Official Report: Monday 20 October 2014

Mr Weir: I beg to move

Mr Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not related to this item of business. It is not a challenge to the ruling at all but purely for clarity. Last Tuesday, the Principal Deputy Speaker announced the outcome of an investigation into the honourable Member for North Antrim Mr Allister and curtailed his oral contributions in the Chamber over the next few weeks. Just for clarity, I want to establish whether it is the intention of the ruling to prevent Mr Allister putting down incisive, forensic and analytical written questions like the ones he did about the cost and condition of mint imperials in the Chamber.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I understand that Mr Allister has been informed of what the situation is, and, yes, his speaking opportunities will be curtailed.

Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that this motion requires cross-community support.

Mrs O'Neill (The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. With your permission, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the 1998 Act regarding the 23rd meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the agriculture sector, which was held in Armagh on Wednesday 1 October. The Executive were represented by Minister Simon Hamilton and me, and the Dublin Government were represented by Simon Coveney TD, Minister in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM), and Alan Kelly TD, Minister in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG).

I chaired the meeting on this occasion and have agreed the statement with the accompanying Minister, Minister Hamilton.

Ministers had a discussion on potential priorities for the agriculture sector and noted that those will be contained in a report to be considered at a future NSMC institutional meeting as part of the ongoing review into sectoral priorities.

On current sectoral priorities, Ministers noted the progress made in addressing key issues affecting the beef sector and agreed to continue to work together to secure a sustainable beef industry in both jurisdictions.

The Council noted that implementation plans have been adopted by DAFM and DARD for the common agricultural policy reforms agreed in 2013. Ministers agreed that officials from DAFM and DARD will monitor the development of the implementation process for pillar I and pillar 2 decisions. Ministers also noted that both Administrations are in the process of seeking approval from the European Commission for their respective rural development programmes 2014-2020, with DAFM having submitted its draft programme in July 2014 and DARD due to submit its programme later this month.

Ministers noted that DARD and DAFM have developed a protocol for the cross-border movement of larch logs infected with Phytophthora ramorum. It was noted that an all-Ireland Chalara/ash dieback conference took place in May 2014 and that DARD and DAFM are in the process of summarising stakeholders’ responses to key questions. That should assist in informing future policy development.

Ministers welcomed the continued work on the delivery of the all-island animal health and welfare strategy action plan, including the completed review of common disease surveillance priorities and the commitment to cooperation in areas of mutual benefit; the agreement by DARD and DAFM of a common chapter dealing with control arrangements for African horse sickness; the coming into operation of the Welfare of Animals at the Time Of Killing Regulations 2014; the progress made by DARD towards officially brucellosis-free (OBF) status, with DAFM now considering an appropriate OBF monitoring regime following the expiry of the mandatory five years; the progress made by DAFM officials to develop a code of practice for wild animals in circuses; and the achievement of an agreement in principle to a joint contingency approach on rendering facilities.

Ministers agreed the provision of proactive support by DARD and DECLG for LEADER cooperation activities, including a specific focus on North/South cooperation. The Council welcomed the intention of the steering committee on cross-border rural development to proactively promote the development of rural recreation as a key driver in successful rural regeneration. It noted that the rural development projects funded through EU INTERREG IVa are nearing completion and that a synopsis of the impacts and achievements of the rural development theme will be presented to the Council at a future meeting.

Ministers welcomed an event taking place later that day to mark the success of the Clones Erne East Blackwater project and the redevelopment of the canal stores building.

The NSMC approved the appointment of Mr Raymond Dolan as the new chief executive officer of the Food Safety Promotion Board (FSPB) with effect from 1 October. The Council also approved the appointment of Ms Margaret Hearty as acting CEO of the Trade and Business Development Body — InterTradeIreland — on an interim basis.

The Council agreed to hold the next agriculture sector meeting in spring 2015.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Before calling the next Member to speak, I welcome Mr Maurice Devenney as a new Member for the DUP. I had the opportunity to meet Maurice earlier when he signed in. I hope that you have a long and happy career in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr Irwin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development): I thank the Minister for her statement. She referred to the key issues affecting the beef sector and said that there is an agreement to work together to secure a sustainable beef industry. Will the Minister expand on that, please?

Mrs O'Neill: There are current and real issues affecting the beef sector, and the Member will be acutely aware of the issue of nomadic cattle. We had quite a lengthy discussion on how we can work together on that issue. From the discussion, it was very clear that we need to engage continually with the retailers to accept such cattle. It is a long tradition of trade right across the island. We have agreed to hold a number of meetings with the Retail Consortium to discuss those issues. I have agreed a voluntary label, and we want the industry to accept that. We are awaiting some more confirmation on some more discussions on that. The principal underlying issue affecting the beef sector is profitability. Even when prices were good, profitability was still an issue. There are real issues to tackle, and I look forward to being able to work with Minister Coveney, particularly on our new rural development programmes and on how we can support the beef sector in particular through all the programmes that we have outlined.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, you referred to the development of a code of practice for wild animals in circuses. Will you outline what progress has been made to date?

Mrs O'Neill: I am keen to take that forward. We have set up a working group to look at the issue. As I have said previously, it is important to note that there are no circuses based here; however, there are circuses in the Twenty-six Counties that travel, and it is important that we work together to agree a clear protocol and have that in place. To date, DARD has agreed a protocol with DAFM that provides for an inspection of animals from those registered circuses before they move back into the Twenty-six Counties. I have raised the issue of wild animals in travelling circuses over the last number of NSMC meetings, and we have had regular updates from officials. Our officials continue to work within the auspices of the North/South animal welfare and transport working group. Officials will report back to Minister Coveney and to me when they have considered all of the information available to them, but we are making progress towards having a protocol and ensuring that we are providing inspection. DARD will provide that inspection where it is needed.

Mr Byrne: I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she further enlighten us on what progress has been made on the beef situation? Is legislation being seriously considered to provide cost-of-production pricing plus some profit margin for farmers? She will be aware that there are some lobbying groups who want legislation, and they want this Assembly to deal directly with Brussels in order to see what can be explored in that regard.

Mrs O'Neill: Absolutely. I support that principle in concept, and I am aware of the lobby. We are trying to scope out what we can do. I am very happy to go to Brussels and ask for a change in legislation where needed. The core issue affecting the beef sector is the fact that it is not profitable. Even when prices were high, profitability was an issue. That is what we need to grasp and tackle. We need to have a serious focus on the issue of efficiency in the beef sector. The core of the new rural development programme will be the new grants schemes and such, and we need to put a lot of emphasis and effort on supporting the beef sector so that it can become more efficient and profitable as a result.

Mrs Dobson: I also thank the Minister for her statement. I noted with interest the reference to circus animals, as was pointed out by Oliver McMullan, but will the Minister expand on what is meant by:

Furthermore, what agreement has been made?

Mrs O'Neill: It means just what it says; that we have agreed, in principle, for officials to do the work and bring forward proposals for us to be able to have plans in place when we come to deal with rendering facilities. Really, that is what it is: there is political agreement for that to happen. Officials have been tasked to go ahead and do the homework on it and then bring that work to the next NSMC meeting.

Mr McCarthy: I thank the Minister for her statement this morning. Her statement references the all-Ireland ash die-back conference, which took place in May 2014. Will the Minister advise the Assembly whether this disease has been overcome throughout the island and whether an assessment has been made of the financial cost to both parts of the island as a result of that disease?

Mrs O'Neill: It certainly has not been overcome, and we continue to deal with it. We have a strategy across the island to work together and to tackle it. One benefit of that strategy is that it is moveable, depending on the disease status and how things change. We continue to put significant resources into tackling the outbreak of P ramorum. Tree disease is high up the agenda in the work that the Forest Service is taking forward. Forest Service also works very closely on the ground with, and is very dependent on the cooperation of, landowners. We are very grateful for that cooperation. I do not have the figures, but there is a cost there in revenue loss, and I am happy to provide that to the Member in writing.

Mr Buchanan: I also thank the Minster for her statement. In her response to the Chair of the Committee, she mentioned nomadic cattle. When will this matter be resolved, as it is a huge issue for the beef finishers here in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: I am very keen for it to be resolved ASAP. For my part, I have done what I can do, which was to approve a voluntary label. It is now in the hands of the industry as to whether it accepts that label. I have made it very clear to all the big players that I want the label. The label is acceptable and is fully compliant with EU legislation. It is now up to them to accept it. Minister Coveney and I are meeting the key retailers to ask them to accept the approved voluntary label.

As I said, there has been a long tradition of trade, and quite a number of cattle have been traded in that way over the years. We do not want to disrupt that trade, so I am very keen to get it resolved ASAP.

Mr Poots: I see that you discussed animal disease at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting. What are the figures for TB in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland? What is the comparison? What steps are they taking in the Republic of Ireland and what can we learn from them to eradicate and reduce TB in Northern Ireland?

Mrs O'Neill: That is a regular item for discussion at NSMC meetings. I do not have the figures for their levels of TB, but I can tell you what our figures are. I am glad to say that our stats are on a downwards trend. We went from about 7·46% last year to just over 6% this year. So, there certainly has been progress, and hopefully that downward trend will continue.

I suppose that we approach things differently. The South culls in certain areas. That is obviously not the route that I have taken, although I know that there are some out there who would like that to be the case. We have set up the TB strategic partnership group, which has been tasked with the development of a comprehensive and practical strategy and an implementation plan to secure the progressive reduction of disease levels and the associated costs. We also have our EU eradication plan, which is worth about £5 million. So, a lot of work is going on.

I do not have the figures for the levels in the South, but I am very happy to provide that information to the Member in writing. However, it is suffice to say that having a different disease status affects trade across the island. I intend to have the same disease status across the island for TB and other diseases. We are getting there with brucellosis and hope to have our stat-free status next year. We have a way to go with TB, but it is a priority to drive it out in as quickly a manner as possible.

Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for her brief statement. She mentioned the Clones Erne East Blackwater project. What stage is the section of the Ulster canal project at? I think that funding from the Irish Government for that has been agreed or, at least, promised, but that does not seem to have progressed.

Mrs O'Neill: I do not have the detail of that here, but there will certainly be opportunities to look at that type of project under the next rural development programme. I think that there will be funding opportunities. One of the areas that we discussed with the new Minister who is in charge of rural development in the South, Minister Kelly, was a potential strategic project. I am certainly up for playing my role to make sure that we can restore the canal to its former glory.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Before we continue with today's business, I wish to inform the House that I have been informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that Mr Maurice Devenney has been returned as a Member of the Assembly for the Foyle constituency to fill the vacancy resulting from the resignation of Mr William Hay. This morning, Mr Devenney signed the Roll of Membership and entered his designation in my presence and that of the Clerk to the Assembly. Mr Devenney has taken his seat. I again welcome him to the Assembly and wish him every success.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I call the Lord Morrow to move the Consideration Stage of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list.

There are five groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on offences and penalties. This group comprises amendment Nos 1 through to 23, and amendment Nos 27, 40, 50, 60 and 61 as well as opposition to clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5 standing part.

The group 2 debate will be on amendment Nos 24 to 26 and 62 and opposition to clauses 7 and 15 standing part. This group deals with strategy and prevention.

The third debate deals with paying for sexual services. This group is made up of amendment Nos 28 to 39 and opposition to clause 6 standing part.

Group 4 deals with assistance, support and protection for victims of human trafficking and assistance for those wishing to exit prostitution. The debate will be on amendment Nos 41 to 49, 51 to 53 and opposition to clauses 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14 standing part.

The group 5 technical and commencement debate will be on amendment Nos 54 to 59, 63 and 64 and opposition to clauses 17 and 18 standing part.

I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debates on the five groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill.

If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): We now come to the first group for debate, which concerns amendment Nos 1 to 23, and amendment Nos 27, 40, 50, 60 and 61 as well as opposition to clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5 standing part. These amendments provide for new offences, penalties and minimum sentencing in relation to human trafficking, slavery and exploitation. A new offence of forced marriage is also included.

Members will note that amendment Nos 1 to 4 are mutually exclusive with clause 1 standing part; amendment Nos 3 to 6, 12, 15, 21 to 23, 27 and 50 are consequential to amendment Nos 1 and 2; amendment No 18 is consequential to amendment No 17; amendment No 60 is consequential to amendment No 22; and amendment No 61 is consequential to amendment Nos 1, 2, 4 and 23.

I call Lord Morrow to address his opposition to clause 1 and to address the other oppositions and amendments in the group.

Lord Morrow: Before I come to speak to the relevant amendments in this group, I want to open with some preliminary remarks about the purpose of my Bill.

The Bill has been long in the making and no one knows that better than the one who is speaking. The first consultation on the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Bill was launched in August 2012, and it has taken over two years for us to get to this stage. I have listened to and engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, and while the fundamental provisions of the Bill remain substantively the same, it is already significantly enhanced and revised, and I hope that it will be further revised by the amendments that I have tabled or co-signed, most of which have been in cooperation with the Minister of Justice.

Before I move to the substance of the amendments in this group, I would like to say thank you to a number of people who have contributed to my Bill so far. First, I would like to say thank you to everyone who submitted evidence to my initial consultation, to the consultation conducted by the Justice Committee and during the evidence sessions conducted by the Justice Committee. The quality of the evidence provided has been of a high standard, and I have put forward a number of amendments as a consequence of submissions that were made during the initial consultation and in the evidence given to the Justice Committee. This Bill undoubtedly will be a better Bill due to these contributions.

Secondly, I would like to pay tribute to the Justice Committee, which scrutinised the Bill. The Committee process was an onerous and lengthy one, and some of the evidence given was not easy to deal with. I am thankful to the Committee for its in-depth scrutiny, and I look forward to hearing contributions from its members during today's deliberations.

Thirdly and finally, I say thank you to the Minister of Justice and his team at the Department of Justice, particularly Julie Wilson, Simon Rogers and Alison Redmond. The Minister and his Department have engaged with me very constructively, which has led to many of the positive amendments that have been tabled. Of course, disagreements remain over particular parts of my Bill, which will be explored in due course, but it would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister and his team.

I also thank the Minister of Health —

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): I thank the Member for giving way, and I trust, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to make an intervention that is slightly longer than usual.

Lord Morrow recorded his gratitude to my team and to the Department, and I wish to record my gratitude to him for the constructive and positive way and the spirit of partnership with which he engaged with the Department over recent months. The Bill is undoubtedly still Lord Morrow's, but those who thought that Maurice Morrow and David Ford could not agree on anything have been proven wrong today by the unique way in which so many amendments have been signed by both of us. That is sign of the constructive engagement of which he spoke.

I add my thanks to Lord Morrow and to Mark Baillie, who has worked most closely with him, as well recording my thanks to Julie Wilson, whom he named, her team in the DOJ and other officials in DFP and DHSSPS who have assisted in ensuring that, by the end of today's debate, the fight against human trafficking in this jurisdiction will be in a much better place. Given the complexity of the Bill, I suspect that there are issues that we will need to revisit for the next stage, but I give a commitment that that constructive engagement will continue to Further Consideration Stage so that we get the best possible legislation for Northern Ireland. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lord Morrow: I thank the Minister very much for his comments. What he said adequately reflects the mood in which we have conducted ourselves on this side, on the Minister's side and in the Department. What he said clearly reflects the attitude that both of us brought to the table when we discussed the advancement of the Bill, even when it came to thorny issues.

I thank the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and his team of officials, who have also worked closely with me on a couple of key clauses, and the Attorney General, who has given ongoing advice, especially on issues to do with non-prosecution.

I want to explain the way in which the amendments have been tabled. Members will see that I am opposing a number of clauses standing part, the Minister, on other occasions, is opposing a number of clauses standing part and that, on most of the clauses, we have co-signed that they should not stand part. We have done that because we want to amend the clauses in question, and, procedurally, it is easier to remove them and to insert new clauses. I reassure Members that that approach does not mean that I have changed my mind on the principle or substance of the clauses. Rather, the objective of each clause remains the same, but the wording requires to be amended to ensure smooth operation in practice.

I move on to the substance of the clauses and the amendments, which are part of a very large group and that cover a variety of new offences and sentencing powers.

I am opposing clause 1 standing part due to developments that have resulted from the Modern Slavery Bill in Westminster. Members will remember that a draft Modern Slavery Bill was introduced last December, in which consolidated offences were proposed, bringing together previous legislation on human trafficking for sexual exploitation, forced labour and slavery. If accepted, that would have provided greater clarity for the police and prosecutors in seeking to tackle those crimes.

As a result of that Bill, the Department of Justice consulted on similar offences for Northern Ireland through its consultation document, 'Human Trafficking and Slavery: Strengthening Northern Ireland's Response'. The new offences that we will debate today are the result of that consultation. It is important that we have as consistent an approach as possible across the UK on the definitions of those offences.

When I introduced my Bill, the Modern Slavery Bill had not been introduced at Westminster, and we had not had sight of these proposed new offences. Consequently, in light of the changes that have occurred since I introduced my Bill, it is appropriate for clause 1 of my Bill to be replaced. Amendment No 1 introduces new clause 1A, which would introduce a consolidated offence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. That new offence would replace the existing offence that currently applies under section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. New clause 1A would make it an offence knowingly to hold another person in servitude or slavery or knowingly to require another person to perform forced or compulsory labour. Clause 1A(2) defines clearly what is meant by slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour by explicitly referring to article 4 of the Human Rights Convention.

Taken together, clause 1A(3) and clause 1A(4) outline that in deciding whether a person is a victim of an offence under this clause, regard may be had to an individual's personal circumstances. It would particularly take into account any personal circumstances that would make an individual more vulnerable than others to exploitation.

Clause 1A(5) embeds in law what clause 2 of my Bill sought to achieve: the victim's consent to any part of the offence committed against them under clause 1A is irrelevant.

Lastly, clause 1A(6) ensures that offences of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour in Northern Ireland can be tried only on indictment. This is a different approach to that taken in the Modern Slavery Bill but fits with the way in which human trafficking offences are currently tried in Northern Ireland. Members will remember that we agreed to move to such trafficking cases being tried only in a Crown Court when we passed the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013. In England and Wales, cases can be heard in a Magistrates' Court as well as in a Crown Court.

Amendment No 2 introduces new clause 1B. This clause would create a consolidated offence of human trafficking to replace the current separate offences of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and human trafficking for other forms of exploitation that are set out in sections 57 to 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Under new clause 1B, it would be an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person with a view to them being exploited. The offence would cover all forms of exploitation as defined under new clause 1C.

Clause 1B(2) clarifies that arranging or facilitating travel may include transporting, transferring, harbouring or receiving the victim, or transferring or exchanging control over them. This addition goes beyond existing trafficking offences and makes it clear that the full international definition of the act of trafficking set out in the Palermo Protocol applies. I warmly welcome that development.

Clause 1B(3) makes it clear that an offence has been committed whether the person intends to exploit the victim themselves, or knows or ought to know that another person is likely to exploit them.

Clause 1B(4) defines travel comprehensively to mean entering into, departing from or travelling within any country. Clause 1B(5), like clause 1A(5), replicates the effect of clause 2 of my Bill by ensuring that a victim's consent to any act forming part of the offence is irrelevant.

Clause 1A(6), clause 1A(7) and clause 1A(8), taken together, address the international dimension of human trafficking. In line with clause 1A(6), clause 1B(9) ensures that an offence under this clause can be tried on indictment only.

Amendment No 3 introduces new clause 1C. This clause defines what constitutes exploitation for the purposes of a human trafficking offence under new clause 1B. In doing so, it consolidates the relevant provisions of what currently constitutes exploitation in respect of the existing offences of human trafficking and extends the categories of exploitation to include a number of additional measures that had previously been included in clause 5 of the Bill. These were and are intended to bring extra clarity to what constitutes exploitation of forced labour, and I hope that Members will appreciate that they have not been lost in the process of consolidation. These additional measures include a clarification that "benefits of any kind" include "the proceeds of forced begging" or "criminal activities" and that securing services by force includes the use of coercion, abduction or fraud to induce a person to provide services.

I also draw to Members' attention that we have taken the opportunity of consolidating these definitions to make it clear that there will be a different approach to securing services or benefits from children or vulnerable adults. Proposed new clause 1C(6) sets out that an offence can be committed where there is no use of force or coercion in making the victim provide the services, where the victim is a child or a vulnerable person. The existing legislation attempted to deal with these situations where the victims' particular vulnerability is exploited in this way; however, it used rather vague terms, such as "young" rather than stipulating that the person is a child.

Amendment No 4 introduces new clause 1D. Under article 66 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008, it is an offence to commit an offence:

Sections 57 to 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 provide that relevant sexual offences include offences of human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation and, under article 66 of the Sexual Offences Order (Northern Ireland) 2008, preparatory offences, which include offences of "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring" such an offence. However, as has been the case in many areas of trafficking legislation, these preparatory offences have applied only to human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation and not for human trafficking for forced labour or of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour offences.

New clause 1D is one of many changes that will be made to the Bill to bring parity in the way that the criminal justice system treats human trafficking and slavery offences. It will create a new preparatory offence similar to that under article 66 of the 2008 Order, which would apply where an individual commits an offence with the intention of committing any slavery-like or trafficking offence under new clauses 1A or 1B. This will mean that lesser offences — for example, stealing a vehicle — that are committed in preparation for and with the intention of committing a slavery or trafficking offence will be eligible for a longer sentence, due to the connection with slavery or trafficking. These offences acknowledge that slavery and human trafficking often involve a chain of events and a range of people at different levels and stages but that they all contribute to the ultimate result of trafficking or forced labour.

In applying this preparatory offence to slavery-like offences, my Bill will go beyond the provisions of the Modern Slavery Bill, in which the equivalent preparatory offence would apply only in respect of human trafficking offences under clause 2 of that Bill. An offence under new clause 1D would ordinarily attract a maximum sentence of 10 years on indictment or six months and/or a fine on summary conviction. Where, however, the offence is committed by kidnapping or false imprisonment, it would attract a life sentence.

I hope that Members will feel that the four new clauses that I have outlined will give Northern Ireland a robust criminal law framework to take the Province forward in tackling these awful crimes. I urge all Members to vote in support of the proposed new clauses.

The purpose of clause 2 is to set out the situations in which the consent of a victim of trafficking or slavery will be considered irrelevant in the context of a criminal offence. The issue of consent, or lack of it, is now covered by the text of new clauses 1A and 1B. Consequently, clause 2 no longer needs to remain in the Bill and should be removed. I urge Members to oppose clause 2 standing part of the Bill.

Amendment No 5 introduces a new clause 2A. It seeks to amend the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 to classify the new slavery and human trafficking offences under new clauses 1A and 1B as serious offences for the purposes of sentencing dangerous offenders under schedule 1 to the 2008 Order. It also amends schedule 2 to the Order to classify human trafficking and slavery offences as violent offences under part 1 of the schedule and to classify human trafficking for sexual exploitation as a specified sexual offence for the purposes of sentencing dangerous offenders under part 2 of the schedule. In so doing, the clause will allow the court, where it considers it necessary for the purposes of public protection, to set down a life sentence, an indeterminate custodial sentence or an extended custodial sentence. Members will know that there is a significant increase in potential penalties from the previous arrangements, where the maximum penalty was 14 years. I hope that Members will support the very strong signal that offenders of those awful crimes committed in Northern Ireland will be treated extremely severely.

I am very pleased to have tabled amendment Nos 6 to 14 together with the Minister. Members will remember that I included a clause on aggravating factors in my Bill because the European directive and the European convention on trafficking include particular elements that indicate that a higher penalty should be given to a perpetrator. I recognise that setting out such factors is an unusual step to take, but it is not without precedent in the United Kingdom: aggravating factors are set out in section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as introduced by section 1 of the England and Wales Drugs Act 2005.

Amendment Nos 6 to 14 are a series of small, technical amendments that ensure that the text aligns with other pieces of legislation and add clarity to the definitions of "public official", "vulnerable adult" and a "member of the family of the victim". In all those cases, the purpose and effect of the clause remains the same. However, the amendments will make the text more effective, and areas of uncertainty will be removed. The Minister and I have agreed on the amendments outlined, and I urge all sides of the House to support them. Members will see that there are a considerable number of amendments that we will discuss shortly that bring in new powers on sentencing, such as in proposed new clauses 5A to 5D. The inclusion of specific aggravating factors is a helpful addition to the substantial efforts being made to tackle perpetrators severely.

The Minister made clear his opposition to the principle of clause 4 at Second Stage, and he is seeking to have it removed from the Bill today. I clearly state that I strongly and emphatically disagree with the Minister on this. In the past, as, I am sure, he will today, the Minister stated that introducing a minimum sentence would unduly fetter the discretion of judges to impose an appropriate sentence.

That, however, simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

In the first instance, the Assembly frequently imposes limits on the sentences that can be handed down by judges. Judges do not have absolute discretion to impose whatever sentence they would like. For example, it would be manifestly unjust for a judge to impose a life sentence on a person who was caught shoplifting, and the relevant statute does not allow a judge to do so. If we as an Assembly can fetter the discretion of a judge in terms of the maximum penalty he or she can impose for an offence, why can we not do so in terms of minimum sentences?

In the second instance, in answer to that question and of vital importance, Northern Ireland already has minimum sentences. Article 70 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was passed in this House in 2004, imposes minimum sentences for a range of firearms-related offences, and schedule 2 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, which applies to Northern Ireland, imposes a minimum sentence for the offence of using someone else to hide or carry a dangerous weapon so as to make the weapon available for the first person to use for an unlawful purpose. I doubt that we will hear anyone argue today for the repeal of article 70 of the Firearms Order or schedule 2 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act, but that is vital if one is really opposed to the principle of imposing minimum sentences in statute.

The truth is that, whether one considers minimum or maximum sentences, it is entirely appropriate for legislatures to set out the seriousness of an offence by determining the order of penalty that is required. That does not remove judicial discretion any more than defining an offence in statute does. It is very proper that a legislature should be able to define an offence and its seriousness as that relates to sentencing. Judicial discretion remains very much alive and well between minimum and maximum sentences.

Clause 4 rises to that challenge to make it plain that we in the Assembly, the lawmaking body on justice in Northern Ireland, regard human trafficking and slavery as very serious crimes and want would-be offenders to be fully cognisant of that fact before they consider trafficking or holding someone in slavery in Northern Ireland. That is a completely legitimate view for the Assembly to take and one that clause 4 helps to deliver.

To those who, despite those, in my judgement, overwhelming arguments, may still have questions, I will make two further points. First, with the help of the Attorney General we have been able to draft a sophisticated and balanced clause. I will shortly outline my amendments, which send out a very important message to would-be offenders whilst not removing judicial discretion.

Crucially, clause 4 gives judges the freedom to derogate from the two years in exceptional circumstances, although they must account for doing so. Secondly, they should also be aware that, in dealing with the serious crime that we are discussing today, it is a measure that the public supports. An Ipsos MORI poll conducted in August included the following question:

Some 65% of people responded to that question with the answer "yes" and 54% said that they believed that very strongly.

I believe that it is a timely and very well conceived provision that will be very much to the benefit of Northern Ireland. I warmly commend it and urge the House to vote against the motion that clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill.

I will now address the amendments in detail. Amendment No 15 is a technical amendment that links clause 4 to the new consolidated offences. Amendment No 16 would amend clause 4 so that the minimum sentence framework would not apply to children. It was an oversight in the initial Bill that the sentence would apply to children. I am grateful to the Member for East Antrim, the Minister of Justice, who pointed that out at Second Stage.

Amendment No 17 would ensure that, if a judge decides that there are exceptional circumstances that justify not imposing the two-year minimum custodial sentence, they must state their reasons in open court. Amendment No 18 requires the reasons to be recorded by the chief clerk. This ensures that, where there are exceptional circumstances that mean either a lower sentence or a suspended sentence is appropriate, the court is able to give such a sentence, but the reasons need to be given in open court. This will help to ensure that judges are accountable for the sentences that they impose, ensuring that such decisions are taken in a reasoned way. It will also bring clarity about such exceptional decisions for the general public and help to maintain public trust in the sentencing regime.

My amendment No 19 arises out of the concern that —

Mr Elliott: Will the Member give way?

Lord Morrow: Right, OK, I will.

Mr Elliott: I appreciate the Member giving way. I just have a very short query about the last two amendments, under which the court has to give an explanation as to why it may give a lesser or more lenient sentence. I just wonder whether the Member has any ideas or are there any guidelines in statute at the moment as to why a more lenient sentence might even be given. Is it just left to the discretion of the judiciary?

Lord Morrow: I will come to that point in a moment or two. I listened carefully to what the Member said in relation to that.

My amendment No 19 arises out of the concern that, under the clause as currently drafted, it would be technically possible for a court to hand down a two-year suspended sentence. This outcome would undermine the ability of the clause to deliver the clear message that I believe we should send to traffickers. I am very grateful to the Attorney General for spotting that loophole and for suggesting a means to plug it by defining a custodial sentence as not including a suspended sentence, but allowing for such a sentence in exceptional circumstances.

Amendment No 20 introduces a series of technical consequential amendments to ensure that the sentencing framework in other relevant legislation includes the proposed minimum sentence. The changes I am putting forward here reflect the same changes on sentencing as in the minimum sentence in article 70 of the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. Under new subsection 4(2D), the Attorney General may refer a sentence for review if the judge fails to impose the minimum sentence. Under new subsection 4(2E), the courts cannot give the perpetrator an absolute and conditional discharge, a probation order, a community service order or an order combining community service and probation. Under new subsection 4(2F), that new minimum sentence would be reflected in the same way as other minimum sentences in legislation setting custodial sentences.

My clause 5 outlines some policy changes I believe should take place to the current Asylum and Immigration Act 2004. However, I am glad to reassure Members that the proposals that I made in clause 5 have been incorporated into new clauses 1A to 1C. In light of those changes, I am content that clause 5 is no longer needed and should not stand part of the Bill.

I strongly support amendment Nos 21 to 30, 27, 60 and 61 to bring in new sentencing powers that reflect provisions in the Modern Slavery Bill. These are amendments that are proposed by the Minister and to which I have added my name. They are complicated provisions that I will set out in broad terms in the next few minutes and allow the Minister to deal with any points of detail.

Amendment No 21 will make it easier for assets to be recovered from those convicted of human trafficking and slavery offences by designating new clauses 1A and 1B as criminal lifestyle offences for the purpose of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. It seems clear to me that any measure that will make it easier to recover assets from those who commit these offences is worthy of support. It is crucial that perpetrators of these crimes can have any assets that they have gained through committing them confiscated.

Amendment Nos 22 and 60 introduce new clause 5B and the related schedule 1. Those amendments would allow courts to order the confiscation of land, vehicles, ships or aircraft if they were used or were intended to be used in connection with human trafficking and slavery offences. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, those powers are available in Northern Ireland and will continue to be available through the new consolidated offences in this clause.
Amendment Nos 23 and 61 introduce new clause 5C and schedule 2 to allow the court to order an offender to pay a reparation order. That will provide another avenue through which victims can gain some level of compensation for what they have suffered. The advantage of a reparation order over the criminal injuries compensation scheme is that the money comes directly from the perpetrator's assets, if they have any that can be claimed. I am particularly pleased that the courts must consider setting down a reparation order, and, if they do not do so, the judge must outline why they have not done so. However, the point should be emphasised that the orders do not stop a victim making a claim from the state, as well as through the criminal injuries compensation scheme. They simply offer another way of obtaining money to benefit victims.

Amendment No 27 introduces new clause 5G, which will maintain the content of clause 7(2) and 7(3) of my initial Bill in a separate new clause inserted in the most appropriate part of the Bill now that there are new clauses on other criminal justice matters. I believe that the clause is necessary to make it crystal clear to those investigating or seeking to prosecute the perpetrators of these offences that such action is not dependent on the victim reporting that the offence has occurred or accusing an individual of committing such an offence.

As I have said all along, this is a Bill about exploitation. Amendment No 40 has been tabled by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and would introduce a new offence of forced marriage to Northern Ireland. The offence was not included in the initial version of the Bill that I introduced in 2013. However, I am happy for it to be included. It is manifestly obvious to me that forced marriage is a form of exploitation. The offence is based on a similar offence that passed into law in England and Wales earlier this year. I will allow the Minister to speak about the matter further in his contribution.

Amendment No 50 pertains to clause 13 of my Bill, which seeks to protect victims during the course of criminal investigations. I will speak more about this clause later. Amendment No 50 links the protections of clause 13 to the offences that we are introducing through amendment Nos 1 and 2. Amendment No 50 also extends the provision of the measures to victims of offences under new clauses 1A and 1B. Originally, the clause provided the protection only to victims of human trafficking, following the England and Wales regulations and the EU anti-trafficking directive. However, I have since concluded that the vulnerability of victims of slavery offences is such that this special treatment should be available for those victims, as well as for those who have been trafficked.

Mr Givan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before addressing the amendments, I wish to make some general remarks about the Bill in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee for Justice.

First, I commend Lord Morrow on introducing this very important Bill to the Assembly. I know the commitment and tenacity that he has shown and the hard work and perseverance that it has taken to get the Bill to this stage of the process, and I congratulate him on that. Speaking in the capacity of party colleague, I can say that we are immensely proud of the way in which Lord Morrow has championed the Bill and spent over two years dedicating himself, heart and soul, to bringing forward this legislation. We have huge admiration for the way in which he has conducted himself, at times in the face of very difficult challenges that were being posed to him. He has very carefully and studiously avoided getting involved in confrontation and dealt methodically with all the issues that have been brought his way.

I have no doubt that, when we look back on what, I trust, will be the Bill's successful passage through the House, we will see this day as being a historic occasion. I trust that Lord Morrow will look back with immense pride that he led on the Bill and brought it to this stage and that the Assembly supported him. Indeed, on behalf of my colleagues, I would go as far as to say — this is no exaggeration — that, in bringing the Bill forward, we regard Lord Morrow as a modern-day William Wilberforce. I have no doubt that he would put his imprimatur on the Bill and endorse its content fully. I cannot speak highly enough of our colleague and party chairman, and I am very proud to have been able to support him in some way in getting to this point. It is important that we put that on the record.

As I have said on numerous occasions and as the Justice Committee has heard at first hand, human trafficking is a heinous crime that devastates people's lives and that needs to be tackled from every possible angle. In 2012, when the Committee considered the Criminal Justice Bill, which created two new human trafficking offences, we made it very clear to the Minister of Justice that we wanted the strongest possible legislation to be introduced in Northern Ireland for human trafficking. In the evidence that the Committee received during the passage of that Bill, it was clear that a number of organisations believed that the Department was adopting a minimalist approach in implementing the EU directive on human trafficking and had missed an opportunity to put additional measures into legislation, particularly in relation to the protection, assistance and support of victims, including children, and the availability of proper investigative tools.

There is no doubt that Lord Morrow, through his Bill, is changing that approach and ensuring that the legislation in this country to deal with human trafficking is much improved. His Bill will also address one of the other criticisms raised at that time, which related to the complexity and piecemeal approach to the legislative framework for offences concerning human trafficking and the need for a single comprehensive piece of legislation that would assist in increasing the understanding of the justice framework for dealing with the crime and awareness of it.

Given the importance of the Bill and the interest expressed, the Committee spent considerable time undertaking detailed and careful scrutiny of the then 19 clauses. After completion of Committee Stage, we have continued to consider a range of proposed amendments, most recently in September, following which the Committee wrote to all Assembly Members outlining the updated position.

The Committee sought a wide range of views as part of its deliberations on the Bill and requested evidence from interested organisations and individuals as well as from the Department of Justice. Over 139 written submissions were received, and the Committee took oral evidence from a wide range of witnesses, including voluntary organisations that provide support to trafficked victims and work with those involved in prostitution; academics; Church and faith-based representatives; individuals who are or were involved in prostitution; the Police Service; the Public Prosecution Service; officials from the Department of Justice; the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety; and the Attorney General for Northern Ireland. Lord Morrow, as Bill sponsor, also attended the Committee on several occasions to discuss the Bill's provisions and possible amendments.

To assist its consideration of clause 6, the Committee undertook a visit to Sweden in December 2013 to meet government and non-government representatives to discuss its legislation, which criminalises the purchase of sex. We also met the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality in Dublin in January 2014 to discuss the findings of its report on a review of legislation on prostitution, which recommends the introduction of a summary offence penalising the purchase of sexual services of another person by means of prostitution or any request, agreement or attempt to do so.

It is clear that the Committee scrutinised and considered all aspects of the Bill in a full and thorough manner. I thank the members of the Committee for their diligence and contributions during the Committee Stage process. I put on record my thanks to those no longer on the Committee: Mr Jim Wells; Mr William Humphrey, who I see is here with us; Mr Sydney Anderson; and Ms McCorley. It is fair to say that some members came with a differing viewpoint at the start of the process, but I have no doubt that the scrutiny carried out and the challenges made led to the robust legislation that we have today. It was a demonstration of how the Assembly and the Justice Committee do work and can do a course of work in which all the political parties can operate together, albeit with differing viewpoints at times. The outcome of that work is a demonstration of how business can be done in the Assembly. This legislation is testimony to that.

As Lord Morrow said, it was not an easy task, and some of the oral evidence on personal experiences was difficult and distressing to hear. I also thank the witnesses who provided written and oral evidence, particularly those who shared with the Committee their personal experiences of trafficking and prostitution, which was not easy for them. I thank Lord Morrow, who, very helpfully, provided further information and kept the Committee informed of developments relating to the Bill, and the Department of Justice officials who kept us updated with developments relating to the Modern Slavery Bill in Westminster and the related provisions for Northern Ireland.

I believe that today is historic — it is an historic opportunity to seize the moment. Northern Ireland and the Assembly can lead on this issue in the United Kingdom and on the island of Ireland. I hope that Members, as we go through the various debates on the groups of amendments, will reflect and come together to send a clear message. I hope that we will seize the moment to make a difference in our society for the most vulnerable. That is what is at the core of the legislation: the protection and support of the most vulnerable.

I turn now to clauses 1, 2 and 5 and the amendments to introduce new clauses 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 2A. In the evidence received by the Committee, there was support for the clarity provided in clause 1 on the definition of human trafficking. The inclusion of forced labour was also welcomed, with views expressed that all forms of modern-day slavery should be covered under a unified piece of legislation. There was similar support for clause 5, which provides for the inclusion of additional definitions in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 to mirror the EU directive, particularly in relation to forced begging.

During Committee Stage, the Department told the Committee that, as a result of the draft Modern Slavery Bill, which was published by the Home Secretary on 16 December 2013, it was undertaking a consultation on proposals to strengthen the response to human trafficking and slavery in Northern Ireland. The Committee was content with clauses 1 and 5 but noted that the results of the Department’s consultation, which included proposals to simplify and consolidate the legislative framework for human trafficking and slavery offences, would have a bearing on both clauses and that amendments may be needed.

On clause 2, all organisations that submitted evidence agreed that a victim’s consent should be irrelevant in cases of human trafficking or slavery offences. However, there were differing views on whether clause 2 was necessary, given the law already in place. While some were of the opinion that the provision was unnecessary and that enacting it may give rise to complications, others indicated that it was important to provide clarity on when a victim’s consent should be considered irrelevant. They highlighted the 2013 Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group report, which indicated that there seemed to persist an incorrect view that a trafficked person needed to be abducted or forced to come to the United Kingdom against their will.

When Lord Morrow attended a Committee meeting to discuss the Bill, he recognised that there had been considerable debate on whether clause 2 was required but said that, in his view, stating the need for the consent of victims to be irrelevant was important. He also advised the Committee that amendments would be required to the clause, depending on the outcome of the Department’s consultation. The Committee agreed that it was content to support clause 2, but noted that amendments may be needed.

More recently, departmental officials attended a Committee meeting on 10 September 2014 to outline the further work that had been carried out in conjunction with Lord Morrow following the consultation exercise and the range of amendments that is in front of us today. The aim of the amendments, which will replace clauses 1, 2 and 5, is to repeal existing offences and to create a series of new, consolidated offences and definitions relating to human trafficking, exploitation and slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. They will also create new penalties. Amendment No 21 will enable slavery-like and human trafficking offences to be specified as criminal lifestyle offences, which will improve the courts’ ability to confiscate criminal assets. Amendment Nos 22 and 60 will enable the courts to order the forfeiture of land vehicles, ships or aircraft that were used or intended for use in connection with human trafficking or slavery-like offences; and amendment Nos 23 and 61 will make provision for the courts to impose new slavery and trafficking reparation orders under which offenders convicted of the offences under new clauses 1A, 1B or 1D will be required to pay reparation to their victims.

The Committee is content with the approach adopted by Lord Morrow and the Minister, and the new penalties obviously strengthen the ability of the police and the courts to deal with the perpetrators of human trafficking and are therefore very welcome indeed. The Committee also welcomes the fact that the new offences will be triable on indictment only, particularly as we used the Criminal Justice Bill to ensure that that would be the case when the new human trafficking offences where being brought forward at that time, and notes that they clarify that the victim’s consent to any part of an offence under these new clauses is irrelevant, thus delivering the intended effect of clause 2.

The Committee also supports new clause 2A, which will bring the new offences under the scope of the public protection sentencing framework enabling a court, where it considers it necessary, to impose a life sentence, an indeterminate custodial sentence or an extended custodial sentence, with the result that individuals subject to such sentences will also be subject to the relevant release, licence and recall arrangements.

Moving on to clause 3, the key issue is whether the aggravating factors that a court must consider when passing sentence for human trafficking or slavery offences should be set in statute and, if so, whether that will limit judicial discretion or whether sentencing guidelines would be preferable. The evidence received by the Committee indicated that, while a few organisations preferred sentencing guidelines, there was strong support for clause 3 from the majority of respondents, who felt that the aggravating factors should be set out in the Bill and considered that that approach was not inconsistent with judicial discretion.

The Department initially expressed concern that setting aggravating factors in statute would limit flexibility in responding to emerging case law and fetter the discretion of judges and was of the view that sentencing guidelines would be a better vehicle to respond flexibly to case law as it emerged. However, in light of the strong support in the evidence to the Committee, officials advised that the Minister would support clause 3 but indicated that a number of technical amendments were required. When considering clause 3, the Committee noted the opinion of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland that there was no obstacle to the legislature setting out a series of aggravating factors, that it was not inconsistent with judicial discretion in sentencing, and that the sentencing judge retained discretion to consider factors other than those set out by statute in reaching his or her decision on sentence. The Committee agreed that it was content with clause 3, subject to the technical amendments proposed by the Department and which have been brought forward today.

I turn now to clause 4 and the associated amendments brought by Lord Morrow. When the Committee considered clause 4, two particular issues arose: whether the inclusion of a minimum sentence in legislation regarding human trafficking and slavery offences fettered judicial discretion; and the fact that the compulsory minimum sentence applied to children. There was unanimity in the view that it was unacceptable for clause 4 to apply equally to children and adults and that it required amendment to clarify that the minimum sentence provision does not apply to children. The Committee agreed with this view, and Lord Morrow indicated that he intended to bring forward amendments to make the necessary changes, which he has done today.

With regard to whether clause 4 fetters judicial discretion, there was a much wider range of views, with organisations such as the Law Centre, the PSNI and Victim Support expressing concern that the application of minimum sentencing would compromise judicial discretion. Other key stakeholders welcomed the clause, stating that incorporating a minimum sentence in the legislation was a necessary deterrent, that it sent a strong message to the perpetrators of human trafficking, and that the wording used still provided for judges to apply discretion. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission agreed with this interpretation, advising that, in its view, the figure of two years proposed as the minimum sentence was not arbitrary but reflected a subtle increase in current sentencing practice and that the clause allows for judicial discretion because exceptional circumstances are written into it.

From the start, the Minister of Justice indicated to the Committee that he had concerns regarding a compulsory minimum sentence, and he intends to oppose the clause today. When the Committee discussed the clause with departmental officials, they stated that compulsory minimum sentences were rarely specified in law, reflecting the principle that judges should normally be free to take account of all available evidence and the unique circumstances in a particular case, allowing them to reach a decision on sentencing that fits the crime. In their view, clause 4 would restrict the scope for judicial discretion.

When pressed on the issue of judicial discretion by Committee members, officials accepted that clause 4 did not, strictly speaking, introduce a compulsory minimum custodial sentence, as there was qualification to permit judicial discretion, but were of the view that it was better not to have a range of statutory provisions that would then have an exemption in them and that, instead, discretion should be left entirely in the hands of the judiciary.

The Committee availed itself of the opportunity to discuss the concerns raised regarding clause 4 with the Attorney General when he attended in March. He indicated that the clause does not make provision for a hard minimum sentence model, and the provision for the retention of discretion for the judge to impose a sentence below the minimum threshold, where there are exceptional circumstances, allows flexibility for judges to depart from the statutory minimum. He suggested that it might be desirable to include an obligation for reasons to be stated by the judge if a case is considered exceptional, which would strike an appropriate balance between the policy imperative of an effective minimum sentence and the requirement to do justice in the individual case. The Committee for Justice is clear in its support for a robust sentencing framework that reflects the gravity of human trafficking and slavery offences and indicates the seriousness with which such offences are viewed in Northern Ireland.

When considering clause 4, a number of Committee members expressed some reservations about the broad concept of including minimum sentences in legislation. They were concerned that the clause could interfere with judicial discretion in individual cases, that the majority of cases would become exceptional or that appeals in respect of the severity of the sentence based on whether the judge had given appropriate weight to the exceptional circumstances put forward would arise. They indicated that they wished to consider the arguments further before supporting the clause's inclusion in the Bill.

Other Committee members, including me, were content that sufficient qualification is provided to ensure that there is not an absolute minimum sentence and that it does not exclude judicial discretion. We viewed the clause as being persuasive on the court to impose a two-year sentence but not binding on it. We also welcomed the proposal for an amendment to require a judge to state the reasons if a decision is reached that the case is exceptional and the minimum sentence should not be imposed, viewing that as an appropriate mechanism to address concerns around exceptional cases becoming the norm.

The Committee agreed to support clause 4, subject to amendments to restrict a minimum sentence for a human trafficking offence to adults only, to ensure that the sentence is an immediate custodial sentence and not a suspended sentence and to require a court to state the reasons that a case is considered exceptional. Amendment Nos 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 tabled by Lord Morrow address those issues. I hope that the other Committee members who, when we were completing the Committee Stage of the Bill, required further time to reflect on the clause, are able to support its inclusion in the Bill today once it has been amended as outlined.

Clause 7 sets out requirements for investigation and prosecution, including that there must be sufficient training and resources for investigating and prosecuting human trafficking and slavery offences, that a prosecution is not dependent on reporting or accusation by a victim and that a prosecution can take place even if the victim has withdrawn their statement. Most of the organisations that discussed the clause with the Committee recognised the importance of sufficient training and resources for investigating and prosecuting human trafficking and slavery offences, and therefore welcomed this aspect of it, with views expressed that there was not much point in having legislation to tackle human trafficking if the investigators and prosecutors lacked the necessary tools and training to identify victims and prosecute perpetrators.

Further awareness training to recognise the signs and symptoms of trafficking and prostitution, including risks and triggers, was identified as particularly necessary. It was also felt that some amendments to the wording may be required to ensure that responsibility for all the training does not rest solely with the Department of Justice but that all Departments and agencies responsible for investigating or prosecuting human trafficking or slavery offences take appropriate measures.

In contrast, the police indicated that they developed and introduced training packages to educate and assist officers in detecting and investigating human trafficking offences and did not believe that there was a requirement for legislation in this area.

The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) also noted that the legislation placed a responsibility for public prosecutors to be trained and stated that this would require the appropriate Department to provide the PPS with legal training resources.

The Department indicated to the Committee that it recognised the intent behind clause 7 and the importance of providing appropriate training and resources for front line professionals in responding effectively to human trafficking and highlighted that a number of steps had already been taken across the criminal justice system and other front line professions to train and raise awareness of this issue. However, it did have concerns that the wording of the clause placed a statutory duty solely on the Department whereas responsibility for training and equipping investigators and prosecutors rested with a range of law enforcement agencies, some of which fall outside the Department's authority. The Department stated that it would prefer to omit clause 7(1) and amend clause 15 to include a requirement that the strategy under that clause must include matters relating to training, investigation and prosecution, which, in its view, would provide a more strategic response and allow training and resources to be considered under a more comprehensive multi-agency approach.

Lord Morrow subsequently advised the Committee that he had discussed the Department's concerns with officials and was content with the proposal to omit clause 7(1) and address matters relating to training, investigation and prosecution in clause 15. The Committee views the provision of adequate and appropriate training for all front line professionals to enable human trafficking to be tackled effectively as being very important and was therefore content to support the approach agreed by Lord Morrow and the Department of Justice in relation to clause 7(1).

In relation to clause 7, subsections (2) and (3), the PPS advised the Committee that it would apply the test for prosecution in all cases referred by the police regardless of whether the victim reported the offence, made a statement, or withdrew a statement, and highlighted that the PPS policy for prosecuting cases of human trafficking clarified this and the steps to be taken in such circumstances. The Committee agreed to support the provisions in clause 7, subsections (2) and (3), that set out that a prosecution is not dependent on reporting or accusation by a victim and can take place even if the victim has withdrawn their statement, in recognition of the difficulties for victims, some of whom do not even know what country they are in and speak little English, to come forward and give statements and evidence in court and noted that a technical amendment to omit unnecessary words in clause 7(2) was needed.

More recently, Lord Morrow and the Minister of Justice advised the Committee that to assist the structure of the Bill, they intend to remove clause 7 and replace it with new clause 5G, which is set out in amendment 27. As there are no substantive changes being made, the Committee is content with this approach.

Let me speak briefly on amendment 40, which is being brought by the Minister of Finance and Personnel and will introduce a new offence of forced marriage. During the Committee Stage of the Bill, Lord Morrow advised the Committee that he had received a request from the Minister to include this new offence in the Bill. He indicated that the offence was part of the Westminster Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which had recently received Royal Assent and created a new offence of forcing someone to marry against their will. The result of the introduction of the new offence in England and Wales is that Northern Ireland is out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom, and the gap needed to be addressed.

The Committee was supportive of the inclusion of the new provision in the Bill in principle and requested further information on the detail of the proposed new offence from the Department of Finance and Personnel. The Committee subsequently noted the further information on the new offence, which is before us today. It makes sense, therefore, to use this available legislative opportunity to bring about the necessary changes to provide for this new offence and appropriate penalties, and I am sure that the Assembly will support this new provision.

At this stage, those are all the comments I wish to make as Chairman of the Committee. I appreciate that it has taken a little bit of time; however, given that the Committee has a report of 1,200 pages, I will seek to do my best to get all the necessary points put into this particular debate.

Very briefly, as an individual MLA, I will say that obviously in this group the key clause 4 may well divide the House. I concur entirely with the arguments put forward by Lord Morrow in respect of the justification for taking this approach. The evidence has shown, and the Attorney General has recognised it, that it is appropriate for this Parliament to legislate in such a manner. It is not setting a precedent, as Lord Morrow highlighted; it has happened before. Indeed, what is striking in his opinion poll that was conducted during the summer was that a majority of people in Northern Ireland are looking to politicians to legislate for this minimum-sentence approach.

I know there will be some in this House who take the view that that should be entirely the responsibility of judges. However, that is not how the public see it. The public elect us to legislate on their behalf and, if we as politicians decide that there is an issue of significant magnitude that requires a minimum sentence to be put in, then, as the Attorney General said, it is entirely appropriate for politicians to exercise their mandate on behalf of the people in respect of this issue. Therefore, I will be supporting all the positions that Lord Morrow outlined to the House, and I commend them to the House.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First, I obviously welcome Consideration Stage. I am mindful that you have cautioned us that we should stick to the group of amendments. I just have some indulgences and some broad comments. I actually think I want to support the comments that the Chair of the Committee made in relation to the proposer of the Bill, Lord Morrow, and about the obvious amount of work that he has put into this. There is absolutely no doubt that he was very efficient in terms of the Committee and in furnishing people with information. I acknowledge that.

I suppose that even he would acknowledge that the Bill has been changed since its first framing and the first draft, both by what other people have brought to him and in relation to the Modern Slavery Bill, which he talked about. As the Chair said, the Committee report is over 1,000 pages. I also feel that it is worth acknowledging that, at Committee Stage, all of us who were part of that scrutiny heard very many powerful and insightful witnesses, and I have absolutely no doubt that they will go away from this particular exercise knowing that, when they come to scrutiny Committees in the Assembly, they are there to be properly consulted and properly listened to. Obviously, that should then inform whatever opinion we take in the future. Again, there is absolutely no doubt that, running alongside the Justice Committee report, the joint Oireachtas report had very strong viewpoints, and the views expressed in it were also certainly very informative for us on the Sinn Féin Benches.

I heard Lord Morrow on Radio Ulster this morning and I know from one of the briefing documents that he supplied to all Assembly Members and other people that he laid out three very clear aims. All of us are very supportive of the idea that, where there are vulnerable people being exploited, right across the many different aspects and circumstances of trafficking, slavery and exploitation, we as legislators must do something about it. I think that the Bill, in some way, expresses that.

I now turn to the clauses, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In his introduction, Lord Morrow laid out and described the number of changes in the clauses. When you see that, you can see how this is nearly, if not a rewrite of the Bill, certainly a putting of it into a different context and a presenting of it in a different way. He accepts that the Modern Slavery Bill, which is now being processed at Westminster, has put him in a position, along with the Minister, to make a number of changes, which I think helps strengthen the Bill, and also makes it, if you like, easier to read. That is to be welcomed. I heard the Minister commenting that there are not too many occasions where people will say that he and Lord Morrow agree, but they have found common cause here today, and I suppose that is to be welcomed as well.

The Chair very ably and aptly went through the clauses and the amendments, practically one by one. I think he gave a very fair reflection of how the Committee approached it and the position that the Committee took on all the proposed changes in this group. In brief outline, we welcome, particularly in clauses 1A, 1C and 1D, this idea of a new offence of slavery to include servitude and forced or compulsory labour. I think the Committee at one stage, if it did not have a concern, certainly pointed out that it believed that forced and compulsory labour is a part of this exploitation that perhaps needed to be addressed. When people talk about forced or compulsory labour, it does not always necessarily mean that it is by physical force. It can be psychological or just circumstance. So, we welcome that provision as well.

There is a very clear definition in the Bill, and that is to be welcomed, around what constitutes exploitation in relation to human trafficking, and, in terms of clause 1D, we welcome the fact that there are what Lord Morrow outlined as preparatory offences. He talked about the technical amendments in clause 2A, and, again, we would welcome that streamlining or bringing the sentencing processes under the dangerous offenders Act of 2008. That sends a very clear signal as to the Bill's intention to see human trafficking and exploitation as a serious offence that should be taken seriously by the courts.

I suppose that leads me to clause 4. At the Committee, that was maybe the issue, apart from clause 6, which we will talk about later on, that perhaps had the most conversation. We believe in principle that the idea of minimum sentences is not an appropriate one. We believe that it should be at the discretion of the judge in that judicial process. We listened very carefully, and I think that it has been laid out very clearly today that the offences that are being committed are serious, should be seen by the courts as serious and the appropriate sentence should be given for the appropriate offence. That is why we find it difficult to move away from the principle of not having a minimum sentence.

People might make a strong argument that this is a serious offence and an offence that most people are totally abhorred by, but I do not think that the circumstance should prevail where there is a minimum sentence for this that does not apply to other serious crimes. We are mindful of the MORI poll, and I am not saying that the question was loaded, but it was certainly framed in a particular way. Perhaps the question that should be asked is whether people agree with the principle that sentencing should be at the discretion of the court. You might get a better view from that. In this instance, I accept what the poll said, but we feel that, in principle, it should be left to the judge.

In the amendments that Lord Morrow has tabled, he accepts that there are circumstances that, I think, are described in the amendments as "exceptional". I think that the MORI poll said "very exceptional", but the amendment just says "exceptional". Although we believe that that is some attempt to except it, there are circumstances in other legislation that has come through the House where people have pointed out that, if you had a minimum sentence, there may be something unforeseen or a particular circumstance that is not catered for by the way that the legislation is framed. The word "exceptional" could be a minefield for different people in the process, be it the defence or the prosecution, to say, "We do not believe this is exceptional" or, "We do believe this is exceptional". We think that the principle of judicial discretion is the best way to take it forward. So, we will support the Department in relation to clause 4 not standing part of the Bill, but, if that fails, we will be supportive of the idea of the exceptional circumstances. I say that to put it on the record.

I will briefly touch on a number of other amendments. We support amendment No 40, which has been tabled by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. There is absolutely no doubt that the idea of forced marriage, as laid out in the amendment, is a form of exploitation. That needs to be addressed, and I think that this is the appropriate vehicle to do it. As the Chair touched on in the latter part of his contribution, we certainly support training with the proper resources and the servicing of that training, so that you have a very good approach in the investigation and in the prosecutorial processes in relation to this. It is good that it is being put into the Bill so that it becomes a requirement rather than people just feeling that it is something that they should do. If we are to make laws and want them to have a particular effect, there is no point in framing a law when those who are charged with enforcing it do not have the resources, do not see it as a priority or do not put in the proper training. That in itself creates a gap, which means that the law is very good and appropriate on paper but, in a contradictory way, is ineffectual.

We support the inclusion of the amendment whereby a prosecution should not rely on a victim's statement, and nor should that be a reason for a prosecution not proceeding. Many people who are involved in human trafficking and find themselves here as part of that experience are from different countries, different cultures and speak different languages, and the Bill caters for that adequately and appropriately.

In summary, we support most of the amendments in the first group. We have reservations with the concept or principle of a minimum sentence and who should have the ability to do that. Is it the legislator or the sentencing provision through to the judicial process? At present, we favour the judicial process.

Mr A Maginness: I thank Lord Morrow for introducing the Bill and for his hard work in realising it. It is faithful to the European directive on human trafficking, and it is important that we apply this into our domestic law. Lord Morrow has done a wonderful job. The work with the departmental officials has been outstanding. There has been a very good partnership between the Department and Lord Morrow. Some issues still divide Lord Morrow and the Department, but the bulk of the Bill is as perfected as it could be in the circumstances, and the original deficiencies have now been remedied by the amendments that have been tabled by Lord Morrow and the Justice Minister. That represents a good deal of good political work, and I believe that the Justice Committee fully supports that, and the Chairperson was sympathetic to that point of view. The Justice Committee has also done a tremendous amount of work on the Bill, and it is a great credit to the Chair, the Deputy Chair and Committee members.

When I was Chair of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I used to say that it was the best Committee in the House. I suppose that it still remains the best Committee in the House. I could not venture to say otherwise in front of the current Chair of the Committee. However, I think that the Justice Committee is probably almost the best Committee in the House. We did good work, which overcame party division. It is important to remember that in the House today.

I will not delay too long, because there is an awful lot of work to be done in relation to the Bill. The SDLP is very supportive of the amendments that have been tabled by Lord Morrow in the first group. As far as the definition of human trafficking and slavery offences is concerned, sensible amendments have been tabled, which to some extent reflect the Modern Slavery Bill, and it is important to have consistency on those matters.

I think that consent being irrelevant for the victim of human trafficking or slavery offences is very important. This is a heinous offence. Witnesses and victims can be intimidated, perhaps not directly but by force of circumstances: for example, the threat of deportation. It is important that consent is not necessary. Also, in clause 3, aggravating factors is a very sensible —

Mr B McCrea: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: Yes, I will indeed.

Mr B McCrea: I am struck by that argument, and I am interested in the Member's opinion on it. A number of cases of human trafficking have been brought to the courts recently, and one concerned a person who voluntarily arranged transportation. In other words, people were consensually working together. There was a guilty verdict at the conclusion of that case, but I am worried about the Member's thoughts on consent when two people willingly do something together. Are we sure that we do not need a little more oversight of what the law has to say about the matter?

Mr A Maginness: My point is that, if you have a situation in which proving the offence is entirely dependent on the consent of the victim, in those circumstances, that would be entirely wrong. I think that that is important. Here are people, perhaps the most vulnerable in the world, being subjected to this horrendous situation. Surely it is too much to expect that there would be consent in those circumstances.

There is no doubt that we make exceptions in the Bill, but the abhorrence of what is happening throughout the world and affecting our situation here in this region is such that we have to take an exceptional view in the legislation. I make no apology for that, and I think that we have to protect the most vulnerable people in the world.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: Yes, indeed, Mr Wilson.

Mr Wilson: Does the Member also accept that, given the nature of some of the gangs who operate in human trafficking and the fact that they may have a hold not just on the victims but sometimes on the victims' families back home, the issue of consent is much more blurred than the Member suggested in his earlier intervention?

Mr A Maginness: I agree entirely with what the Member has said, and I think that the House should take that into consideration.

Mr B McCrea: Will the Member give way?

Mr A Maginness: Yes, of course, Mr McCrea.

Mr B McCrea: I totally accept the Member's point and the point that Mr Wilson has just raised about the nature of oppression, but there is an issue of principle here that interests me. If you were able to say that there was no coercion, hidden or otherwise, and that it is an act between two individuals in full consent — the case that I spoke about was dealt with by law — whereby one person willingly makes travel arrangements for another person, who willingly consents to some form of activity that we would not approve of, the fact is that they agreed to do something. I wonder about the general principle of where the state or the legislature interferes in consensual relationships between people.

Mr A Maginness: With respect to the Member, I think that he might be confusing the issue a little. I do not think that the circumstances that he outlined, in which there is a purely voluntary arrangement, could be characterised as human trafficking.

Mr Givan: I thank the Member for giving way. Unfortunately, I think that the other Member for Lagan Valley has taken a predetermined position on this debate. He clearly does not understand the amendments that are being debated and that we will subsequently vote on. This is about consent or otherwise in a statement being used for a prosecution. It is nothing to do with the circumstances that he referred to. It would be helpful of the Member read what we are dealing with and made a contribution that was relevant.

Mr B McCrea: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find it difficult to engage in debate with the Member through another Member. You might give some direction as to how one might deal with such a situation.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): That is not a point of order. However, if there is any value in your statement, I will certainly take it on board.

Mr A Maginness: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try to complete my remarks before Question Time.

I believe that the list of aggravating factors for the court to consider for the purposes of sentencing is comprehensive. It may well be that, in the circumstances, the court would have taken most of those into consideration anyway, but there is no harm in putting into statute the factors that the court should take into consideration.

I move on to clause 4, which is probably the most contentious clause dealt with by this group of amendments. My colleagues and I in the SDLP take the view that judicial discretion is very important, should be respected and that, in most ordinary circumstances, should be absolute. However, there are certain circumstances in which there are minimum sentences. Lord Morrow referred to those and gave examples such as firearms offences, excess alcohol, automatic disqualifications and those sorts of things. In this instance, we are talking about two years and a provision that should send out a very strong message to those who involve themselves in human trafficking that the courts will take a very severe view of it and that there would be a minimum sentence for the courts to apply.

If that was the absolute position, our party would object to it. However, it is not an absolute position because Lord Morrow has brought an element of judicial discretion into the Bill in so far as there are exceptional circumstances. I believe that that is a fair balance and that it provides the necessary judicial discretion. Such is the nature of this crime that we have to send out a very strong message nationally and internationally. That is important, and that is why it is included in the Bill and why we are supportive of it.

For those who seek reassurance on that point, the matter was discussed very thoroughly in the Committee. I refer to paragraph 75 of the Committee's report on the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Further Provisions and Support for Victims) Bill. It states that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission:

— that is human trafficking offences. Paragraph 75 continues:

Paragraph 76 of the same report states that in its oral evidence, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission:

I concur with the view expressed by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. This is exceptional. We accept that it is exceptional and that it is not the ordinary run-of-the-mill. If it were, we would object to it. There are some limitations, but a degree of judicial discretion is permitted, and we believe that that should satisfy the concerns about clause 4.

I will end fairly quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker. Other aspects — assets recovery, reparation orders on the perpetrator and compensation for the victim coming from moneys from or properties owned by the perpetrator — all those things in the Bill are good and important, and it is important that we support them as well.

We support amendment No 40, on forced marriage, tabled by the Minister of Finance and Personnel. It is reflective of legislation at Westminster, and it is important to include it in our domestic legislation and in this Bill.

I do not think that there are any further points that I can make on the first group of amendments, so I will conclude there.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): I may have to interrupt you, Mr Elliott, at 2.00 pm, when Question Time begins.

Mr Elliott: That is fine, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not mind at all if you interrupt me. You are quite welcome to do that. However I hope that you will, as you did other Members, give me a wee bit of leeway to discuss the overall Bill at the start.

I congratulate Lord Morrow on getting progress on the Bill thus far. It has been an interesting project so far, and I am sure that it has been time-consuming for him. It has created a huge amount of discussion, let alone debate. In various areas out in the community and in the Justice Committee, and, I am sure, in the Department of Justice as well, there have been many soul-searching discussions around the rights, wrongs and merits of some aspects of the Bill.

On many occasions, I have been asked whether I support the Bill, and I have always maintained that I support its principle and ethos, as I am sure that most people do. However, as other Members have said, the Bill has undergone some major surgery in the past number of months, and it is interesting that we have a list of amendments that is over five times the length of the Bill as introduced. Anyway, it is good that Lord Morrow, the Department of Justice and the Minister have been working well together, and, hopefully, they will bring about a better conclusion.

Mr Wilson: I may have picked up the Member wrongly, given the tone of the remarks that he made about the amendments. Does he not accept that all Bills go through extensive amendments and that, rather than that being a fault of the Bill or its original intention, it reflects well on the seriousness with which the issue has been dealt with by Lord Morrow and those who scrutinised the legislation at Committee Stage?

Mr Elliott: I thank the Member for that. I said that I welcome the working-together of Lord Morrow, the Minister and the Department of Justice in bringing forward what may be better proposals. I totally accept that point.

On the matter of the first group of amendments, I acknowledge that a large number of them have been worked out between Lord Morrow and the Department of Justice, and, by and large, the Ulster Unionist Party supports them. Some of the more controversial aspects, as we have heard, are around clause 4 and the principle of setting minimum sentences. However, I acknowledge that Lord Morrow has carried this out in the right way, in that he has allowed for some judicial discretion. I support the issue of minimum sentencing, but I also support judicial discretion being applied in exceptional circumstances.

If Members have any doubt about supporting clause 4, they should look at a recent case in Craigavon Magistrates' Court, where a gangmaster was sentenced to payment of £500. That was someone who had committed crimes against a number of Romanian workers, who had to pick apples and scavenge in bins, for which they were given poverty wages. He charged them to live in an unheated shed. He was fined just £500. He actually charged them for living in that shed, which was unfit for human habitation.

I am pleased that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority said that it was shocked and appalled by the leniency of that punishment. It has indicated that it will appeal the sentence, and I hope it will. So, if anybody has any doubt about the potential of minimum sentencing, they should reflect on that case.

Under amendment Nos 17 and 18, where the minimum sentence is not imposed, the court is required to explain why and record the exceptional circumstances that apply. I envisage some interesting outworkings of that and look forward to seeing some of the explanations as to why courts do not impose the minimum sentences. I intervened when the Lord Morrow was speaking earlier to ask whether he had seen any guidelines that could potentially be utilised in those two amendments. That will be a judicial issue; it will be up to the judges and the courts to decide. However, I can see some interesting outcomes of it.

By and large, we support the amendments in this group. Hopefully, people will reflect on their opposition to clause 4 in light of the non-custodial sentence that was handed down in the case I mentioned.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Dallat): Order. As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm. I suggest that the House takes its ease until then. This debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Stewart Dickson.

Mr P Robinson (The First Minister): We are aware that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is working on resolving an outstanding legal impediment relating to the ownership of the historic barracks that form part of the St Lucia site. OFMDFM officials met Ministry of Defence officials in November 2013. However, the MoD has not responded to subsequent follow-up correspondence.

We fully recognise the significance of the historic buildings for the town of Omagh and the potential that they may have to contribute to the development of the area. However, in the current financial climate, we need to ensure that any future use of the St Lucia site and the listed buildings is affordable and sustainable. With that in mind, OFMDFM officials continue to discuss the potential uses of the site with officials from organisations with an interest, including the Department for Social Development and Omagh District Council.

Mr Hussey: Would the First Minister confirm whether the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister would support local groups that, during the decade of centenaries, would like to use the barracks' square as part of that commemoration?

Mr P Robinson: I would of course. The Department has not considered the matter, but, subject to the legal issues between the MoD and the past owner being resolved, I see no reason why it should not be used for that purpose. There is, I understand, a memorial within the site, and I am sure that access to that would be much appreciated by people locally.

Mr Buchanan: Given that the council is keen to have something happen on the site but funds are limited, what are the options?

Mr P Robinson: The first requirement is for the MoD to resolve the legal issues as to whether the previous owner wants to take the site back into ownership or whether it is free for the MoD to transfer. If they offer it on transfer, clearly Omagh District Council would be one of the key partners that would have an interest in the issue. There may even be an interest in part of the site from the private sector or in partnership with DSD and Omagh District Council. Those are the possibilities, but we have to get over the first impediment. Some Members think that OFMDFM is slow at getting replies out. Well, meet the MoD. We are still waiting for our reply from last November.

Mr Milne: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. What is the current position on the Shackleton Barracks site at Ballykelly?

Mr P Robinson: The deputy First Minister and I rescued it from a use that would not have maximised its funding centrally to the Assembly and Executive or the level of jobs that could be brought into the area. We have put it out for expressions of interest, and we received over 40, principally from the private sector, although there are some partnerships and public sector interests.

I have seen expressions of interest that indicate that 1,000 or 2,000 jobs could be created in the area. Indeed, there would be a significant income for the Executive. However, we decided that it is best that we look at dividing the site into lots because there is an interest in the site from, for instance, the Department of Agriculture and DRD. There are also different private sector interests that do not conflict with each other. In the next few days, the deputy First Minister and I will look at actioning that proposal, which is to put it out for public interest and see what bids come in.

Mr P Robinson: Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer this question.

Mr Bell (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister): With your permission, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answers questions 2 and 4 together.

Funding has been committed to 23 projects, with the latest costs — following cost-validation exercises since letters of offer were issued — totalling £34·4 million. We are working with the projects' lead partners on preconditions associated with their social investment fund (SIF) funding. Once these have been met, we will be able to authorise delivery start dates.

One project has started in the northern zone: the Causeway rural and urban network capital project is for the development of a charity hub. Two others — one in the Londonderry zone and the other in Belfast east zone — are close to getting approval to proceed. The Londonderry community work programme is a revenue project designed to provide long-term placements for the long-term unemployed, specifically those on the margins, such as the under-25s, while the Belfast east Bryson Street capital project will create a purpose-built community doctors' surgery on a brownfield site. The surgery will provide state-of-the-art facilities for the local community in an area of high deprivation. It is anticipated that both projects will get off the ground in the near future.

We are exploring options in relation to the remaining zonal allocations, taking account of the levels of investment across the zones, community planning and the current financial position.

Mr Givan: I welcome that answer from the junior Minister, particularly when you consider that the quantum of moneys being talked about is £34·4 million. The Minister will be aware of the Resurgam Trust in my constituency. It is a grass-roots, community-led organisation that is professionally delivering, alongside other communities, in places such as Old Warren, the Low Road, Hillhall, Ballymacash and the Maze. It is making a really big difference in those communities. He will be aware of the successful application for one of the projects to do with SIF. Can he provide the House with an update of progress in taking forward the projects in my constituency?

Mr Bell: I am happy to do that, and I pay tribute to the trust for the work that it is doing with people who are most in need.

There are five projects in the south eastern zone. They include Laganview, which is aiming to create the healthy living centre in the Old Warren estate in Lisburn. A project aims to develop the family centre in Twinbrook, and SIF is part-funding this, alongside the Department for Social Development. The early years work aims to reduce the risk factors linked to educational underachievement and focuses on the transition stages at preschool, primary and post-primary levels, and that will be implemented right across the south eastern zone. In west Lisburn, there is an aim to redevelop the existing community centre — again, in the Old Warren estate — as a dedicated youth facility. Then there is the Cloona House project, which aims to redevelop the building as a headquarters for the Colin Neighbourhood Partnership, to allow the delivery of an extensive range of community services.

All the above projects, with the exception of Twinbrook, have a signed and returned letter of offer in place, and officials are working with the lead partners to meet the conditions. Twinbrook is being managed by DSD, and funding will be committed through that Department.

Mr Lunn: I thank the junior Minister for his answers to Mr Givan; obviously, we share an interest in that constituency. Can the junior Minister give us any sort of guarantee that this fund will be fully utilised in this financial year and that there will not be any underspend that may go to waste?

Mr Bell: It is an important question. Funding has been allocated to 23 projects to date, with the most up-to-date costs totalling, as I outlined, £34·4 million. Spend to date has been focusing on the work that is necessary to take forward the individual projects. We have looked at all the projects as they stand and at the total budget, and I am confident that a number of projects are about to receive their letter of offer. A further 22 projects will be examined. I am very keen that those projects are fully examined and come to fruition. I am confident, as far as I can be, that that fund will be fully utilised. If any project does not make it, there are other projects in the pipeline that will then be considered. Given what it was set up to do — to tackle deprivation and dereliction — I am fully confident that we can spend all the money.

Mr Spratt: I welcome the fact that a number of letters of offer have gone out in my constituency. Will the junior Minister assure the House that the £80 million will be protected to ensure that all the letters of offer will come to fruition?

Mr Bell: The money has been set aside and is targeted at where it is most needed. As I said, I am confident that that money will be fully utilised to tackle issues that have been raised in different zones.

Mr Attwood: At the end of your answer to the original question, you referred to current financial issues. Given that £34·4 million has been committed, are you hinting that OFMDFM will not be able to commit the balance or part of the balance of the moneys up to £80 million?

Mr Bell: No, is the short answer. The £80 million has been protected and is set to deliver on the projects. There is no hint whatsoever of that. As I said, the money has been allocated with the letters of offer. A number of projects are awaiting their letter of offer, and those are fairly imminent. Some £27 million remains. Twenty-two projects are being analysed in relation to that, which would take us to the full amount. If any of those projects were to drop off, there are other projects in the pipeline.

Mr Elliott: I thank the junior Minister for his answers so far. He mentioned a number of the zones, including the northern zone, the south-eastern zone and the Londonderry zone. Will he update me on the western zone, particularly the allocations that have gone out so far and the projects that are close to commencement?

Mr Bell: I am delighted that the old saying is true: all politics is local. In the western zone, we have Work Ready West, which is a revenue project that has been allocated £2·2 million There is SATCHEL, which is a Sure Start revenue project that has been allocated £1·3 million. There is also Fermanagh House, which is a capital project that has been allocated £0·9 million.

Mr P Robinson: Securing the power to lower corporation tax is a key priority for the Executive to promote the growth of the local economy. As part of our economic pact that we signed last year, the United Kingdom Government indicated the intention to make a decision on the devolution of corporation tax powers no later than the coming autumn statement, which will be on 3 December. Since the Scottish referendum last month, we have made clear our expectations regarding further fiscal devolution for Northern Ireland. That has involved discussions with the Secretary of State, and we have also written to the Prime Minister to press him to come to a decision quickly to ensure the swift devolution of corporation tax powers to Northern Ireland.

Mr Wilson: Given the refusal of Sinn Féin and the SDLP in particular, and, to a lesser extent, the Ulster Unionist Party, to face up to the Assembly's budgetary pressures, does the First Minister have any fear that we may find ourselves in a situation in which corporation tax powers are devolved, but we are unable to deliver on a reduction of the rate because of the financial shambles imposed on the Executive by the refusal of those parties to engage in serious debate on the Budget?

Mr P Robinson: I say to my friend that my fear is not so much that the powers are devolved and we have difficulty implementing them thereafter; my fear is that Treasury might say that it expects a certain level of fiscal management responsibility and that it will therefore hold back from devolving those powers. I am sure — I say this in order to satisfy the concerns of Treasury — that the real difference between welfare reform and corporation tax is that there is unanimity around the Executive table on corporation tax. I am convinced that, if given the power, we will be able to deal with that in a unanimous manner around the Executive table.

I point out that we will obviously require legislation to go through Westminster, probably in much the same way as a money Bill would go through the House of Commons and the Lords. Even after that, there are considerable processes, particularly the procurement of the necessary IT equipment, which would probably mean that it would be, at the earliest, the end of 2016 or early 2017 before it could be implemented on the ground.

Mr Nesbitt: Notwithstanding the long wait, does the First Minister believe that, should the power be devolved, we are ready in terms of A-grade office accommodation, skill sets in the workforce and what some economists might consider other structural flaws in our set-up?

Mr G Robinson: It would be unfair to suggest that DETI and Invest have been anything other than the jewel in the crown of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, and, indeed, of Northern Ireland itself. They have been out there hammering away at bringing in jobs and have done so successfully. They have beaten every target that we set for them. They have brought in more jobs over this period than at any time in the history of Northern Ireland and more foreign direct investment per head of population than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, including London. So, they have done a first-class job. Do I have some concerns that there are areas of infrastructure that we need to do more about? Yes, I have, particularly office space, which he mentioned. We have been so successful that we have started to soak up all of the available office space. The planners and developers need to up their game to ensure that we can continue with the level of growth that we have been successful in bringing to Northern Ireland thus far.

Mr Lynch: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. What discussions has OFMDFM had with the Scottish Executive, and what tax-varying powers are being considered for the North of Ireland?

Mr G Robinson: The deputy First Minister and I had breakfast this morning with the First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond. Both of us had a previous conversation with him as part of our business trip to Gleneagles, when we discussed with him elements of devolution; spoke to a major company that was looking to bring hundreds of jobs into Northern Ireland; and had discussions with the European Tour about the two visits of the Irish Open to Northern Ireland. Tomorrow, we leave here for a meeting on Wednesday with Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of Wales, on the same subject.

There is probably recognition that the same type of devolution will not be suitable for all three jurisdictions. Therefore, we need to be satisfied of what is best for us, just as Scotland and Wales will do for themselves. The hope and expectation is that there will be some commonality of approach in ensuring that we have the very best form of devolution for each of the three jurisdictions as we move forward.

In terms of what tax-raising powers we are looking at, we are looking at them all. What we come down on and which taxes are appropriate to be devolved will, ultimately, be a matter for the Executive.

Mr Eastwood: I note what the First Minister said about corporation tax. What are the Executive doing to address the very clear regional imbalances in economic development and job creation?

Mr P Robinson: I am glad to say that we have, through Invest Northern Ireland, been encouraging investment in every part of Northern Ireland. I think that the Member recognises that it is much easier in the greater Belfast area. I know that some people are very seriously considering job potential in the north-west. I hope that we can have announcements on that in the future.

There is no part of Northern Ireland, including the north-west, that anybody on the Executive — certainly not the deputy First Minister and I — would do anything other than encourage people to move to. I want to see everybody in Northern Ireland gainfully employed. I am glad to see that for 21 consecutive months, the claimant count has been going down in Northern Ireland. I am glad to see that we are back down to 6·1% unemployment and that it is hopefully still moving further down. All of that is a good sign. I want people to be employed as much in the north-west as in any other part of Northern Ireland.

Mr McCallister: From his discussions with the Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, the First Minister will know whether Scotland are pursuing corporation tax. Is he aware that no work has been done by either DETI or DFP on the impact that Scotland's getting corporation tax would have on Northern Ireland's receiving it or indeed the level at which it should be set? Is that a matter of concern to him?

Mr P Robinson: No. What would have been a matter of concern is that if DETI and its various advisers had not done a lot of work to see what benefit there would be to Northern Ireland if corporation tax powers were to be devolved. They have, and the economic advisers indicate that our benefit could be around 58,000 jobs. That is a significant benefit to Northern Ireland.

I am not convinced that Scotland can make the same strong case as Northern Ireland to have the devolution of corporation tax. In Northern Ireland, we have a devolved government that is coming out of a long period of conflict and division, which makes us a special case. We have a land frontier with another nation that has a very low level of corporation tax compared with that of the UK. That is a disadvantage and a uniqueness in our case. I think that, for many reasons, Northern Ireland stands apart as having a strong case for the devolution of corporation tax. I have no doubt that the First Minister of Scotland and his successor will push to have the devolution of corporation tax, but I think that we have a far better chance of getting it than they do.

Mr P Robinson: The Together: Building a United Community strategy, published on 23 May 2013, reflects the Executive's commitment to improving community relations and continuing the journey towards a more united and shared society.

Work is progressing across all seven headline actions that were announced alongside the publication of the strategy. One of the headline actions is the creation of 10 shared education campuses. The programme was launched by the Department of Education in January 2014, and it received 16 applications under the first call for expressions of interest. In July 2014, the first three projects to be supported were announced. They are shared STEM and sixth-form facilities, incorporating St Mary's High School, Limavady and Limavady High School; a shared education campus, incorporating Moy Regional Controlled Primary School and St John's Primary School, Moy; and a shared education campus, incorporating Ballycastle High School and Cross and Passion College, Ballycastle. Those projects are now proceeding to full business case.

A second call for expressions of interest opened on 1 October 2014, with submissions due by 30 January 2015. An announcement of the second tranche of shared education campuses is expected to be made in June 2015. In addition to the Together: Building a United Community commitment of 10 shared campuses, the Lisanelly shared education campus programme is also being progressed. The first phase of construction, which is at Arvalee School and Resource Centre, is expected to begin early next year. Work is continuing to prepare the site, and excellent progress is also being made in developing the overall exemplar of campus design.

Mr McAleer: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. What progress has been made on the provision of 100 summer camps? Will those be available for young people outside Belfast?

Mr P Robinson: I thank the Member for his question. Progress is being made on all the areas that were recognised in the seven actions that are being taken forward. We have committed to creating 100 such school or summer camps in 2015. Work is under way to ensure that we meet that commitment. Intervention activities took place in the summer of 2014, and those will continue at Halloween this year. Following an evaluation of the programmes and other related activities, a full and final programme will be developed and rolled out in all council areas from summer 2015. The programme will build on the many existing examples of good practice that are operating in the community across the country.

Mr Byrne: I thank the First Minister for his answers on Lisanelly. Will he state whether all the capital moneys can be put in place in a sequenced order to make sure that the schools that want to go there can avail themselves of the opportunity as soon as possible?

Mr P Robinson: We almost had the embarrassing situation of having money offered to us without us having the ability to spend it on Lisanelly, simply because of the timing of the programme. We have been successful in getting money — as part of the economic pact, along with our own funds — to move on with the Arvalee site proposal. Work is still being done at design stage for the other schools that are going on to the site. Ultimately, it will be a matter for the Minister to make bids for the capital budget. I will say that our capital budget is not in as difficult a place as our revenue budget is for the future, so hopefully a programme can be worked out. I have no doubt that the Minister of Education will argue his case strongly for funding for that purpose.

Miss M McIlveen: Further to those answers, what options are available for schools where physical collocation is not possible?

Mr P Robinson: The deputy First Minister and I are passionately supportive of the shared education proposals. They are a recognition that we have to deal with the situation as it is at present. While he and I might have wanted an overall and immediate integration of education across Northern Ireland, we have to work within the parameters of our present circumstances. That, quite frankly, means that, while we are rolling out the shared education campuses, many schools simply would not have a partner in their area to avail themselves of the benefits of a shared campus. In those circumstances, we are rolling out proposals that look at having shared classes and shared extracurricular activity, be it sport or other elements. On some occasions, there are possibilities for us to go well beyond that.

The deputy First Minister and I recently announced that we have £25 million for a scheme as a result of a very generous offer from Atlantic Philanthropies. That will allow us to make progress on those kinds of schemes. Where departmental funds might have been difficult on the revenue side over the next three or four years, Atlantic Philanthropies' kind giving will allow us to make progress in precisely those areas — revenue — as opposed to in capital areas.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: We possibly have time for a question but no supplementary questions.

Mr P Robinson: We are pleased to confirm that we have made significant progress in our relationship with the People's Republic of China and on opening an Executive office in Beijing. The director of the Northern Ireland Bureau started work in Beijing on 1 September. He has been assigned, on an interim basis, the primary objective of setting up the office, establishing contact with key Departments and stakeholder organisations, and exploring opportunities for mutually beneficial partnerships with regions across China.

Logistical arrangements are being finalised with the Chinese Government for the location of the office itself. The many administrative and protocol issues that are inevitably associated with such a project are being addressed. A number of encouraging initial meetings with government officials, businesses and agricultural organisations and local government bodies have also taken place.

The Executive's decision to open an office in China has been very well received within the Chinese Government and by the business sector. The deputy First Minister and I hope to further consolidate this growing relationship with the Chinese Government when we visit China in the near future to officially launch the Northern Ireland bureau and its services.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move onto 15 minutes of topical questions.

Mr P Robinson: As Members are aware — at least, they should be — the talks process has begun. The Secretary of State has had initial meetings with the parties. I, personally, hope that she will widen it out beyond the Executive parties. If we are dealing with matters of Assembly and Executive budgets, welfare reform and the structures of the Assembly, parties other than the Executive parties have just as much a right to have their say. They may not get their way, just as some of us will not be able to get all that we want, but they should be heard at the very least.

During my party's meeting with the Secretary of State, we tabled a proposal on welfare reform. I look forward to the opportunity to talk to the other political parties about what we propose in that process. It is essential that we resolve this issue. I do not think that now is a time for us to be scoring party political points on it. A serious engagement now needs to take place. I want to make it very clear from my party's point of view that we genuinely want to get a satisfactory outcome to all the outstanding issues during the talks.

Mr Irwin: I thank the First Minister for his reply. Could the First Minister give an update on the date for reaching a conclusion to the talks?

Mr P Robinson: I know that the Secretary of State has optimistically suggested that we can deal with all of the issues by the end of November; would that it could be so. By the end of November, we will want, at the very least, to have made very considerable progress on the financial issues involved. We have looming Budget deadlines, and therefore we need to reach some conclusions as a result of the discussions. Apart from the discussions that we will have within the Executive and between Executive parties, there is a need for us to resolve with Her Majesty's Government some budgetary matters, not least the fact that our Budget in Northern Ireland has been virtually static since 2009 while pressures have been growing and costs have been increasing.

Mr P Robinson: I think that you should be declaring an interest as well, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. The answer is that, yes, I could but, no, I will not. However, if the Member has a quiet word with the deputy First Minister, I think that he will indicate to him that we have had conversations that indicate that there is a very real interest that would be pretty substantial for the north-west. However, as with all of these issues and as the deputy First Minister knows as a fisherman, you have to wait until the fish is landed and in your hands on the bank before you say too much about it.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: And make sure that you have a licence.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the First Minister for his answer. Double confirmation is double confirmation, as they say. Does the First Minister agree that job creation and the expansion of the university are two of the main planks that will assist the regeneration of the north-west in line with the Programme for Government?

Mr P Robinson: I am very sympathetic to the case for Magee, which, I assume, is what he is talking about. I was one of those who felt strongly that, if we could do it financially, there should be an increase in the cap. I also strongly believe that that increase should take place in the STEM subjects. I have argued that, if, in the future, some of what we have to do in difficult financial times is about reducing public expenditure by reducing the number of people who work in the public services and if we are going to have a voluntary exit scheme, we will need to ensure that the private sector is bolstered in order to take up the slack. The only way you can do that is through the work that DEL and DETI are doing: getting people with the necessary qualifications to take the jobs that are coming into Northern Ireland and, at the same time, ensuring that we have the jobs coming in to be filled, as DETI is doing. I am strongly of the view that we need to continue to have the growth of students coming out with the necessary qualifications for the above-medium salary levels that we are now attracting to Northern Ireland. That can only be done with the support of our universities, including Magee.

Mr P Robinson: I think the House knows that the Minister's predecessor brought legislation to the Assembly. There has not been agreement around the Executive table on how to take welfare reform forward. However, I point out to everyone in the House that it is not the Bill that is the problem; the House could easily pass the Bill without violence to the principles of anybody on either side of the House. It is the regulations that flow from the Bill that would be the issue.

We have an Executive convention of not bringing legislation to the Assembly unless the Executive are agreed on that legislation. Maybe that is one of the issues that parties will want to consider when we are talking about the arrangements at Stormont. I have heard requests from several parties in the Assembly that we bring the Bill to the Assembly. That seems to be a change in the convention, and it would mean that any Minister could bring a Bill to the Chamber, even if it did not have the agreement of the Executive. I think that we need to be careful about any precedent that is set. There may well be a time, if we are encouraged sufficiently, when we will bring the Bill to the Assembly, but the worst of all circumstances is bringing a Bill to the Assembly, having it defeated and ending up in circumstances where there is no route out of our present difficulties.

Mr Dunne: I thank the First Minister for his answer. Has he any proposals on how welfare reform can be progressed?

Mr P Robinson: "Lots", I think, is the answer to that. Taking into account the position adopted by other parties, I think there still is a way forward, provided that people are prepared to come forward with a reasonable outcome. Nobody will get everything that they want in this proposition. My party voted against many aspects of the Bill at Westminster in the Commons and in the Lords. However, we recognise that there is a balance. We have to protect the most vulnerable, but they are affected in two ways. Some will be affected by any reduction that would take place in their welfare payments, but most will be affected if there is a substantial reduction in public services and the health service, the education service and the Police Service get run down as a result of £1,000 million being taken out of our block grant. We need to balance those issues and make sure that we do something that is in the best interests. Although it may be difficult for some in our society, we need to do the best that we can for all of them. The bottom line on the issue is that, if we do not succeed in doing this and, as a result, the future of the Assembly and Executive is threatened, we would not be able to provide any protection at all to the most vulnerable under direct rule. They would not get the enhanced deal that is on offer.

Mr P Robinson: I have never known any talks or negotiations that have succeeded without there being compromise on both sides, and I think that there the Member encapsulates it — on both sides. Of course there needs to be goodwill, and of course parties need to roll up their sleeves and get down to the work. That is why I am pleased that my colleagues and I were the first and only party to put a serious submission to the Secretary of State.

Mr Lunn: I thank the First Minister for that answer. Will he agree that it would have been a good start and a good gesture of goodwill to allow the election of a Speaker to proceed last week?

Mr P Robinson: When you have agreements, one agreement is valued as much as another. I made it clear last week that we stand over and will honour both of our agreements. We believe that, as one is being put into the talks process, the other should too. Hopefully, in a few weeks, we can come back and do exactly that on both agreements.

Mr P Robinson: That is something that, I think, will be fast remedied by the proposals that we are now looking at. I suppose that the answer to it has something to do with the ambition of the Executive in relation to the number of new projects that have been commenced. However, it is very clear that, with 120,000 public servants in Northern Ireland for a population of 1·8 million people, we certainly can make reductions without having any serious impact on the services that are provided. I agree wholeheartedly with the trade unions that that has to be a planned reduction, perhaps over a period, to ensure that we do not leave any parts of the public service undermanned and that we are able to provide the service that people need. Four per cent towards 5% has been the reduction in Northern Ireland, but it has been about 8% in Scotland and about 10% in Wales. I think that it has even gone beyond that in England, where it has been about 12%. So, whatever the percentages, you could argue that some may have been at too high a level before the cull began. The truth of it is that we are looking very seriously at a voluntary exit scheme that would allow us to reduce the number of public servants and, therefore, reduce the amount of our Budget that goes to that cost. If we are able to take a couple of hundred million pounds off our Budget, there are certainly plenty of things that we could use that expenditure on.

Mr Gardiner: I thank the First Minister for his comments. If the Minister is not successful in getting the £120 million estimated savings, will he turn to compulsory redundancy?

Mr P Robinson: I do not think that anybody is talking about compulsory redundancy. Indeed, the head of the Civil Service does not want to be in the doorway when the proposal is put forward that there should be a voluntary exit scheme because he believes that there will be such a rush that he will get knocked down. I do not think that we are in that space at all. We obviously want to talk with the unions to see that we have a fair package for those who will exit the public service at this stage, but I do not believe that it will be necessary to have any compulsory redundancies.

Mr P Robinson: The deputy First Minister and I are adamantly opposed to anybody who believes that it is right and proper to intimidate or to attack anyone on the basis of their race. I am glad that local representatives are doing what local representatives should do and are going out and offering support to those who are under attack. We, of course, have our race relations programmes, which we will continue to roll out. The deputy First Minister and I will continue publicly to give our support to those who are under attack and to do whatever we can to discourage the attacks and to encourage the police to bring forward convictions of those involved.

Mr Craig: I thank the First Minister for his comprehensive answer. Does he agree that, given the complications of some of the attacks that are labelled race hate crimes, the justice system must equally hand out heavy sentences to reflect how heinous those crimes are?

Mr P Robinson: Yes, unquestionably. Anyone who is setting out on this kind of activity needs to know that society repudiates their actions. The clearest sign of repudiation of that kind of activity is the ability of the court to set down very strong custodial sentences to those who are involved. I would be going back to an earlier debate if I started to talk about minimum or mandatory sentences in these matters. I do not want to open that one up, but I think that everyone in the House will agree that there has to be a method to discourage people from getting involved. One way in which we can do that — it is within the power of the Assembly — is to look at the sentencing regime to see whether we can strengthen it.

Mr Ford (The Minister of Justice): I have had general discussions on the police budget with the Chief Constable and members of the Policing Board. The allocation of the police budget, however, is an operational matter and, therefore, the responsibility of the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the board. It is not for me as Minister.

Mr Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he give some consideration, when future planning, to whether the cost of police overtime will increase or decrease over the next number of years? Will he factor that into any consideration?

Mr Ford: It is clear that current changes will make it difficult for the police to manage the budget in line with their overall responsibilities, but I repeat that, operationally, I cannot go into the detail of how the Chief Constable chooses to divide his budget. If there are fewer officers at times, he may feel compelled to increase overtime. On the other hand, with a general reduction in budget, it is very difficult to see how that overtime can be increased significantly. I repeat: it is not for me to tell him how to allocate that budget.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Danny Kinahan is not in his place.

Mr D McIlveen: The Minister will be aware that, in light of the budgetary pressures, his Department has undergone a 4·4% decrease in its budget in the incoming year. However, the PSNI has had to undertake over 7%. Will the Minister confirm, as the Chief Constable has hinted, that he is putting barristers before bobbies?

Mr Ford: That is not a hint that I recognise from anything said by the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable has to live within the budget that is allocated to the PSNI, just as every other spending area of the Department of Justice has to live within its spending limit. The reality is that there were significant pressures in the Department of Justice, not least because we had not driven through the programme of legal aid as fast as would have been hoped, and some matters have been resting before the Justice Committee for some months.

All that has contributed to a build-up on the current pressure, which, faced with the decision of the Finance Minister and the Executive to change the basis on which the DOJ budget was ring-fenced in-year without warning, has given significant difficulties to the Department of Justice. Given that there have been significantly greater cuts over the comprehensive spending review period to the block as a whole because of the linkages to the Home Office and the MOJ, further severer cuts have now been imposed on the Department of Justice. Given the existing legal pressures under which legal aid is obliged to be paid, it was simply not possible to protect all the spending areas that we would have wished to.

Mrs D Kelly: Notwithstanding that police overtime is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, does the Minister agree that much of it is because of the failure to show leadership at public order events, particularly parades and protests? Therefore, if there are any gaps in the legislation that need to be filled, would the Minister look at giving political cover to the Chief Constable for charging for such events?

Mr Ford: I certainly agree with Mrs Kelly's first point, which was that a very significant amount of overtime is related to public order issues, as I have said in the Chamber on more than one occasion and, I fear, may have to say on more occasions.

As to the precise issue of charging for events that happen in open, public spaces, there are significant issues that go beyond the kind of instant response that we might wish for. I have no doubt that some Members would wish particular bodies to be charged for events that they hold in the open air, and perhaps other Members would prefer that other people were charged. That is a measure of the difficulty. We need a resolution to the kind of problems that have led to public order difficulties on the streets over the last couple of years. We need political leadership, which the First Minister just talked about, coming into play in a talks process so that we can cut back on public order disputes and, incidentally, on the expense of policing them.

Ms Boyle: Go raibh maith agat. Can the Minister commit to providing extra resource to the ombudsman's office in light of the additional funding that he received lately?

Mr Ford: It is a slight jump from the funding of the police to the funding of the Office of the Police Ombudsman, which is, I take it, what the Member meant. The reality is that the Office of the Police Ombudsman is being protected very significantly compared with other aspects of Department of Justice spending. It is the only spending area in the justice family to have an increase in expenditure over the last three years, and, this year, it is suffering monitoring round cuts of no more than the average, the 4·4% that has just been spoken of. That seems to me very significant protection for the Police Ombudsman.

Mr Wilson: Given the concern from the SDLP and Sinn Féin about the pressures on the police overtime budget, does the Minister agree that one simple way of reducing those pressures would be for those two parties to stop manufacturing contentious parades that require additional policing and therefore increase the police overtime bill?

Mr Ford: It would be so much nicer if, when the Member was asking me to agree with him, he did not stand wagging his finger at me in a manner that is coming close to being unparliamentary.

I thought that I made general points about contentious parades and public order matters. They were not in any sense aimed at one particular group that organises such parades. The reality is that we have problems with parades and protests in different areas and with people from different backgrounds, although I was not aware that the SDLP organised many, so perhaps somebody can tell me about that in the next question. Clearly, there are significant concerns about the imposition on public order and the concomitant difficulties in community relations that come from a number of parades and related protests. As I said earlier, I hope that that will be ended by a resolution in the talks process.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: Here at least, we will move on.

Mr Ford: To date, the prison review oversight group, which I chair, has deemed 16 of the 40 prison review team (PRT) recommendations complete. The group referred a further 17 recommendations to Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA), as appropriate, for independent assessment. This means that 33 of the 40 recommendations are complete or under assessment. I expect that the seven remaining recommendations will be brought to the oversight group in December 2014 or March 2015.

This reform programme has been about modernising the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) to ensure resources are best directed at reducing reoffending and making the community safer. As part of that, we have also developed a more efficient and effective service. The foundations have been laid for lasting change. However, the economic challenges that we now face were not envisaged by the prison review team when it made its recommendations.

The review team anticipated that savings made through reform initiatives such as the voluntary early retirement scheme could be reinvested in prisons, but this has not been possible; nor has it been possible to invest as much in the voluntary and community sector as the review team and I had hoped.

Whilst my ambitions have not diminished, the reality is that difficult decisions will need to be made on how NIPS delivers for everyone in Northern Ireland.
Despite the cuts, the reforms being overseen by the prison review oversight group are significant and lasting. While the budget reduction is challenging, I believe that we can continue to deliver a modern, focused prison service with partnership working to reduce offending at its core.

Mr McKinney: I thank the Minister. I hear from him that the budgetary cuts are impacting severely, if I am not putting words in his mouth. What impact will there be on the provision of health care, including mental health care, in the Prison Service?

Mr Ford: Mr McKinney referred to the general issue of cost. Let me give a couple of figures. At the time of devolution in 2010-11, the cost per prisoner place was almost £74,000 per year; it has been reduced to, in the last financial year, under £63,000. That is a 21% reduction anticipated by this year — a significant improvement in efficiency. The specific point that he highlighted was around health care, specifically mental health care, which I acknowledge is a significant issue for prisons. Actually, as it is now the responsibility of the South Eastern Trust, it is an issue for DHSSPS to address, not DOJ. Clearly we work in partnership, but the precise issue of how services are provided is not something that I can answer.

Mr McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I think the Minister for his answer. He gave some indication about the roll-out of the implementation plan. Can the Minister provide some update as to its impact on Maghaberry prison?

Mr Ford: I believe that there has been a significant impact across all three prisons, not just Maghaberry. For example, at Maghaberry we have seen, with the opening of Quoile House, significant work being done with those who wish to reduce drug dependency, and work being done on the Family Matters landing. I also visited, in Glen House, a specific, intensive project for 12 prisoners seeking to come off drug habits. All of that is related to ensuring that people are less likely to reoffend when they come out. There has also been ongoing engagement, particularly through Business in the Community, with potential employers to ensure that we provide the opportunities for people to get employment when they leave and, therefore, be less likely to reoffend. All of those are significant issues, working with partners in the voluntary and community sector, and with staff being used in a more effective way to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners. I think that we have seen significant improvements from that work at Maghaberry and in the other two institutions.

Mrs Dobson: Minister, why is there no progress in reducing the misuse of drugs in prison?

Mr Ford: I have just given examples of work being done to reduce drug dependency in prison. There is clearly a significant drug problem in prisons, just as there is in the whole of society. Sadly it is not something that can be avoided in prisons when it is so prevalent elsewhere. However, there is work being done around education and prevention, and there is work being done to assist those who indicate a willingness to come off drugs in different ways. There is no doubt that, for example on some of the preventive work, a much more focused programme of intelligence-led rather than random searching has led to a reduction in the number of searches but an increase in the amount of drugs found. That is an indication of good work being done in the Prison Service.

Mr Ford: The decision to close the custody facilities at Limavady police station is an operational matter for the Chief Constable. I understand that the Chief Constable has already outlined his reasons for the closure to the Member and indicated that he is confident that it will not impact on crime levels or outcome rates in the area.

Mr Campbell: I thank the Minister for the response. However, is he aware that my information is that, shortly after the Limavady custody suite was closed, the Coleraine custody suite was also closed temporarily? Has he an indication from the Chief Constable as to when the Coleraine custody suite will reopen, given that the current position is that many people being detained have to travel 50, 60 or more miles for custody?

Mr Ford: I have no specific information on the Coleraine question. However, given that in the Limavady area — policing district G — there are currently operational custody suites in the Waterside, Strand Road and Strabane, I am not quite sure how anybody from that direction would be travelling 50 or 60 miles.

If it is an issue for Coleraine, then the distance from Coleraine to Antrim, where there is a very significant custody suite, is somewhat less than 50 miles.

Mr Ford: Where individuals commit serious crimes, the shared focus of our justice system is to bring them to account for their actions. Where there are allegations of historical institutional abuse, it is the responsibility of the police to gather and present evidence and of the Public Prosecution Service to assess the strength of the case prepared by the police and determine whether it should proceed to court. As Minister of Justice, I, quite rightly, have no direct role in that process. Consequently, whilst I can confirm that the PSNI is devoting considerable resources to investigating historical institutional abuse, it is a matter for police officers to present the outcome of their investigations and for the independent prosecution service to determine whether that constitutes sufficient evidence to bring such cases to court.

Mr Poots: I thank the Minister for his answer. I welcome the fact that he included the PPS because, last week, when responding on the Maíria Cahill issue, he referred solely to the Police Ombudsman who, of course, has no responsibilities for the PPS or, indeed, for Northern Ireland Office interference. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that, in investigations into historical abuse, whether it is a police officer in Kincora, a priest in Rubane or a Provo in west Belfast, there will be no untouchables when it comes to paedophile abuse?

Mr Ford: As Minister, I cannot guarantee — I think that that is the term the Member used — that that is the case, but it is certainly my belief that there are no untouchables in the way that the PSNI and the PPS conduct their responsibilities in the present day. There are clearly difficulties in dealing with those points when we go back a number of years. That is what is coming from the historical institutional abuse inquiry, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that any matters that arise will not be properly considered by the agencies responsible for investigation and prosecution carrying out their duties fairly and impartially.

Mr Nesbitt: The Minister will be aware that much historical abuse did not take place in institutions, leaving people like Maíria Cahill feeling abandoned. What are his proposals for ensuring that such victims are not left feeling like second-class citizens compared to the victims of institutional abuse?

Mr Ford: The Member has highlighted one particular issue concerning one particular young lady, and that is obviously a matter that causes considerable concern to many of us given the way that it was reported in the media.

Running into the issue of an inquiry is more difficult in the context where we are merely, at this stage, talking about one case. If there are others, as has been hinted at by Ms Cahill, whom she is aware have been similarly abused, I urge them to come forward, however long it may be since their abuse, and make their concerns known to the police so that they can do their work and prepare a file and pass it to the Public Prosecution Service. That is what we hope anybody would do, and, in current circumstances, I believe that there is no reason why anybody should not be prepared to put their trust in the work to be done by the PSNI and the PPS.

If wider issues emerge from that, it may well be that there are appropriate issues to be considered by a public inquiry, but the important issue at this stage is that any of us who have any influence should encourage anybody who is in that position to come forward, however difficult the issues may be and however long ago it may be, and report their concerns and ensure that the police have them investigated.

Mr Milne: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Can the Minister reaffirm that all investigations and prosecution processes should be free from political interference?

Mr Ford: I detected an irony warning immediately to my right. I can certainly confirm that all investigations into any criminal allegation should be free from political interference, but, of course, I cannot guarantee that other politicians will not attempt to interfere.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Minister for his previous answers. The most interesting answer was, of course, that if there are other people affected in a similar way to Maíria Cahill, the Minister could see a public inquiry. Is the Minister saying that he himself would try to set up that public inquiry, and is he committed to that if other victims emerge?

Mr Ford: I do not think that I am in a position to commit to such an inquiry. It seems to me that such a thing would have ramifications rather beyond my Department. However, I can only repeat the first point that I made. The important issue is that individuals come forward and make the police aware of what happened to them. That may then give us an assessment of the issues that may need to be addressed. Frankly, that goes back to the point that I made during the early part of Question Time about the wider issues concerned with reconciling the past and seeing how different institutions behaved at different times in the past as we seek to build a different and shared future.

Mr Ford: Youth engagement clinics have been operating successfully in Belfast since October 2012, and I am pleased to say that the plans to roll out youth engagement clinics to all police districts are well advanced. Training is currently being delivered to police officers in H district with a view to clinics being available in areas such as Ballycastle, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Coleraine and Larne by the end of November. Training will then be completed in the remaining police districts with a view to clinics being operational right across Northern Ireland in the first quarter of 2015. Based on experience to date, I am confident the clinics will help reduce the number of cases involving young people that proceed unnecessarily to court, and thereby improve processing times for youth court cases.

Mr Lunn: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he outline how the youth engagement clinics that ran during the pilot programme affected performance in youth cases?

Mr Ford: The key answer to that is that the pilot established significant successes for youth engagement clinics in terms of resolving issues more quickly than would have been dealt with by a court or even if they were disposed of by police by a different kind of diversion outside the youth engagement clinic. The analysis of the data gathered from the pilot in Belfast found that the average processing time was 39 days as opposed to 53 days for non-clinic diversion cases. The performance in youth cases in Belfast improved significantly. In the first quarter of this year, the time taken to prepare and submit a charge file was 11 days rather than 22 days in the same period in the previous year, which is very significant and shows that good work is being done and that the improvements are continuing in Belfast. I

t is absolutely clear that by maintaining this pathway to deal with low-level offending, we are able to see improvements in services for them, and also the concentration of resources on those where there are more significant issues. They have certainly been able to ensure that young people access the supports that they need to keep them off a reoffending path at an earlier stage, to the benefit of them and the community.

Mr Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the Minister satisfied that the PCSPs should be really to the fore of ensuring maximum public engagement between the PSNI and the public?

Mr Ford: I really cannot see what PCSPs have to do with youth engagement clinics. My views on the need to maximise the efforts of PCSPs are well known to the House.

Mr Swann: The Minister indicated that those youth engagement clinics will be rolled out across my constituency. Does he agree with those who seem to intimate that those clinics can be an easy and soft option for young offenders?

Mr Ford: I think that all the evidence is to the contrary. Many young people have said that they are being forced, at an early stage, to confront the consequences of their reoffending and, in many cases, to have a direct meeting with those whom the crimes were against. That is actually a more difficult task than waiting a few months and being given a fine or whatever. That is the whole point of the restorative approach that is taken in the youth justice system: it actually ensures that young people face up to the consequences of their behaviour, and they are then less likely to reoffend than if they were simply treated in a conventional way with a fine or whatever.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Ms Bronwyn McGahan.

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat. Question 6. Sorry, question 7.

Mr Ford: I was going to answer question 7 anyway, Principal Deputy Speaker. The PSNI rural crime unit is a central resource for identifying trends and patterns of rural crime. The information is used by police commanders to enhance the effectiveness of their operational tactics in preventing and detecting rural and agricultural crime. The unit is supported by a data analyst, who is part-funded by my Department.

At a regional level, the work of the unit resulted in an initiative whereby over £3 million worth of agricultural equipment has now been fitted with security devices. At a strategic level, the work of the unit is supported by the rural crime partnership. The partnership, led by my Department, comprises representatives of the PSNI, NFU Mutual and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The partnership recently met a range of stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers' Union and the National Sheep Association, to seek their views on livestock theft. Discussions are ongoing to develop actions to help address that issue.

The unit's impact is reinforced at a local level by interventions delivered by PCSPs in conjunction with the PSNI. In south Tyrone, those have included Farm Watch, text alert schemes for farmers, trailer-marking and the provision of multipurpose security locks.

Ms McGahan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his response. The remit of the rural crime unit is to help the PSNI utilise its resources in the most effective way. Can the Minister elaborate on how the unit can be used on a cross-border basis, given that Augher, which happens to be a hotspot for rural crime, is on a border with County Monaghan?

Mr Ford: I am always surprised when any MLA highlights their constituency as being a hot spot for crime, but it is the sad reality that, if we look at livestock thefts, we will see that the two counties out of 32 on the island that had the worst statistics last year were Armagh and Tyrone. The Member correctly highlights the problem that we have to address.

There are issues that clearly need to be addressed regarding the traceability of cattle in particular — sheep are more difficult — and there are issues where, on a cross-border basis, the work of the rural crime unit in analysing the data is of assistance to the PSNI as it works in cooperation with an Garda Síochána to deal with issues where there are clearly some cross-border movements of stolen livestock. However, ongoing vigilance is required, and we have yet to see the full statistical results of the rural crime unit's first year of operation, which is only just complete.

Mr Elliott: The Minister will be aware that, less than two weeks ago, the Chief Constable indicated that community policing in rural areas would become virtually non-existent. How worried is the Minister about that, particularly in places such as Fermanagh, south Tyrone and Armagh? Has he had any discussions with the Chief Constable about the situation?

Mr Ford: I frequently discuss those sorts of general issues with the Chief Constable. When he talked about the type of policing that is likely to become non-existent, he was specifically talking about neighbourhood policing as opposed to response policing. We need to be careful that we do not raise hairs unnecessarily.

There is no doubt that, at a time of increasing difficulty, there will be problems for the PSNI in continuing to maintain services, and it is having to prioritise. That is why it is clear that certain difficult areas will be a priority for neighbourhood policing, while other areas will simply go back to the situation as it was not too long ago, where there was less of a neighbourhood policing input and more of a response policing input. However, the challenge is for the Chief Constable to determine exactly how he allocates resources. I can only report in general on what he said.

Mr Ford: I am pleased to say that my Department has made significant progress in the challenging process of transforming the young offenders' centre into a secure college. The NIPS has worked to put in place the structures, processes and cultural change necessary to deliver a college that will not only meet the needs of those in custody but give them the skills that they need to build a positive life when they are resettled back into the community. Helping young offenders to change their life will in turn help make Northern Ireland safer.

Design principles have been developed that capture the vision, ethos and direction for the college, which we will implement in full from transition in April 2015. A number of significant developments that will provide the infrastructure for the college have been made. Those include a draft timetable across all residential areas. Progress has also been made on a curriculum for the college that will meet the specific needs of the prisoners and address educational underachievement by many of those in custody. The college will also build transferable vocational skills in areas such as horticulture, catering, construction trades and industrial cleaning that will help make the young men more employable when they are released back into the community. I recently chaired a meeting of the oversight group at Hydebank Wood and discussed the college development with the senior team in the Prison Service.

Mr McCarthy: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his very detailed response. Will he tell the Assembly whether the good work that is being done in Hydebank Wood could be replicated throughout all the Northern Irish prisons?

Mr Ford: Of course, the specific issue of a secure college for Hydebank Wood is not quite the same thing as would apply in the two adult male prisons. However, there is no doubt that a lot of good work is being done around rehabilitation in that context.

When I last visited Magilligan in the summertime, over half of the prisoners in Foyleview, the open aspect of Magilligan prison, had been out the day before engaged in constructive and positive work for local churches, charities and community groups. That was a sign of the kind of positive engagement around rehabilitation that happens there. The recent opening of Burren House on the Crumlin Road, as the working out unit for Maghaberry, is giving more prisoners the opportunity in the latter part of their time in custody to engage constructively and positively with the community.

There are, of course, educational opportunities in Magilligan and Maghaberry, but they are at a slightly different level from those that are aimed specifically at the younger offenders in Hydebank Wood. However, it is all part of a joined-up approach to try to ensure that, as far as possible, when people leave prison they have some sort of family support, some worthwhile activity, whether it is employment, education or further training, and suitable accommodation to live in. That is what makes society safer.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to topical questions.

Mr Ford: I have said it before now, and I fear that I may be repeating it, but the budget of the Department of Justice is a budget for dealing with the present and not the past. There are many issues of the past that seem to me to be only being dealt with by the Department of Justice, with the current exception of the historical institutional abuse inquiry.

It is absolutely clear that we need agreement on appropriate structures to meet the needs of the past. The revelations that came through last week from Maíria Cahill are a reminder that there is a variety of issues from the past that need to be addressed. Those will require a joined-up approach by parties working together, the Executive working together and, hopefully, the two Governments working in conjunction with us.

Mr Lunn: I thank the Minister for his answer. Whatever is agreed and promised to victims has to be deliverable. Will the Justice Department have a role to play in providing advice to the process to ensure that any new process is effective, efficient and article 2 compliant?

Mr Ford: I suppose that one of the difficulties that we saw during the talks that were led by Dr Richard Haass last autumn was that there was not the sort of information that has just been highlighted — whether that information comes from the Department of Justice or other Departments — about how things work within Northern Ireland. During the subsequent party leaders' talks in the early part of this year, my Department supplied a couple of papers to the party leaders' meeting. Those looked at issues relating to the past, how matters are currently being handled and how they might be better handled. If, as we go through the detail of the current round of talks, such papers are requested, my Department will certainly provide them. We currently bear the brunt of much of the difficulty of the past, and I am keen to ensure that we play our part in resolving the past.

Mr Ford: Mr Bradley raises a very serious point. I confess that, although I saw some publicity last week, in the middle of everything else I was doing today, I had forgotten that this was the seventh anniversary. However, I had some meetings around that time, and I am well aware of the tragedy that that was for the Quinn family and others.

My message is the same one that I have just put out in other respects. Anybody who has any information about any criminal activity has a duty to report it to the PSNI so that the PSNI can investigate properly and, if there appears to be enough evidence for them to do so, pass a file to the Public Prosecution Service so that it can determine whether there should be a prosecution. That is the responsibility of each and every one of us as citizens. It is also the responsibility of political leaders to put that point to the community and encourage those who have information to report crime.

Mr D Bradley: Go raibh maith agat arís, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. In light of what he said, will he join with me in meeting Stephen and Breege Quinn, Paul Quinn's parents? Will he also meet his counterpart in the South to bring himself up to date with the latest developments in the case?

Mr Ford: I thank Mr Bradley for those points. On his latter point, as Members know, I meet my colleague the Minister for Justice and Equality fairly regularly and frequently, and I am certainly very happy, when I next meet Frances Fitzgerald, to raise the issue with her.

On the specific issue of meeting Mr and Mrs Quinn, I frequently meet people who feel that they have been let down by the justice system in the past. I tend not to flag up those meetings in the media. I believe that, in those circumstances, things are better done with some discretion. Frequently, there is very little that the Minister can do but, if the Minister listening provides some measure of comfort to bereaved families, I am happy to use my time to provide that measure of comfort and assistance. If Mr Bradley wishes to talk about that privately with me later, I will happily discuss it with him.

Mr Ford: I need to be ever so slightly careful. There are a number of threads in that question. I need to be extraordinarily careful, as Minister, that I do not appear to be second-guessing the work of judges. I may talk about issues in general, and Members may talk in here about sentencing policy in general, as, indeed, we did earlier with human trafficking. However, we all need to be very careful that we do not stray beyond our specific role, and I need to be particularly careful, as Minister, that I do not stray beyond my role into issues of sentencing in individual cases.

The Member also highlights the Larne area. Frankly, my concerns are to ensure that I provide the appropriate support to all the justice agencies in dealing with serious and organised crime in every part of Northern Ireland, using the available resources and working in cooperation with our colleagues in an Garda Síochána and in England, Wales and Scotland. Hopefully, at some point in the near future, we will also bring in the services of the National Crime Agency to deal with the serious crime that it can fight. That issue applies in every part of Northern Ireland. So whilst the Member may wish to highlight Larne in particular, as Minister, I will put my concerns about the whole of Northern Ireland to the forefront in ensuring that justice agencies are assisted as best they can be in dealing with those issues.

Mr McMullan: Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for that intriguing answer. Does he agree that the publicity that Larne has had recently and in the past shows that it is in the grip of loyalist paramilitaries and that that still goes on today? Earlier this year, 200 took over the town one night and caused mayhem, and we are still waiting to see whether any of them will be brought before the courts. It is my responsibility to provide answers when I am asked about it by the community. Will the Minister ensure that those who have been arrested and charged will be brought before the courts soon?

Mr Ford: I wish to see people who are guilty of crimes being arrested and brought before the courts soon, but I have no responsibility whatsoever for ensuring that that happens.

Mr Principal Deputy Speaker: I will not call the Member who is listed to ask topical question 4.

Mr Ford: I have not had any specific contact with my colleague about the illegal abattoir in County Monaghan. If there are specific issues that Ms Ruane thinks that I should be raising with Frances Fitzgerald, I have no doubt that she will now take the opportunity to tell me what they are.

Ms Ruane: I strongly urge the Minister to engage with all relevant Departments, North and South, because this is a very serious matter, and I trust that the Minister sees that. It is important to be in contact with the Health Departments because of traceability and potential health concerns.

Mr Ford: I appreciate the serious points that have been made. I am not sure whether Ms Ruane was in the House when I answered an earlier question from her colleague Ms McGahan on the issue of livestock thefts and cross-border movements of livestock, which was highlighted from the south Tyrone side rather than the Monaghan side. I am well aware of those difficulties.

It is an issue on which there has been engagement between my Department and DARD, and I have no doubt that that will continue. There is also a concern about illegal abattoirs and the health standards operated in them. That principally involves DARD and DHSSPS on our side, and their southern departmental equivalents may also be involved.

There are real issues that tie into wider matters of organised crime that we have talked about. The PSNI has been leading the Changing the Mindset project on counterfeit goods and dubious services in Northern Ireland. We need to let people know that, if they are buying something, whether it is a dodgy DVD, inappropriate perfumes, batteries or meat, and it seems to be too good a bargain to be true, it almost certainly is. In the case of foodstuffs, there is the potential for significant health issues. Those involved in any part of the food supply chain need to carry out their duties properly to ensure the full safety and full security of the food chain throughout. Customers must ensure that they are careful about where they buy their produce and do not get taken in by backstreet or car-boot deals that are too good to be true.

Mr Ford: There have been a number of issues relating to early intervention over the last couple of years. My Department has tended to be a minor partner in that. In the good preventative work with families to ensure that young children do not get into a variety of difficulties in the future, the Health and Education Departments have a larger role and will see returns more quickly than the Justice Department. Nonetheless, we are partners in some projects because the justice system has a role to play and could benefit from such interventions.

Mr Agnew: I thank the Minister for that information. What are the benefits of cross-departmental work in early intervention?

Mr Ford: In a general sense, sometimes we do not see the significant benefits of cross-departmental work because our Departments are set up in silos. Mr Agnew has highlighted the fact that we need Departments to work together better. That applies across a variety of areas, and there is no doubt that, as we look at the resource problems that we face and the variety of difficulties that comes from those, we need to ensure joined-up working in as many different places as possible. In early intervention cross-departmental working, there is no doubt from research here and in other parts of these islands that, in many cases, a small number of families in a neighbourhood may make significant demands on education, health, social services, justice, housing and employment. There is no doubt in my mind that intensive intervention to support those families would give them significant benefits. In particular, it would give the children in those families significant benefits to ensure that they got better opportunities as they grew up, their health was better, they took their educational opportunities and, in an ideal world, did not come into contact with the justice system in an unfortunate way in their teenage years. Those are the benefits of the work that we have been seeking to pioneer over the past year.

Mr Ford: Again, it is not so much my Department's efforts around car crime as those of the justice system as a whole. At the first level, we see the work of the PSNI in dealing with car crime. They have to decide, given their list of issues, how they prioritise areas of crime and what resources they can put into them. There is also work being done around the preventative area, for example by the Youth Justice Agency, because there are issues that are more than just dealing with crime when it happens but about preventative work. It is almost the same thing that I was highlighting to Mr Agnew about early interventions. There is early intervention work to be done not just among the families of very young children but among younger teenagers to prevent them from getting into crime and to stop them when they are in danger of getting into crime and antisocial behaviour.

Nos 1-23, 27, 40, 50, 60-61.

Mr Dickson: I welcome this opportunity to speak on the group 1 amendments. Before getting into the detail of what I wish to say, I thank Lord Morrow for bringing the Bill to the House, and Justice Minister David Ford for the excellent work that he and his departmental officials undertook in working with Lord Morrow to bring to the House a Bill that can be debated and, hopefully, a great deal of which can be enacted.

There is no doubt that we have questions of difference on some matters on how we would address the evil of human trafficking. However, I genuinely believe that Lord Morrow and I share a common determination, along with the Minister of Justice, to see it ended. It is in that spirit that many of the amendments tabled jointly in the names of Lord Morrow and the Minister will find favour in the House today.

The Bill has not only helped to further highlight the issue but has sparked a thorough and rigorous debate about our approach. We are very much part of a debate that is happening across western Europe and, indeed, the wider world.

Turning to some of the amendments, I welcome the creation and consolidation of new offences under clauses 1A to 1D, which, in line with what is considered internationally to be best practice, will bring those offences together under one Act and thus simplify the legislative framework.

It is appropriate that offences under clause 1A are triable only in a Crown Court to demonstrate the seriousness and abhorrence with which they are viewed. I also welcome the fact that a victim's consent will be viewed as irrelevant. For example, we know that some individuals may consent to being moved across borders, not knowing what awaits them. We are saying loud and clear that, if you traffic someone, there will be no excuse and you will face justice.

I move to clause 4. I have no doubt that Lord Morrow advocates mandatory minimum sentences with the best of intentions. However, good intentions do not always make good policy. We need to be mindful about what produces the best result. I continue to have deep reservations about imposing mandatory minimum sentences.

We need to ask ourselves whether justice is best served by our assigning fixed penalties to specific crimes or is it best to allow the judiciary to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors and to decide on the most appropriate sentence within a sentencing framework.

Mr A Maginness: I thank the Member for giving way. In relation to clause 4 and the point that you have made, the Justice Committee heard from the Attorney General, Mr Larkin. It was his opinion that clause 4 was "not a hard minimum-sentence model" and his view was that, in certain circumstances, any judge would:

In those circumstances, surely there is enough flexibility to meet the concerns that the Member has just stated.

Mr Dickson: I considered what the Attorney General said to us but I believe firmly in the underlying belief and right for our judges, within a framework, to determine the appropriate sentences. Indeed, I read recently of how the judiciary may inform itself as to how a case should be dealt with. In the lack of any other formal guidance, when it comes to determining how matters should be dealt with, the judiciary may even take view of debates in the House and particularly the comments of the Minister of Justice. That is the most appropriate way in which these things should be handled. I firmly believe that sentencing is a matter for the courts, within that framework, and that judges are in the best position to consider the unique circumstances of each case.

It is important to note that, where a court might have treated a matter too leniently, the state can appeal and a higher penalty can be given. Indeed, a recent case in Northern Ireland demonstrated that. Those cases can be tried in the High Court and be added to the list of offences for which courts can award an indeterminate sentence. So there can be no argument that we are not treating these offences seriously enough. Furthermore, I have considered this in detail and, although some Members have advocated mandatory minimums for other crimes, I have not seen anything to suggest that they have verifiable deterrent effects. I nevertheless understand that, across the Chamber, there is much sympathy for this measure. If it stands part of the Bill, at least we will have an amendment that will ensure that it does not apply to under-18s, which was another of my major concerns about the initial clause.

In short, my view is that mandatory minimum sentences do not represent sound criminal justice policy. We should not tie courts' hands but let judges take decisions freely, based on the evidence presented to them. There is an important principle of judicial discretion that must be upheld.

Mr Buchanan: First, like other Members, I commend Lord Morrow for bringing the Bill to the House. Hopefully, we will see its passage through the House without too many objections. Today, I direct my comments against the attempt to remove clause 4 from the Bill and in favour of the amendments put forward by Lord Morrow.

Clause 4 would require a court to set down a minimum sentence of at least two years for an individual convicted of a human trafficking or slavery offence. The clause allows for a judge to derogate from this two-year minimum in cases where the court believes that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender that justify not imposing the minimum sentence. A number of amendments have been proposed to the original clause since the Bill's First Reading. These amendments include ensuring that a minimum sentence cannot be levied against a child and ensuring that, should a judge derogate from imposing the minimum sentence due to exceptional circumstances, he or she is required to outline why they have done so. These amendments seem sensible, and I am happy to support them.

Lord Morrow would be the first to admit that his Bill was not the finished article when he introduced it to the House. It is to his credit that he has been willing to work with others to improve the Bill. This clause is in the minority of clauses that have been the subject of disagreement between Lord Morrow and the Minister of Justice.

The debate up to now can be summarised very simply: Lord Morrow believes that it is wholly appropriate for this elected House to lay down appropriate minimum sentences for particular offences. On the other hand, the Minister of Justice believes, on a point of principle, that it is wrong for the Assembly to fetter the discretion of judges in sentencing. I believe that the introduction of a mandatory minimum sentence for these offences, with the caveat of judges being able to derogate in exceptional circumstances, is the correct and proper way forward.

I will make three points in favour of retaining the clause. First, introducing a mandatory minimum sentence for these offences sends out a strong signal to our society that we take the offences very seriously and that every Member believes that human trafficking and slavery offences are heinous crimes that must be severely punished. Trafficking and slavery offences offend against the dignity of men, women and children who live in the Province or come to it. It is incumbent on us, as Members, to do everything in our power to stamp out this activity. Implementing a mandatory minimum sentence would act as a deterrent to those who seek to perpetrate these crimes and would show victims that we believe that the crime inflicted on them should be severely punished. To my mind, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where an individual found guilty of trafficking or slavery offences should be sentenced to less than two years in prison.

Secondly, mandatory minimum sentences already apply in Northern Irish law for particular offences. There is no constitutional block on introducing such sentences. As was pointed out at Second Stage, article 70 of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 sets out a minimum sentence of five years for those aged over 21 who are found guilty of a set of offences in the Order. I have yet to hear the Minister of Justice calling for the repeal of that article, considering his objections to minimum sentences. In England and Wales, minimum sentences exist with regard to drug trafficking, burglary and firearms offences. Other liberal democracies utilise minimum sentences for many offences. For example, in Canada, according to one think tank, there are currently 49 minimum sentences in operation for particular serious offences.

It is worth pointing out that the Attorney General and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have no objection to introducing a minimum sentence in our Province. The Attorney General, in his evidence to the Justice Committee on 6 March 2014, stated that a minimum sentence is:

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, in its evidence to the Committee, stated that it did not take objection to clause 4 as long as it did not apply to children. Consequently, there is no question of the clause being constitutionally inappropriate or contrary to individual human rights.

Thirdly, mandatory minimum sentences are, in principle, an effective way to ensure that justice is done in our country. It is important to be clear that, contrary to the extravagant claims of some MLAs at Second Stage, the clause does not eliminate a judge's ability to lay down a proportionate sentence. In fact, it provides a stable range within which a judge can decide what a proportionate sentence would be. In this case, a judge can also derogate from laying down a two-year sentence if exceptional circumstances are involved in a case. It is also worth pointing out that the Northern Ireland Assembly has frequently fettered the discretion of judges in the sentences that they can enforce. That is usually seen in how the Assembly limits the punishment that can be laid down by the courts. The truth is that no judge has absolute discretion in the punishments that they can set down.

I am pretty confident this afternoon — I could be wrong — that the Minister of Justice and other Members making the argument that it is wrong to fetter the discretion of judges would not be in favour of reintroducing the death penalty in the Province, yet that is the ultimate logic of the view that the Assembly should not fetter the discretion of judges. If the Assembly can dictate that certain punishments are beyond the limits of the courts — we do it all the time by limiting the maximum penalty for offences — surely it can outline certain punishments as appropriate for particular offences.

Clause 4 is a sensible one that serves a very useful purpose. It illustrates that human trafficking and slavery offences are deeply serious crimes that will not be tolerated by this society. It is also a measure that is proportionate and constitutionally acceptable. I urge Members from all sides of the House to reject the Minister's attempt to have the clause removed from the Bill and to accept the amendments put forward by Lord Morrow.

Mr Agnew: At the outset, on behalf of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, I welcome the legislation and the attention that it has brought to the issue of human trafficking. My perception is that in Northern Ireland our Police Service is already taking a lead role in tackling human trafficking in terms of its standards set within these islands. The Bill has brought a renewed focus and can help us continue to innovate and move forward in how we tackle human trafficking issues. I am given to understand that the Minister may well have brought forward some of the legislation and, indeed, in working with Lord Morrow, has helped to bring forward this Bill. There is no doubt that the Bill has sped up the process, and anything that we can do to expedite the updating of our laws on human trafficking should be welcomed — of course with the caveat that we have to get the legislation right. Lord Morrow's colleague Paul Givan referred to Lord Morrow being the modern-day William Wilberforce. Whilst I think that may be stretching it a bit far — perhaps if human trafficking was socially acceptable and legal it would be an apt comparison — there is no doubt that many of us in the House will welcome the legislation, as will many of the public.

I will quickly touch on some of the non-controversial amendments in this group that I would like to welcome. I welcome amendment No 21, which would see human trafficking treated as a lifestyle offence. It will further empower the police in their investigation and, indeed, the courts in sentencing. It is a welcome and useful addition to the original Bill. Amendment No 27 ensures that human trafficking offences can be prosecuted even where a victim is reluctant to come forward. Given the nature of the crime we are talking about and the circumstances that many victims find themselves in — being coerced and intimidated and perhaps, in many cases, lacking the confidence to come forward — whilst of course having the victim come forward and act as a witness is always preferable and will strengthen the prosecution's case, it is important that no prosecution is derailed by the ability of those who commit human trafficking offences to intimidate their victims and perhaps circumvent the legal system through that method.

On behalf of the Green Party in Northern Ireland, I welcome the addition of the offence of forced marriage. It is important that this aspect of exploitation is included in the Bill. I think that the Bill is more complete in what it seeks to achieve by the introduction of this offence through this amendment, should it be passed here today.

I move on to clause 4, which is what has caused the controversy with this group of amendments. I oppose clause 4. I have failed to be convinced of the logic of it. I accept that it is not an absolute constraint on judges with regard to a minimum sentence, but there is no doubt that it is a change from the norm about which I am yet to be presented with the evidence. I know that one example was given of a minimum sentence in Northern Ireland law, but the fact that we are being drawn to one exception highlights how rare a situation it is. It was one that I was open-minded about, but I am yet to be convinced about the need for minimum sentencing. I am concerned that, rather than the driving force being evidence that the clause will reduce instances of human trafficking, which is what the Bill's priority should be, it is about being seen to be tough on human trafficking.

We can use any adjective we want. I abhor human trafficking; of course I do. It is a heinous crime; of course it is. That is a given. You would be hard pushed to find a Member in the House who would disagree with that. I think that the courts and judges would take a similar approach: that this is one of the most serious crimes that could be committed by a human being or group of human beings against another human being. I could think of little that is worse than to inflict slavery, imprisonment, abuse and coercion on a person. We should take it as a given that the courts will treat human trafficking with seriousness.

What I do not have in front of me to support the clause is evidence that it will help the courts, decrease instances of human trafficking or act as the deterrent that has been mentioned. What I do not have in front of me is the research that goes through every possible circumstance in which we would sentence in a case of human trafficking. There will be not only exceptional cases but instances in which there will be insufficient evidence to give the harshest of penalties. I have seen judgements in which the sentences given were for only what could be prosecuted for. It is a road that I would be concerned about going down.

What I do not want — it has, to some extent, been alluded to — is trial by public opinion. Judges will be presented with evidence on both sides. They will know the remit of their role. On the outside, we can often have an emotional response to what we hear about court judgements. Often, when we do not have the evidence in front of us, we may rush to judge a court judgement without being fully engaged with the facts. I do not think that it should be trial by public opinion or, in some cases, trial by the media. I fear that the drive behind minimum sentences is to be seen to be tough on crime. If we accept that human trafficking is a horrendous crime and that our judges and courts will treat it accordingly, we can accept that there is no need for minimum sentences in the Bill.

That said, the will of the House may well be that clause 4 passes, in which case I welcome amendment No 16, which would exclude children from the minimum sentences and about which, as has been highlighted, there may have been some children's rights concerns. In fact, there were undoubtedly some children's rights concerns with the clause in that regard. I welcome the recognition of that and amendment No 16, which would exclude children from the clause.

Mr Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I, too, welcome the opportunity, as a new Committee member, to talk about the substantial and important legislation in front of us. Despite being on the Committee only a short number of weeks, I know that the workload, the amount of evidence taken and the direction of the Committee is commendable. Most people have touched on that today. I commend Maurice Morrow for a very assiduous approach to what is a very important issue to tackle. I welcome the evolution of the Bill, a Bill that now sits comfortably with European directives and, indeed, modern slavery legislation at Westminster. I welcome the fact that changes have been made.

Sinn Féin very much welcomes the new offence of slavery, which will include forced and compulsory labour, as we welcome the inclusion of the Finance and Personnel Minister's amendment on forced marriage, an issue that has received increasing publicity in recent years and that we need to get to grips with. I welcome the acceptance of the need for proper resources and training to be utilised in tackling exploitation, slavery and human trafficking. It is vital that the Bill builds on the need for effective exit strategies, compassionate care and a commitment to avoid the secondary victimisation of a victim. In the light of that, I welcome the amendment regarding the right of the victim not to give consent and that such consent is irrelevant in seeking prosecution by the state. That is a very important issue.

I want to touch on clause 4. Of course I agree that we must have robust and rigorous sentencing frameworks. Indeed, for an offence such as human trafficking and slavery, the penalty should reflect the gravity of the offence. However, we must not fall into the precarious situation where legislators feel it is proper to interfere with judicial discretion in such matters. Undeniably, minimum sentences are often the result of good intentions, but, all too often, good intentions do not make good judicial policies. Good policies and, indeed, good results should be paramount. It is with that in mind that I oppose any notion of minimum sentencing.

Surely, justice would be best served by enabling judges to be free to tailor sentences to the aggravating and mitigating facts of each case. Furthermore, minimum sentencing does not reduce crime; it is simply not the deterrent that was suggested earlier. As research indicates time and time again, it is simply false to suggest otherwise. The certainty of arrest, prosecution, conviction and punishment has a greater deterrent effect than the actual severity of said punishment. Just as good law should rightly be tempered with equity, robust sentencing rules should leave well alone so that judges can determine the individual facts of the case.

Overall, however, I welcome the opportunity to consider the Bill today. As I said, it is a better Bill at this stage, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the discussions this afternoon.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the private Member's Bill and the opportunity to debate the important issue today.

The trafficking and exploitation of human beings is a degrading practice, and we have a duty to do all that we can to bring those responsible to justice. It is clear that human beings are being trafficked into and through the North by organised criminal gangs for exploitation here and elsewhere. That exploitation takes the form of sexual exploitation, the exploitation of labour and domestic servitude. It is also clear that the organised criminal gangs responsible have largely been able to evade justice. Although around 100 victims of human trafficking have been reported as having been rescued in the North in the past five years, there have been few successful convictions of actual traffickers. The criminal gangs responsible operate internationally, and any attempt to disrupt them and bring them to justice needs a joined-up approach involving a number of Departments and agencies, here and throughout these islands. That work continues through the immigration and human trafficking subgroup of the Organised Crime Task Force, which includes representatives of an Garda Síochána. It is important that we acknowledge that we legislate for one area of a common travel area and that our efforts must be coordinated on an all-island approach or, if you look at it that way, an all-islands approach.

The cross-border forum on human trafficking, which focuses on identifying victims and reducing demand, is an example of that cooperation.

I commend Lord Morrow on his efforts in bringing forward the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Bill. I also commend the Assembly's Justice Committee, of which I am a member, for its work during the Bill's scrutiny. The Justice Minister has worked constructively with Lord Morrow and the Justice Committee to bring forward amendments to the Bill and, since its introduction to the Assembly, has published the second annual action plan on human trafficking and exploitation for Northern Ireland. The action plan identifies priority areas for the Department of Justice to drive forward during 2014-15: strengthening law enforcement, protecting and supporting victims, and preventing human trafficking and exploitation.

Official figures indicate that the scale of human trafficking in the North is relatively low when compared with the UK, with referrals making up only 2% of the overall figure. In 2013, the national referral mechanism (NRM) received 41 referrals of potential victims of trafficking here. Seventeen potential victims were referred in 2012, and 32 potential victims were referred in 2011. However, we must ensure that we are doing everything in our power to prevent these crimes in the first place and to respond robustly when they do occur.

The Bill, with agreed amendments, has much in it of great value. If implemented, it will do much to advance the interest of victims. The measures to support victims of trafficking are certainly most welcome. There needs to be a strong framework of assistance and support for victims to encourage them to engage with the criminal justice system and help to bring those responsible for trafficking to court. In particular, the additional measures in clauses 13 and 14 for victims who have to appear in court to give evidence are a very important step forward.

Lord Morrow and the Justice Minister have proposed a number of new provisions, among which is one to support services for those who wish to exit prostitution. Such a support mechanism or exit strategy is an important addition to the Bill and is to be commended.

Mr Nesbitt: I will make a short contribution, if I may. First, I apologise to the House that I have not been here for the whole debate to date. I also thank Lord Morrow for bringing forward this important legislation, which takes us beyond recognising that we have a problem to doing something concrete about it. That is to be commended, as is his attitude to the amendments and his discussions with officials, the Minister and so forth to get us to this point.

For me, the test has to be the impact of the Bill, which shines a light on the problem. What is the impact of shining that light? Do we get the traffickers to respond as rabbits in the headlights, which I guess is where we want them, or does it force them to scurry into a deeper, darker black hole where they are less accessible? That is the test for me in looking at the Bill and the amendments in this group.

The only amendment in this group that I want to reference at this point is clause 4 on minimum sentencing. In the House, we are all aware that there are three separate branches to government: the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. I think that we all agree that we want to give each other the space to operate without interference, but, as was pointed out, we are, to some extent, in a Venn diagram with concentric circles.

There are precedents for one branch of government to overlap another. The question is whether it is a good idea on minimum sentencing. It is certainly constitutionally possible. As Mr Buchanan, among others, pointed out, there are constitutional precedents for setting minimum sentencing in this country. Is it desirable, however, for this legislature to say to the judiciary, "You must impose a minimum sentence"? In principle, we would probably rather not do that. However, is the case made on this specific issue?

I look at it very simply. If one human being is prepared to take another human being and traffic them and say, "I am prepared to subject you to a lifetime's slavery. I am prepared to ruin your life forever and a day by subjecting you to sexual abuse, mental torture and physical abuse, and I don't care," I say to Lord Morrow that, in the context of the judiciary having its own discretion, I want you to say to that trafficker, "We will catch you; we will convict you; and then we will send you away for at least two years." If that is what will happen, I ask Lord Morrow where the door to the Aye Lobby is, because I am 100% behind him on this clause.

Mr B McCrea: I am afraid that I am not one who will join in the plaudits for Lord Morrow on this Bill. I understand his intentions, and I am sure that he is an honourable man trying to address things, but, having listened to the contributions from all around the House, I have to say that I do not think that this is a good day's work. I do not think that the Committee for Justice has done its job properly or that people have inquired properly into this. I am disappointed that the Chair of the Justice Committee is not here, because he engaged in a debate with me earlier, and I would have liked to carry on with that. In this group of amendments, we see that the Department of Justice opposes clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5. Later, it will oppose clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18. In total, DoJ has opposed 14 of the 19 clauses. That is not a particularly good record.

The Bill was not fit for purpose. Had it not been for the advent of the Modern Slavery Bill going through Westminster, we would not be talking about anything of any relevance. In my opinion, the Department of Justice, faced with a fairly unedifying spectacle, has done what it does best: tried to make the best of a bad job. It has subsumed Lord Morrow's Bill and made it into Northern Ireland's equivalent of the Modern Slavery Bill. It will, of course, allow Lord Morrow to be photographed, take the plaudits, be greeted as Northern Ireland's Wilberforce and all of those things, but, in reality, we are doing nothing more than what the Minister outlined in the interdepartmental reports that he put forward, which is to make sure that we are compliant with UK and European legislation.

I was disappointed. Maybe some of the Members who engaged with me earlier — not the Chairman, because he is not here — will tell me whether the Committee for Justice, when considering the Bill, looked at His Honour Judge Burgess's report on the Matyas Pis case. He outlined the sentencing guidelines that he was going to use, or which he has suggested —

Excuse me.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): I remind Members that mobile phones should be switched off in the Chamber so that they do not interfere with the debate.

Mr B McCrea: I apologise for that. Tom Elliott asked a question twice, I think, and it is interesting that his party leader also picked up on the issue. I am not sure whether I have got this right, but I think so: under amendment Nos 17 and 18, where the minimum sentence is not imposed, the court is required to explain why and record the exceptional circumstances that apply. He envisaged some interesting outworkings and asked Lord Morrow whether he could give any examples.

Here is what Burgess had to say, and this is the information that I do not think anybody in the House has looked at. Under the Sentencing Council's guidelines, the starting point for involvement at any level in any stage of the trafficking operation "where the victim was coerced" is six years — not two years, six years. The sentencing range is four to nine years. So the two-year issue is a complete red herring.

I talked to Mr Maginness about involvement at any level in any stage of a trafficking operation where there was no coercion of the victim. I think that he ended up saying, if there is no coercion, where is the crime? Actually, there is a crime, according to the Matyas Pis judgement. The starting point for trafficking where there is no coercion is two years, and then it goes on to say that the sentencing range is one to four years. For Mr Elliott's benefit, Burgess sets out the aggravating factors for the offence of trafficking:

Those are the aggravating factors. I wonder whether the Committee for Justice or Lord Morrow actually looked at this pronouncement by Burgess because he also goes on to say that the sentencing guidelines set out the following as mitigation:

In other words, the courts have looked at this, and the criminal provision is there. We do not have to be dealing with this issue. Just to be clear on that particular case, the prosecution accepted that there was no allegation that A and B were brought to or held in Northern Ireland against their will or that force or threat of force was made against them. The prosecution also accepted that the defendant was not part of any criminal gang. Despite all that, he got three years. Not two years but three years, even though, with no coercion, it could have been two. The courts have already addressed this issue. There is already the information, and there is already the legal framework to be present.

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr B McCrea: I will indeed.

Mr Wilson: The Member may well quote the examples that he has done, but Mr Elliott also quoted an example of where the court, having found someone guilty of holding people against their will, putting them in substandard accommodation and taking money from their wages, fined them £500. So, whilst the Member can quote what the sentences may be, there are, quite clearly, cases where even the minimum sentence of two years has not been applied. In fact, non-custodial sentences have been applied in instances where some of the factors that he has listed applied.

Mr B McCrea: I thank the Member for his intervention. He and I have previously talked on this matter. His quotation on this matter was in an accusation to me:

There is an issue here about the independence of the judiciary. All factors must be taken into account, and where there are sentencing guidelines they are adhered to. In the particular issue that Mr Elliott was talking about, I do not think that the gangmasters do have sentencing guidelines, but, if they are required, we will have them. I have to say to the House that I would far, far, far, far rather have the judiciary deciding on what was the appropriate sentence and the appropriate way forward than the Members gathered round here because all this is for the optics.

Mr Buchanan: Will the Member give way?

Mr B McCrea: I will in just one moment.

This is for the optics; this is not actually going to change anything. This is people putting out platitudes, saying that we are concerned and should do something and saying that something must be done, but do you know what? All the provisions are already there. This is purely for the optics, and, frankly, it is a waste of time. I will give way.

Mr Buchanan: The Member seems to have a problem with minimum sentences. Does he, therefore, think that minimum sentences regarding firearms offences should be repealed?

Mr B McCrea: If that is meant to be some sort of fastball to deal with my argument, I do not see it. The fundamental thing that every single person has said in the Chamber, unless the Member is going to disagree with me, is that it is good to have a separation between the legislator and the judiciary. The justice system works because the people who are empowered to do these things are properly informed, can take on board all the issues in front of them and will come up with the appropriate sentence. That seems to me to be a fundamental leg upon which democracy stands.

I am surprised that people will say, "Do you know what? This is an exceptional circumstance, therefore, we can do away with it. We do not need to deal with this particular one." Pretty soon, everything will be an exceptional circumstance, and what happens then? Then you end up being forced to pass sentences that you do not think are appropriate, and circumstances come up, and you say, "This is not right." We are tinkering with a very fundamental part of our democracy, and no matter what the good intentions of the people who brought forward this Bill, and I know that Lord Morrow was well-intentioned in bringing forward the Bill, this will not help.

So, I come to a situation now about how we are going to move —

Mr Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr B McCrea: Yes.

Mr Wilson: I am sure down in the courts of justice, the judges will find it very touching that they have such a defender in Mr McCrea. Do not forget that this is an issue that there has been widespread concern about in society. Can he think of any circumstances in which a judge can conceivably believe that a custodial sentence of less than two years is acceptable in cases where people are being trafficked into this country, held against their will and forced to work for slave labour wages?

Mr B McCrea: The Deputy Speaker will forgive me just a little bit if I address this issue because it is slightly outside the remit. The question is not, "What are we trying to achieve?". I do not know of anybody who supports human trafficking. I do not think that is what we are talking about. The question that we are trying to deal with here is, "What is the most efficacious way of dealing with it?". I will make the argument later that I think that elements of the Bill, no matter how well-intentioned, are counterproductive.

There may well be some side benefits for having the debate. That is fair enough. As far as I am aware, people were having the debate anyway, but, in response to Mr Wilson, I will say that I think that we are treading on very thin ice when we start to try and dictate to the judiciary on every single item and say, "This is what you will do." You can take one exceptional issue and say, "That is an exception", but once you have made one exception, there is another exception and it builds up. A tenet of democracy is that we should legislate, and the judiciary should be involved in the judicial process.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I hear his argument. He is the defender with regard to the gap between the judiciary and us, as legislators. Is he then saying to the House today that we should repeal all the minimum sentences in Northern Ireland around firearms legislation and that the UK should do the same?

Mr B McCrea: The principle that I work on is that I do not understand why a minimum sentence is required if you are going to rely on the judiciary exercising its discretion. In reality, what we have had put forward is that we have said that we are going to have a minimum sentence and then we have said, "Unless we have exceptional circumstances." When you read the judgement by Burgess, everything that he says is, "There are exceptional circumstances, which I take into consideration." That is the proper rule of law. This is not somebody saying to the judge, "You will have a minimum sentence per se." We need to get a situation in which we should observe it properly in principle, and the judiciary should be independent and should be allowed to move forward.

Mr Buchanan: Will the Member give way?

Mr B McCrea: I am sorry. I have already given you a chance, and you will be pleased to know that I am just about to finish anyway.

All I am saying to you is that, on this particular issue and the way forward, I do not take any great pleasure in standing up and saying that I do not think that this is the right way forward. I actually think that we have missed opportunities. Look at the situation that we had at Second Stage, when the Bill was opposed by the PSNI, the PPS and others, and people were coming along saying, "This is not the right way forward". It is not.

Some people mentioned a poll and said that if you ask a question in a certain way, as was the position that Mr McCartney, I think, took, you will get a certain answer. However, the fundamental thing that we are meant to do here is legislate properly. I put it to you quite strongly that all of the flimflam and all of the saying, "Oh, well this should be different" does not hold water. We should not be interfering; we should not be putting down minimum sentences. This Bill stands only because the Department of Justice has managed to subsume it, take it over, be the cuckoo in the nest and make it the Modern Slavery Bill. That is what it comes back as; that is what we are faced with now; and on that basis we have to welcome those elements. But the rest of it is just for the optics and will not change anything.

Mr Ford: If I am "the cuckoo in the nest", then the thrush or blackbird, or whatever Lord Morrow is, is entirely complicit in much — although not all — that has been done.

Let me repeat the point that I made during my intervention in his opening remarks: this is very much an agreed proposal between us, and I, personally, see no harm in the Department of Justice assisting a private Member to achieve a shared aim by working together. It is actually what I think the people of Northern Ireland want to see in this place, because they see far too much of the other sort. Sadly, I suspect that much of the media comment about this debate will be around the very small areas on which we disagree rather than on the fundamental issue on which we do agree.

I welcome the opportunity at this stage to speak to the group 1 amendment Nos 1 to 14, 21 to 23, 27, 50, 60 and 61, which have all been tabled by jointly by Lord Morrow and me — as I said in my intervention, that is a unique situation — as well as amendment Nos 15 to 20 that Lord Morrow tabled and amendment No 40, tabled in the name of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, for which I carry Executive responsibility on the Floor today.

Amendment Nos 1 to 4 introduce four new clauses to create a package of new offences to tackle the exploitation of people through human trafficking and slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. By bringing these offences together under a single piece of legislation, I believe that we will align Northern Ireland law with best practice as identified by GRETA, the Council of Europe's Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. Taken together, these amendments will streamline and simplify the legislative framework to facilitate the work of investigators, prosecutors and the courts to bring perpetrators to justice. They will also help to ensure that where individuals are prepared to exploit or enslave fellow human beings, there will be a consistent response under the law of Northern Ireland regardless of the nature of that exploitation. The new slavery-type offences and the new human trafficking offence will attract a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, commensurate with the seriousness of these offences and the impact they have on the victims.

Amendment No1 introduces new clause 1A, which will create the new offence of slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour to replace the existing offence under section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The offence will be triable only in the Crown Court, reflecting the seriousness with which it is viewed. The provision also makes clear that in determining whether an offence under the new clause has taken place, regard must be had to all the circumstances and, in particular, to whether there are personal circumstances that may render the victim more vulnerable than other people. It also makes clear that the victim's consent to any act forming part of the offence is irrelevant. In doing so, I believe that this amendment will offer greater protection from slavery and exploitation to the more-vulnerable citizens amongst us.

Amendment No 2 introduces new clause 1B to create the new offence of human trafficking that is intended to replace both the existing offences of human trafficking for sexual exploitation under sections 57 to 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and of human trafficking for non-sexual exploitation under section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. The offence will apply at all stages of the trafficking chain, whether that is recruitment, transportation, harbouring, receiving or exchanging control over the victim.

The provision also addresses the international dimension of trafficking, which has been considered by previous legislation in this House. As with existing trafficking offences, the offence will apply where a person is trafficked into, out of or within the United Kingdom and will also cover trafficking activity that takes place anywhere else in the world where the perpetrator is a UK national, a habitual resident of Northern Ireland or a body incorporated under the law of the UK.

Amendment No 3 introduces new clause 1C, which defines exploitation for the purposes of the new trafficking offence under clause 1B and will cover a range of exploitation types including slavery and forced labour, sexual exploitation, organ removal, securing services by force, threats, deception, fraud etc or preying upon the vulnerabilities of children or vulnerable adults to secure services. In doing so, it also makes it clear that, for the purposes of these provisions, exploitation may include forced begging or criminal activity.

In addition to these offences, amendment No 4 introduces new clause 1D, which would create a new preparatory offence; that is, it will make it an offence to commit an offence with the intention of committing one of the offences under clauses 1A or 1B. Article 66 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 already makes it an offence to commit an offence with the intention of committing a relevant sexual offence, and there is already provision for preparatory offences in respect of trafficking for sexual exploitation. However, there is currently no equivalent preparatory offence in respect of trafficking for non-sexual exploitation or slavery-type offences. New clause 1D will close the current gap in the law and will offer greater protection against these types of offences, regardless of the nature of the exploitation involved.

Amendment No 5 introduces new clause 2A, which is intended to enhance the powers of courts in Northern Ireland to protect the public and individuals from the organised criminals who perpetrate these crimes. New clause 2A will amend schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 to specify the slavery-type and human trafficking offences under new clauses 1A and 1B as serious offences for the purposes of sentencing dangerous offenders. It will also amend schedule 2 to the 2008 Order to specify these offences as violent offences under Part 1 of the schedule and to list human trafficking for sexual exploitation as a specified sexual offence for the purposes of sentencing dangerous offenders. In doing so, new clause 2A will bring the offences under the ambit of the public protection arrangements — the public protection sentencing framework provided for under articles 13 and 14 of the 2008 Order — with the effect that, where the court considers it necessary for public protection, it could impose a life sentence, an indeterminate custodial sentence or an extended custodial sentence. Any individual who receives such a sentence will also be subject to the associated regime for release, licence, supervision and, importantly, recall arrangements.

The introduction of new clauses 1A to 1D will render clauses 1, 2 and 5 of the Bill as introduced no longer necessary, and that is why Lord Morrow and I have agreed they should no longer stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 introduces factors that the courts must treat as aggravating factors when considering the seriousness of a trafficking or slavery-type offence for the purposes of sentencing. Amendment Nos 6 to 14 are relevant to that. As has been acknowledged in the Chamber today, I have questioned the desirability of and need for clause 3, since the courts already have the ability to issue sentencing guidelines that are flexible enough to respond to emerging case law and, indeed, guidelines are already in place in respect of human trafficking for sexual exploitation. I acknowledge, however, the strong support that exists for the provision, and I have worked with Lord Morrow and his team to develop and agree amendment Nos 6 to 14, which will amend clause 3. The amendments are technical in nature, for the most part providing the appropriate definitions to give effect to the provision. Others will omit certain definitions, such as "position of trust" or "vulnerable adult", from the clause. Those definitions are now included instead in the new general interpretation provisions at new clause 17A. They do not in any way change the intended effect of clause 3.

I suppose you might say, in response to the kind of criticisms that have come from Mr Basil McCrea, that Lord Morrow has convinced me to keep the provision for aggravating factors in the Bill, and I have persuaded him perhaps to amend some of the provisions to tighten up some of the language. We are now agreed that this group of amendments is the best way to handle this issue.

Clause 4 will introduce the mandatory minimum sentence of two years for any human trafficking or slavery-type offence under new clauses 1A and 1B, except where the court believes that there are exceptional circumstances to justify not doing so. The usual position of course is that, whilst the legislature determines the maximum sentence, it does not determine the minimum sentence. Indeed, in a previous debate in the House when we were considering the issue of crimes against elderly people, Mr Jim Allister highlighted a case that he had been involved in where a father assaulted a paedophile pensioner who had abused his child. It was an example of why there can be difficulties with mandatory minimums. Of course, we have the judgement of Judge Burgess in the case of Crown v Matyas Pis, where he looked at the issue of an appropriate level of sentencing. I do not need to repeat the points made by Basil McCrea in that respect, though, if I were to do so, I would do it in a slightly different tone of voice from that which he adopted.

I wish it to be clear that I still, however, do not support clause 4. My firm belief is that judges are the best people to take account of the specific circumstances of each case as it is presented to them in court and that sentencing should be entirely a matter for the courts on a case-by-case basis. We have had examples highlighting certain bits of legislation. I will, however, point out that the Firearms Order 2004 was Westminster legislation and not, as seemed to be suggested earlier, legislation of this House. Whilst I acknowledge and am reassured that there can be exceptions allowed under clause 4, I do not believe, nonetheless, that the clause is appropriate or is helpful to us at this stage. Nor does the principle of a mandatory minimum sentence sit easily beside other sentencing provisions under new clause 2A, which would, for example, allow courts to award indeterminate sentences for the offences.

Mr Wilson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Ford: I will.

Mr Wilson: I can understand the Minister's point that he does not believe that the clause is appropriate if he takes the view that you should hand over to judges completely the discretion on this matter, but perhaps he will explain his second remark. Given the seriousness of this type of crime and given the fact that anyone who involves themselves in human trafficking does so in the full knowledge of the suffering that they are imposing, why does he not believe that a statutory minimum sentence is helpful?

Mr Ford: I recognise the points that the Member has made, but, to correct the first point, we do not give judges full discretion; we impose, as a legislature, the maximum. I believe that it is unhelpful to say, "This is a minimum, but it is not really a minimum and exceptional circumstances may apply". There are elements where that is confusing, and that is why I remain opposed. I recognise that many Members from different sides of the House have indicated that they are sympathetic to the provision, and amendments that have been tabled by Lord Morrow address some of my key concerns. However, should clause 4 stand part of the Bill at the end of today's proceedings, some further amendments may be needed to ensure that it is aligned with the existing sentencing framework that we have in Northern Ireland. If that is the case, I will certainly offer to continue to work with Lord Morrow to address those points.

In the event that clause 4 were to be supported by the Assembly, I believe that amendment Nos 15 to 18 and amendment No 20 will help to improve the clause and will mitigate those concerns. Amendment No 15 is purely technical and will ensure that clause 4 applies in respect of offences under new clauses 1A and 1B.

Amendment No 16 is a key amendment, as has been acknowledged by Lord Morrow, to ensure that clause 4 applies only to adults and not to children. That was one of the most significant concerns that I raised at Second Stage and in subsequent discussions, and I have argued that the clause as drafted would run counter to the principle of the best interests of the child, which is set out in article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I am grateful to Lord Morrow for engaging on that one and for tabling the amendment.

Amendment No 17 would require the judge to state in open court where he is of the opinion that exceptional circumstances exist that justify the imposition of a lesser sentence or a suspended sentence and the reasons for that. Amendment No 18, which is contingent on amendment No 17, would place an additional requirement on the chief clerk of the court to record the court's opinion and reasoning if such exceptional circumstances are considered to exist. Amendment No 19, however, removes the option for the court to award a suspended sentence and, I believe, would act as a further barrier to judicial discretion. I do not support that amendment.

Whilst I fully support the motivation behind it, I remain of the view that clause 4 as a whole runs contrary to the established principle of judicial discretion, the discretion that the legislature normally only sets the maximum rather than the minimum sentence, and I continue to stand against that.

Amendment Nos 21 to 23 and amendment Nos 60 and 61 are intended to facilitate the confiscation of criminal assets, and, in doing so, they seek to undermine the principal driver for the perpetrators of the offences.

They also include new powers to order the payment of reparation to victims.

Amendment No 21 introduces new clause 5A, which amends schedule 5 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) to designate the new human trafficking and slavery-type offences under new clauses 1A and 1B as criminal lifestyle offences. That, perhaps, needs a degree of explanation. POCA sets out a strict chronology for making confiscation orders, and the question of whether a person has a criminal lifestyle is central to this legal process. If an individual is convicted of a lifestyle offence specified under POCA, the courts can find that they have obtained the benefit of general criminal conduct, which then allows the courts to undertake an inquiry, beyond the normal statutory six-year limitation period, into all prior criminal activities. Profit is clearly the key motivation for those involved in trafficking and exploitation, and by improving the court's ability to confiscate criminal assets, new clause 5A will help to undermine the economic motivation that fuels the exploitation of human beings. By specifying those offences as criminal lifestyle offences for the purposes of the confiscation of assets, there will also be a consistent approach between human trafficking and slavery-type offences and other organised crimes, such as drug trafficking, arms trafficking and money laundering.

Amendment Nos 22 and 60 taken together will introduce new clause 5B and new schedule 1 to the Bill, which will also enhance the powers of the court to target and pursue the assets of traffickers and exploiters. Those new provisions will provide courts with powers on conviction of an offender for a trafficking or slavery-type offence to order the forfeiture of ships, vehicles or aircraft that have been used or were intended for use in connection with that offence. Equivalent powers are already available in connection with the existing human trafficking offences, and it is important that they should be available also in connection with the new human trafficking offence. New clause 5B and schedule 1 will also extend those powers in respect of slavery-type offences under new clause 1A. In that respect, as Lord Morrow highlighted, Northern Ireland law will go beyond the provisions set out in the Westminster Modern Slavery Bill, which will apply only to human trafficking offences. I am delighted that that is an example of where we are able to go further in the Assembly than is currently the case in the UK Parliament. Perhaps that may be something that some MPs or Members of the House of Lords in this House may wish to take up when they go to Westminster.

Lord Morrow and I are clear that victims should be at the heart of the Bill. Amendment Nos 23 and 61 will introduce new clause 5C and new schedule 2, which, together, will enhance the rights of victims by providing the courts with powers to order convicted perpetrators to pay reparation to their victims for any harm that they have suffered as a result of the offence. The model for those slavery and trafficking reparation orders under new clause 5C and schedule 2 is broadly equivalent to that which already exists in respect of compensation orders under the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1994. However, in addition, these new measures would require the court to consider making one of those reparation orders where it had the power to do so, and where it can but chooses not to make one, to set out its reasons. That additional requirement on the courts is intended to enhance awareness of this further means of redress for victims of these offences. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of new schedule 2 set out the effect of a reparation order, including enforcement arrangements in the case of a breach of the order, and also make supplementary provision, including in respect of variations and appeals.

Reference was made in the context of existing clause 7 to training matters, particularly by the Chair of the Committee. Whilst those particular provisions are now to be removed from the Bill, let me remind the House that, so far, more than 4,000 PSNI officers have had —

Mr Humphrey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that. Having recognised the right of the Assembly to set maximum sentences, why does the Minister shy away from setting minimum sentences and curtailing the power of judges?

Mr Ford: I thought that I had answered that point, although I am grateful to Mr Humphrey for giving me a chance to repeat it. I believe that it is the normal procedure that the legislature in nearly all criminal cases sets the maximum but not any minimum. The principle of judicial independence and judicial discretion then applies to consider how the case is handled on the facts of the individual case as presented to the judge. I believe that that is the appropriate way to continue, and that is the norm in most cases.

On the point that I was making about training, more than 4,000 PSNI officers have received training in the last couple of years. Operational guidance was issued by the PSNI in October 2013. There is policy and guidance for prosecutors. I have been at some awareness-raising events for staff from health and social care trusts as well as police officers, and a lot of work is being done by partners across health and social care and justice to ensure that guidance is available to staff — whether they be GPs or working in A&E — most likely to come across trafficking victims. I believe that provision for training is being adequately dealt with, and I am grateful for Lord Morrow's acknowledgement that clause 7(1) is no longer required.

Amendment No 27 standing in my name aims to introduce new clause 5G, which is intended to replace the remaining parts of clause 7 and make explicit the legal principle that investigations into and prosecutions on human trafficking and slavery-type offences are not dependent on victims reporting the offence or accusing a person of committing one of those offences. It also clarifies that criminal proceedings for one of those offences may commence or continue, even in cases in which the victim has made a statement about the offence and subsequently withdrawn it. If amendment No 27 is accepted, it would mean that clause 7 in its entirety need not stand part of the Bill, as agreed by Lord Morrow and me.

Amendment No 40, which was tabled in the name of the Minister of Finance and Personnel, aims to introduce new clause 6B to provide for the criminalisation of forced marriage. It is designed to capture two different sorts of behaviour. It is clear that this issue sits easily in a human trafficking Bill, and I am pleased to take up the opportunity on behalf of the Minister of Finance to ensure that it is carried through at this stage. Clause 6B(1) would capture violent, threatening or coercive behaviour intended to cause another person to enter into a marriage. Clause 6B(5) would capture any form of deception used to trick a person into leaving the country with a view to forcing that person to marry. The person may, for example, have been told that they are going abroad to attend a family event and may leave voluntarily on that false premise.

The new clause would cover people who do not or cannot consent because they lack capacity and the relevant penalties are duly set out in clause 6B(7). This is based on the corresponding offences in England, Wales and Scotland, for which the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides. It is often said that parents who force their children to marry believe that they are acting in their child’s best interests, building stronger families or preserving cultural or religious traditions. They may not see anything wrong in their actions and, often, they are otherwise loving and kind parents who have never given cause for concern in the treatment or care of their child. Such beliefs are, however, wholly misguided, and it is now rightly accepted that there can never be any justification for forcing a person to marry against his or her will. Indeed, freely given consent is a prerequisite of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh marriages.

The initial act of overriding a person’s free will is objectionable in and of itself, but there are wider consequences that may flow from that act and that may continue to have a detrimental impact. The victim may find himself or herself in another country with a completely different culture, unable to leave home unaccompanied, isolated by language barriers and alone and deprived of the love and support of wider family members that we all value so much. He or she may have been removed from school or prevented from going on to further education, denied the opportunity to reach his or her full potential and to live a happy and productive life. It is not just the victim who is damaged; children who are born into these marriages may witness violence or abuse or may even be the subject of violence and abuse themselves.

We already have civil protection orders, which can be called in aid when a person is at risk of being forced into marriage or has already been forced into marriage. Those civil orders are underpinned by statutory guidance for key personnel. However, we must use every tool at our disposal and ensure that every possible protection is put in place. The criminalisation of forced marriage will offer additional protections, but, more importantly, it will send a clear message about what is and is not acceptable in the 21st century. If we are to eradicate forced marriage, we must adopt a zero-tolerance approach, and the new criminal offences in respect of forced marriage will allow us to do just that. I therefore commend amendment No 40 to the House.

Finally, you will be pleased to hear, amendment No 50, tabled jointly by Lord Morrow and me, is technical in nature —

Mr Frew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Ford: Yes.

Mr Frew: I apologise about asking the Minister to go back, but will he give the House a better understanding of the fundamental point about setting a minimum sentence? Is it OK to set a maximum sentence and curtail the judiciary in that aspect but then not set a minimum sentence? What is the difference between maximum and minimum? How does one curtail judges if the other does not?

Mr Ford: I thought that we had got past that point, but I am grateful for yet another opportunity to talk to it. The simple reality is that legislation in any part of the United Kingdom will always assume that there is a maximum penalty for any given criminal offence, but not always a minimum. In fact, very rarely will there be a minimum. It is not, as said by a number of Members from the DUP Benches, that the legislature cannot do that, and the Attorney General has advised that that may be the case. Rather, it is saying that it is not normal. Once you put in a requirement for a mandatory minimum sentence and then write "exceptional circumstances", it starts to cloud the issue in an unhelpful way, particularly when we have Judge Burgess's defining judgement in the first trafficking case to be tried in Northern Ireland, which made it clear what the range of options will be on the basis of a judgement from the court. So I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to go there.

Finally, and you will be pleased to hear me say that, Mr Deputy Speaker, amendment No 50, which was tabled jointly by Lord Morrow and me, is technical in nature and is needed to ensure that the measures provided for under clause 13 in respect of the protection of victims of police investigations will also apply to victims of the new offences specified under new clauses 1A and 1B.

That summarises the position of the Department of Justice. It is noteworthy that of the amendments tabled in this group — almost half of the Bill is covered by it — 27 have been agreed by Lord Morrow and me. Lord Morrow tabled one amendment that I do not agree with, there are four cases in which we agree that a particular clause should not stand part and one case in which I seek to remove a clause that Lord Morrow does not agree with. That is a measure of the positive and constructive engagement that was undertaken. It may not appeal to every Member — I think of a Member at my right shoulder — but it appeals to the great majority of us. I commend those amendments to the House.

Lord Morrow: It has been a fairly long and very interesting debate. I had thought that, at this stage of the day, we would have been nearly past group three. It bodes well for the evening — perhaps we should prepare ourselves for a long evening and night. It might be the night of the long knives. I do not know, but we will see how it goes from here on in.

I commend and thank all those who have spoken in the debate. It has been largely good tempered. One or two Members got excited and started to jump around and wave their papers all over the place. We always have such exceptions with us, for the present anyway — we will see what the future holds for those people.

I acknowledge everything that has been said. It seems a long time ago, although it was just before lunchtime, that my colleague the Chair of the Justice Committee elevated me marginally too highly, I think, when he likened me to the great abolitionist William Wilberforce. I am no latter-day William Wilberforce. I want to make that very clear, and I hope that you are listening, Mr McCrea. I do not accept that for a single second.

Quite recently, I was reminded of something about Wilberforce by an individual who had looked up how long he had fought slavery and found that it took him 40 years. I have been going at this Bill for less than three years, so maybe I have another 37 years to go. I do not know, but I know that Basil McCrea is saying, "There is not 37 years in that fellow over there." Just be careful before you make any pronouncements, Mr McCrea.

I thank Mr Givan for his very lavish praise, and I appreciate what he said. There has been general consensus, right around the House, that the Bill is basically good. There is one exception, and we will deal with that in a moment or two. Most have acknowledged that, while they may not agree with every aspect and part of the Bill covered by the group 1 amendments, it is a necessary Bill and something that should be done.

Only one person to date has said that it is not fit for purpose, but there is always one, is there not?

I was going to comment on what each individual said, but, since many individuals have said the same or similar things, that may not be necessary. However, I want to make it clear that I appreciate everything that has been said, even by those who, at times, have not been totally supportive of what I am trying to do through this Bill and, in particular, in relation to some of the clauses, whether they be single clauses or amendments.

It is obvious that one issue has been contentious, and it rotates around clause 4. I say, quite frankly, to those who oppose clause 4 that their opposition is not sustainable. When they were asked about maximum and minimum sentences, we had some answers that, in my books, were not very convincing. This Bill is trying to set out in clear and stark terms that the Assembly believes that human trafficking is a great social evil and a heinous crime. Even Mr McCrea, who has no regard for my Bill at all, at least admitted that human trafficking was something that we should be opposed to, and then he went off the rails completely and was not prepared to acknowledge anything else.

Mr B McCrea: Will the Member give way?

Lord Morrow: Not at the moment. I think that I have had enough, just for the minute. There is only so much that one can take in a day.

I believe that this modest proposal is a very appropriate and effective way of making it absolutely clear that we want to make Northern Ireland a cold house, or a cold place, for human trafficking and traffickers. It is designed to further concentrate the minds of would-be traffickers, increasing the incentive for them to think again and thereby reduce the chances for and levels of trafficking in Northern Ireland. I would also like to come back to the intervention that I received during my speech, just to clarify that, when clause 4 reaches the statute book, supplementary guidance for the courts will be produced as a matter of course. I very much hope that Members will support all the amendments in the group, with the exception of that tabled by the Minister, which argues that clause 4 should not stand part of the Bill.

Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for giving way. I have not been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but I have been following it as best I can on the television upstairs. What we want to do is send a very strong message on human trafficking. One of the ways that we do that is by setting a minimum sentence. It has been done before. It has been pointed out, and I accept, that it is not a regular occurrence. However, in relation to drink-driving, society felt that it wanted to send a very strong message, and therefore a minimum sentence was set in relation to that issue. I think that this is another issue on which society expects us to send a very strong message to the judiciary and, indeed, to society as a whole.

I have listened to what people have had to say about fettering the discretion of judges, but judges act within the laws that are set down by the Assembly and Parliament, so we are actually sending a very strong message to the judiciary in relation to that type of action. Therefore, I think, it is wholly and rightly within our limits to do such a thing. Therefore, I support you, Lord Morrow, in setting a minimum sentence for human trafficking, and I hope that the whole House supports what you have laid down.

Lord Morrow: I thank my colleague very much for those valuable and timely points. I too urge the House to take cognisance of what she has said. They are compatible with what I am trying to achieve through this private Members' Bill.

I do not wish to detain the House because, as I said, we have a fairly long evening ahead of us, but Mr Basil McCrea in particular was very disparaging. He said:

He also said that the Department had helped me save face by giving me some concessions. I have had long discussions with the departmental officials on this Bill, and I do not believe that any of them, if they were able to stand in the middle of this Floor or stand where I am standing, would agree with that. Mr McCrea says my Bill is no different from the Modern Slavery Bill. He clearly has not read my Bill and compared it with the Modern Slavery Bill. If he had, he would have seen that my Bill goes much further. It always did in many areas, including — and I want him to listen — on the provision of child trafficking guardians and statutory provision for victims of trafficking.

Mr McCrea would do well to read both Bills: he should get the Modern Slavery Bill and my Bill, set them beside each other and see how much further my Bill goes. My Bill is tailored for Northern Ireland. It is not a perfect Bill. My colleague Tom Buchanan made it quite clear that, when I came to the House first, when I went to the Committee and wherever I went with my Bill, I made it clear that it was not the finished article. My Bill was never put forward as the perfect article. I have said that from day one. As a result of what the Committee has done, of what others have said to me and of what the Department has done and said, I have tabled amendments. Many of those amendments have been agreed with the Minister. Every Member can see quite clearly that they have been signed off by both of us.

Mr McCrea, I think you are out of school, I think you are not fit for purpose in the debate today and whether —

Mr B McCrea: Will the Member give way?

Lord Morrow: No, not now.

Mr B McCrea: So, you will not engage in debate.

Lord Morrow: No. You had your opportunity, and you will get another one a little later, I suspect. You obviously have not read this Bill to any great extent. You set your face against this piece of legislation from day one, and today you came in and denigrated it and said that it should not be going any further.

You said that we are fettering judges. My colleague Arlene Foster has made it quite clear that we do that on occasion. However, this is done in such a way that judges can derogate. Therefore, it is not right to say that we have said, "There will be a two-year minimum sentence. That's it. Full stop." We have not said that: we have allowed for a derogation.

I want to test the opinion of the House on this one. It is absolutely vital to retain clause 4 in the Bill.

Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I have listened to what he has said, and I know how much work he has put into the Bill and how much work the Justice Committee has put into scrutinising it. Does it not provide reassurance to the House that the Member who is bringing the Bill forward has listened to the Members of the House?

Lord Morrow: I thank my colleague Mr Frew for his comments.

To those who still have reservations about clause 4 remaining part of the Bill, I ask them to think very carefully. This is an attempt to highlight in a very explicit and determined way that we in Northern Ireland take human trafficking very, very seriously and that those who are engaged in it will be dealt with by the full rigours of the law and that they can, and possibly will, be subject to a two-year minimum sentence.

Mr Humphrey: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. In the final part of his contribution, Mr McCrea talked about the police and the Public Prosecution Service. Does the Member agree that the now Assistant Chief Constable, Mr Drew Harris, clarified the position of the Police Service of Northern Ireland on this Bill to the Committee when he appeared in front of it a number of months ago?

Lord Morrow: I thank my colleague Mr Humphrey for making that salient and important point. Mr McCrea said that the PSNI were opposed to this legislation. Let me be very clear: that is not the position of the PSNI. I believe that it is an abuse of a Member's position to come in here and misrepresent the PSNI or, indeed, anyone else. That is not their position. If Mr McCrea wants to get up, he should get up now and withdraw that remark, knowing perfectly well that that is not the position of the police. They have not said that.

As a matter of fact, as my colleague said, ACC Harris has made it quite clear that that is not their position. I ask the Member to take cognisance of that.

I will leave the matter here and I would like to test the opinion of the House on these amendments.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Members, before I put the Question, I remind everyone that we have debated opposition to clause 1 but the Question will be put in the positive manner as usual.

After clause 1 insert

After clause 1 insert

After clause 1 insert

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Amendment No 18 is consequential to amendment No 17.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): Order. I ask Members to return to their seats, please. Thank you.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Beggs): We now come to the second group of amendments for debate, which concerns amendment Nos 24 to 26 and 62, as well as opposition to clauses 7 and 15 standing part. The amendments deal with a duty on the Department to publish a strategy, new slavery and trafficking prevention orders and a duty on specified public bodies to notify the National Crime Agency when it is believed someone may be a victim of relevant offences. Members will note that amendment No 25 is mutually exclusive with clause 15 standing part. Amendment No 62 is mutually exclusive with clause 24 standing part.

Mr Ford: I beg to move amendment No 24: