chanted at the féile. Why can you not show leadership as the party that used to represent the middle ground? You have abdicated that.”
“There are people who will say, as Members from Sinn Féin said, "Oh, it is a disgrace" when something happens such as the Moygashel bonfire. Yes, it is a disgrace, but it is also a disgrace when people shout, "Ooh, ahh, up the 'RA" and you cannot say that that is wrong. You described the Moygashel bonfire as something that causes fear and anxiety: I agree with you. I hope that those people are arrested, charged and taken to court, but you will sit and justify people saying that burning people in a hotel with a firebomb was necessary. When bonfires are things that we should regulate and burning a hotel is something that we should celebrate, you simply have moral myopia. That poisons the whole debate. I want to look forward, but how can we do that when people immediately get their backs up because they see an agenda? That is the reality.”
“Thank you. Hopefully, with the right leadership, that does not happen, but there are criminal investigations that can be carried out if something crosses the line. That is why, for example — this happens on both sides — when, this summer, a poster of my former colleague Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell was put up on a bonfire in the Bogside, I was working to get it down, although we could not get it down. That was disgraceful, just as it would be disgraceful if a poster of the Member were put on a bonfire. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have been consistent that both are wrong, but, in my view, this is an attack on culture. It is absolutely an attack on culture. <BR /> <BR />There is something that poisons these debates for the people who are listening, and this point is directly linked to that.”
“Let us have a subcommittee of the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP), bring in the Fire and Rescue Service at that stage, before anything is actually built, and then bring in the Police Service and the relevant council. We then need to start agreeing collectively that there are certain things that we will not have. We will have no posters and no hate crime, and we will make sure that the bonfire is a safe distance from houses and that it is of a safe size. We will have an appointed person to set light to it, we will engage with the Fire Service, and we will make sure that there is no sectarian chanting and nothing on it that is a danger to the environment. None of that needs a quango, a commission or a legal framework. That is just the leadership that we never see. Everyone just wants to score points and blame the unionists.”
“Civic society — I mean those who have elected jobs of leadership, those who are getting paid in councils and, sometimes, those in my old organisation and the 999 services — tends to want to abrogate responsibility to someone else: creating a quango or a commissioner and asking them to deal with it. Generally speaking, they just get paid for not dealing with it. The reality is that things can be done better if everyone rolls their sleeves up. <BR /> <BR />Instead of waiting until the point in the cycle when you are virtually into June, people should plan early and sit down and work with working-class communities, which is often where the issues are, and ask them, "What sites are you planning to use this year?".”
“I agree that the quality of the debate has mostly been substandard. First, I commend the Alliance Party for its strapline. It sums up the issues in one simple four-word phrase: "lawful, safe and respectful". I am delighted that Alliance has borrowed that phrase from me. I used it in an interview with its deputy leader during the summer, and I then started to see it in press releases. I am glad to help the Alliance Party on justice. <BR /> <BR />Getting back to the substance of the motion, I can 100% say, through lived experience, that bottom-up approaches to dealing with bonfires are best.”
“The Minister said that the proposal to extend penalty notices applies only to lower-level offences. Will the Minister explain why one of the offences included is assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH), which includes breaking someone's nose, smashing someone's teeth out or rendering someone unconscious? Does she consider that AOABH can ever be a serious crime? If not, why is it in the proposal?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. My party warmly welcomes his proposal for a £1·7 billion investment dedicated to children with special educational needs, because we hear so often that children wait too long for statements, travel too far to school and wait too long to hear what school they are going to. We will support what is right in the same way as we will oppose anything that is wrong and scrutinise along the way. <BR /> <BR />Does the Minister agree that such investment, while it is the right thing to do for children, is an example of "spend to save", in the sense that, if we invest and show our belief in children with special educational needs, in the future, they will make an even greater contribution to our society, economy —.”
“I want to see the detail of that in order to understand the main concerns. I agree that amendment No 13 is not contentious. We are largely content with those group 2 amendments, but I want to explore and be reassured about the Minister's concerns about the impact that they might have on the legislation.”
“<BR /> <BR />To my mind, it is sensible to have the requirement that there be more than one provider of school uniforms. That encourages competition and drives down prices. Having that safeguard is entirely sensible, particularly for rural schools — they are mostly schools in constituencies west of the Bann that are often represented by those on the other side of the Chamber — that may be impacted by the inability to have more than one provider of school uniforms. It is sensible to have a safeguard that means that the school manager can say where the school has deviated from that practice because there is only a single supplier. <BR /> <BR />In essence, that is our position on the group 2 amendments. I am conscious of the advice that the Minister received on the drafting.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 3 provides greater clarity and certainty about who the consultees are, so I have no issue with that. <BR /> <BR />I am interested in some of the legal advice that the Minister received on how there may drafting problems with some amendments. Of course, the Minister does not have to reveal any legal advice, but, if he did, the only impact would be that he would lose his privilege. He can decide to release legal advice. At times, it would be useful to see legal advice, especially with legislation such as this, when we really want to understand the reasoning behind things. What are the risks? What are the unintended consequences of words, which can really make a huge difference and stymie the intent of legislation?”
“This is a good day, because we are dealing with legislation. I feel somewhat spoilt. I have only just arrived, and I am right at the heart of dealing with legislation. That is positive. <BR /> <BR />When it comes to the amendments, I see the whole Bill as being like a stick of rock. The slogan that goes through it is "affordability", and its wrapper says, "No child should ever be excluded, disciplined or disadvantaged because their mum and dad or carers do not have the money that someone else's might have". It is really important to capture that principle every time we deal with a group of amendments. <BR /> <BR />On group 2, "Trust but verify" is a dictum that I like, so I have no issue with amendment No 2 and putting in the word "must". That is sensible.”
“We have said that we are — certainly, I am — open-minded on the "name and shame" aspect, but, if directions were given and not followed, a school would inevitably be named in open court through a legal process. I am trying to tease out the benefit of naming a school in the first instance, simply to say, "We have found that you were not in compliance", rather than waiting to see it named in a court process if the school refuses to comply.”
“Considering the fact that what we say here, as recorded in Hansard, is used as an aid to construction — anyone who has studied law at university will know about Pepper v Hart and all those things — by the courts to determine the intention of the law, can the Minister explicitly confirm, to help us with amendment No 10, that the absolute intention at the core of the legislation is to ensure that no pupil will ever be excluded from school or disciplined because their parents cannot afford an item of equipment or uniform?”
“There is an opportunity to make school uniforms more affordable and particularly to make sure that no pupil is ever, in any circumstance, excluded from sport or disciplined at school because their mum, dad or carer cannot afford something. That is a clear red line and should be the legislation's purpose. That is the key protection that the legislation must achieve, and it is the thrust that we will look for in the Bill. We will support some things while looking for more convincing on others, and we will scrutinise as we go along.”
“I was not on the Education Committee when it was discussing the Bill, so there is a time for me to read in in order to understand the nuances of people's positions. We want to make sure that we get the balance right and that schools do not lose the ability to make sensible decisions, because that could have a real impact. If that simple thing could not be enforced, it could quickly create a chaotic situation that would be difficult for parents and teachers to manage. <BR /> <BR />There is a balance to be struck in all of this. We want to support the legislation, but we are yet to be convinced about naming and shaming.”
“We see a divergence between naming and shaming here and doing so for the likes of benefit fraud and other things in the criminal justice system. Naming and shaming can have a deterrent value. It is transparent and is about accountability. We want a little more convincing. I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister about why, he believes, the naming of schools would be a negative step and what consequences it might lead to if we went down that line. <BR /> <BR />We should be enthused. There is an opportunity here to get to an end point at which schools put affordability at the centre of everything that they do. That would be in the best interests of children, parents and schools.”
“That is a fair point. This is a seminal moment, however. If we are to go down the route of naming and shaming schools, which is something that I am not sure has been done before, it is a big line to cross. When lines are crossed, there are unintended consequences. The responsible thing to do is therefore not to say, "Yes, that sounds good. Stiffen this up, but name and shame" or, "No, we're going to protect our schools". There is a perception — it is real — that we tend to protect the reputation of schools that have the most or that are in better-off areas rather than worrying about schools in socially disadvantaged areas. We are alive to both sides of the argument and remain to be convinced. That is a healthy position to be in.”
“It is a red line. If we cross it, we must be careful. We are not ruling out doing so, however. Naming and shaming would have a deterrent value. I want to hear a little more about why it would not be appropriate. By the way, I do not particularly like the phrase "naming and shaming". Without it, we would have a court system sitting in closed session to which nobody would turn up and on which the media could not report. We therefore want to tease out the issue a little more.”
“I want to hear a bit more about the rationale for not going down that line, as is being done in other areas of government policy, particularly around social security benefits. We are still undecided about what is the appropriate balance there. There should be clarity about the number of schools and why they are not complying with things. Naming them goes to a principle. I heard many times in the Education Committee about not naming schools.”
“I am happy to support that. I restate that I and my party will support what is right and oppose what is wrong, and it is not because it is a unionist Minister. There is a certain irony, in that the direction of travel for many people in the Chamber is to tighten up some things around school uniform and tie the schools' hands, but the same people are adamantly opposed to requiring schools to protect inspection. That seems to me to be a completely irreconcilable position. <BR /> <BR />On amendment No 12, I have read the Minister's letter, and we are not convinced entirely about the name and shame. We remain non-committal about it, because there is a deterrent value to being named and shamed.”
“It is not a matter of supporting the Minister's amendment. As I said, my instinct when asked a question about a live case was that that school should have the autonomy to make its own rules, and that we need to be careful in this place that we do not de-legislate the ability of schools to make reasonable rules.”
“I do not know the ins and outs of whether that pupil was asked to remain out of school, but the school has to be able to apply some rules. However, it would be entirely wrong for any pupil to be disadvantaged or excluded because they cannot afford something. That is why I —.”
“I will support the Minister's amendment to put the word "undue" in because we want to make sure that, although we are aiming to bring down the cost of school uniforms and are aiming to make sure that we do not have exclusion on the basis of uniform, we do not want to be very prescriptive on schools. The intention has to be that no one should be excluded from sports, excluded from school or disciplined because they cannot afford an item of clothing. However, at the same time, it is vital that schools can say that there are some uniform requirements and some policies that have to be enforced. <BR /> <BR />There was a case on the news this week about the wearing of an earring, which is a good example. I was asked a question on the hoof on 'The Nolan Show', and my instinct was to say that I am not going to arbitrate for the school.”
“Having your school uniform on makes you identifiable, and that can be very useful for promoting good behaviour. Getting the balance right is critical. <BR /> <BR />There are a number of amendments, and we will not commit to them all, but we will make some comments. On amendment No 1, there is no real issue with publishing every three years. That is a wise amendment. Likewise, amendment No 4, because it is in the best interests of transparency to have guidance published. It provides clarity, certainty and transparency. <BR /> <BR />The one that I want to focus on is amendment No 10, with the word "undue".”