Raymond McCartney
Foyle · Sinn Féin · Northern Ireland
“Comhghairdeas leis an Aire. I congratulate the Minister on what is, obviously, a very challenging portfolio. I welcome the statement. I welcome the speed with which you have met the unions and, hopefully, share your optimism that you have put on the table an offer that will see an end to the industrial action.”
“This is a classic case of, sometimes, a decision being made that, people think, is the right thing to do at one time that only pushes another challenge down the road. We need a commitment from the Minister to ensure that we have a mechanism in place to safeguard us against that.”
“The Minister has alluded to the fact that the Assembly is about to dissolve, and we will all go to the doors in the coming weeks. I commend the Minister. Certainly, when we go to the doors, many issues will be raised, and it will be good for us, as Assembly Members, to be able to say to people, "No water tax".”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as na freagraí sin. I thank the Minister for his answers. We talked about the cost of division, but I ask him to talk about the reputational damage to the Assembly that has come about as a result of some disgraceful decisions that were blatantly discriminatory, sectarian in the truest sense of the word and pa…”
“That aside, it is fair to say that, over a long number of years, the expansion of the campus at Magee has been very much part of the politics of the north-west; indeed, Stephen Farry, in fairness, talked about it.”
“The university, in presenting that, gave all the pluses around that and said clearly that one of the things, particularly at postgraduate entry in medical schools and in other courses, from experiences elsewhere, is the idea of what they call the 20:20 rule — people stay within 20 miles of where they were educated for 20 years.”
The complete record
Every one of 553 lines we hold for Raymond McCartney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 12.
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Committee was advised in July that the Minister was proposing to bring forward a legislative consent motion for the transferred aspects of the Modern Slavery Bill, which aims to enhance the effectiveness of the legal framework for tackling human trafficking and modern slavery offences and to improve the protection for, and support provided to, victims of such offences. <BR /> <BR />Modern slavery can take a number of forms, including sexual exploitation, forced labour and domestic servitude, and victims come from all walks of life.”
“Perhaps the Member, not being a member of the Justice Committee and, perhaps, not following the debate, particularly in relation to the NCA, does not know that our issues around that are about accountability. Indeed, if he read the judgement last week in a London court about the NCA, then perhaps he too would have a look at some of the commitments that were supposed to have been made in England, never mind those that were supposed to have been made here. If he does so, he will see that we are well justified in not supporting the transfer of the NCA because of issues around accountability.”
“<BR /> <BR />While the Committee is of the view that it is preferable for the Assembly to legislate on devolved matters, given the cross-jurisdictional nature of the crimes being addressed in the Serious Crime Bill, the difficulties in managing the combination of reserved and devolved measures if legislating at Westminster and the Assembly on the same general subject and the need for the measures to come into force at the same time for judicial and law enforcement purposes, the Committee agreed at the meeting on 19 November 2014 that it was content to support the legislative consent motion. The Committee subsequently provided all MLAs with a copy of its report on the LCM. I commend the motion to the Assembly.”
“<BR /> <BR />The LCM was laid in the Assembly on 10 November. As outlined by the Minister of Justice, it will enable the Serious Crime Bill to cover four areas, powers for which have been devolved to the Assembly. These include proceeds of crime legislation, serious crime prevention orders, female genital mutilation offences and a new offence criminalising the possession of material that contains practical advice on how to commit a sexual offence against a child. The Committee has previously supported legislative measures to strengthen the notification arrangements and monitoring of sex offenders and, therefore, welcomes this new offence.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Beidh mise ag labhairt thar ceann an Choiste ar maidin. I will speak on behalf of the Committee for Justice. <BR /> <BR />The Committee was advised in July 2014 that the Minister of Justice was proposing to bring forward a legislative consent motion (LCM) for the devolved aspects of the Serious Crime Bill, which had been introduced in the Westminster Parliament on 5 June 2014. At that stage, the Committee noted the details of the Bill, which will provide additional legal powers to deal with the threat from serious and organised crime, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, organised illegal immigration, child sexual exploitation, high-value fraud, counterfeiting and cybercrime, all of which affect this jurisdiction and operate on a cross-jurisdictional and international basis.”
“I believe that if we are all going to present a united case — the One Plan is very core to it — we have to put ourselves in the position where, if someone were to go the Minister in the morning and say, "Are you ready to proceed with the A6?", he would be in a position to say, "Yes, I have all the technical detail done." At present, the speculation about seeking another way of going around Dungiven, in my opinion, perhaps pushes it back. We should be trying to assist the Minister in the process of having it shovel-ready so that, if the opportunity were to present itself in terms of capital, we would be ready to go.”
“<BR /> <BR />Ross Hussey quite rightly made the point that, if we are ever going to present this to anyone to ask for more money, we have to be nearly shovel-ready. I think that that is perhaps one of the growing concerns. Perhaps the Minister will address the fact that there is a suggestion of looking at another way of bringing about the Dungiven bypass. Many people believe that the route that is now nearly established is the best one. Perhaps looking for an alternative route would slow the process down and push it further down the agenda.”
“That makes it more attractive for investors. That is the purpose of the lobby for the A6, and, no doubt, it was the purpose of the lobby for the A5 and any other capital project that is either in place or ready to go forward. It is all about making sure of those types of issues. <BR /> <BR />As a representative of the north-west, I understand well that there are other areas that are dealing with unemployment and poor infrastructure. They, quite rightly, make the case as well. We know that we are in a competitive market, but we believe that, given the critical importance of Derry, of the north-west and of the expansion of the university, issues like the A6 become even more potent and important. That is why it is important that we bring this forward.”
“I am saying that just in terms of the framing. We believe that it is important, and I am sure that the Minister will accept that, in any contact that he has had with any person in the north-west, particularly in Derry, they will always point out the major infrastructure, and the A6 obviously features heavily in that. As I said, this is part of major commitments made in the Programme for Government to tackle unemployment, create more jobs and, obviously, deal with regional disparity and regional imbalance. It also has to do with the issue of connectivity and the ability for people to be able to move freely is what inward investors want. That is what INI tells the representatives when we sit down. That is what we need. We need better infrastructure and the ability for people to get in and out of the city quicker.”
“Whatever work William did to ensure that the DUP had a good representative for Foyle paid off: Maurice was on-message on the A6, which is welcome. <BR /> <BR />On the motion, when Ross Hussey was speaking he perhaps felt that it was some sort of veiled attack on the Minister, as if he is the only person who is responsible for this. I think that we are all wise enough to know that this is an ongoing and long-established issue. As representatives of Foyle, Members from the north-west who have spoken, and even Trevor Lunn from a constituency far flung from the A6, we think that it is important to ensure that the issue is always on the agenda. In particular, we want to put it on the agenda because it was a major commitment in the Programme for Government, which —”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt ar son an rúin agus ar son an leasaithe. I will be speaking in support of the motion and the amendment. <BR /> <BR />I commend Declan McAleer and apologise to the Chair: Cathal Ó hOisín was originally meant to propose the motion but could not do so because of time constraints. I knew that the Minister would be wise enough to know that Declan got up to ensure that the motion did not fall. We could have used the excuse that we were caught at Moneynick, but at 12.00 noon in the day that is an excuse that everybody would see through. <BR /> <BR />I commend Maurice Devenney for his first contribution to the Assembly and for being on-message immediately.”
“Is there not a point about the ability to bring the Bill back and amend it in the future? It is also open to you to do that, but, where there is a genuine doubt about the advice — and I think that you have to accept that there is — some Members have not got the opportunity to speak to the Attorney General or, like the Minister, to take legal advice. Prior to both of you speaking, we had outlined that other people are saying that there is a possibility of unintended consequences, and we have to protect ourselves from that as well.”
“I do not think that any of us doubt the principle behind you trying to close that gap. As we heard today, perhaps the gap in all this was the absence of the amendment at Committee Stage, where we could have examined it and tested it with the Attorney General. <BR /> <BR />We are getting two conflicting reports. The Minister says he has received legal advice that gives one view, and you say you have received other legal advice that gives another view. So, there is a genuine dilemma, and you cannot accuse people of turning and looking the other way. We are trying to make sure that, in six or nine months, we do not have to come back and say, "There was an unintended consequence, which we should have avoided".”
“Lord Morrow mentioned that the Attorney General feels that this does not fall within that definition. Have you had any contact with the Attorney General to clear this matter up?”
“I think that the amendments, particularly how the Health Department will address and provide the support mechanisms, are to be welcomed. <BR /> <BR />We had a concern. The proposer of the Bill outlined what we believe were potential unintended consequences around the lap dancing and strip clubs scenarios. I think it is important that the proposer is now saying that it is the advice of the Attorney General that these would not become criminal offences, as we would say, in terms of the potential unintended consequences. I would like to hear the views of both the Minister and the proposer of the Bill, Lord Morrow, when each of them speaks. If someone unfortunately found themselves in that position and was charged, is what we say here today — and perhaps what he has said — a form of defence if it became an indictable offence?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. At the beginning, I echo how the Chairman finished off by saying that we appreciated the work of the Committee staff in supplying whatever information we required as the Bill went through its Committee Stage. Again, I thank the Minister and his officials, who were also very willing to assist us in the many, many issues that we had to address. I also thank Lord Morrow and the people he worked with. Certainly, any time that we asked for clarity on an issue, he was very willing to supply us with it. <BR /> <BR />We will support all the amendments in this group, except one. I will explain that presently. The amendments on the exiting strategies and the support mechanism are excellent because we had to send a clear signal that this was not just about clause 6; it was about wider issues.”
“Indeed, at the last stage of the Bill, we argued very strongly for the inclusion of that independence. Not to take away from the work of a rapporteur or any outcome of the Modern Slavery Bill in Westminster, but we felt that, here, it was important that, some time in the future, we would have a debate, an argument and perhaps a validation of our intended purpose, so that we could say that the Bill set out to achieve a, b, c and d, and it did so. That is why we will not support that amendment.”
“That would not have to be an ongoing process; it could be time bound, or it could be every two years. If, as expected, the Bill is approved by the Assembly and becomes an Act, that would allow us to have some measure and debate on the impact that it is having on human trafficking and sexual exploitation through prostitution.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. We support all the amendments bar amendment No 44. The provision in amendment No 44 extends beyond the role and remit of a rapporteur. <BR /> <BR />We have all heard that this is unique legislation. As mentioned in today's debate and previous debates, it has created interest elsewhere, particularly in Leinster House, where an Oireachtas Committee is discussing the same type of issues. Obviously, Lord Morrow's Bill has been mentioned at Westminster, and he has received praise for his work. <BR /> <BR />Given that the Bill is more than just about trafficking — there are other aspects on prostitution — it is necessary and desirable for it to be scrutinised when it becomes an Act to see how it performs.”
“On a point of order, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I want to apologise for not being in my place during Question Time to the Education Minister. I have spoken to him as well, and I apologise for my absence.”
“Is there not a danger that somehow the message will be that, by supporting the motion, you are not supporting the stocktake exercise?”
“<BR /> <BR />When Stewart Dickson was speaking, I was not confused, but, given the tone of his presentation and acceptance of the stocktake, I thought that he would have been more comfortable with the amendment, particularly as Alban Maginness addressed the points that Paul Frew made. When you note the document, you find that the beef of the middle part of the motion, in terms of compromising security, threats, removing conflict from the prison, is addressed in the stocktake document. My fear —”
“The independent assessment team was clear that, having supported the agreement in 2010 and this latest stocktake, the prisoners would put themselves in a position where they would be seen to be clearly in breach of the agreements. I do not want this to become a poring-over of what happened in the past; but there is no doubt that the opportunity that was created was missed and lost, and we should have that in mind as we take this forward. <BR /> <BR />I agree with the Prison Service in its support for the recommendations, except for the one that is obviously outside its remit. However, as we go forward, we should all bear in mind that this is an opportunity.”
“I thought that I was being very clear when I said that no one is under threat. The document is clear that, whoever is posing a threat and in whatever circumstances, it will not be tolerated because it is in breach of the principles. That is the point that I am making. <BR /> <BR />The document and the stocktake outline the way forward. When the independent assessment team was before the Committee last week, I thought that they gave a very robust outline of their thinking in response to questions. They were asked whether this was compromised. I think that that zero-sum approach does not serve us well. The thrust of some of the questions was about what would happen if the prisoners were in breach of the agreement.”
“We could spend all day, every day looking back to 2010 and asking who was responsible, who let what slip and what went wrong. However, the opportunity for all of us to create a conflict-free atmosphere and a place where no one lives under threat was lost. We now have an opportunity to re-establish that. In my opinion —”
“Go to Maghaberry, Hydebank and Magilligan, and you will see a regime in which people are not needlessly locked up and are involved in purposeful activity, and, when it comes to outcomes for society, that is more productive than any outdated concept of locking people up and throwing away the key. Punishment should end with the loss of liberty. We should have a process that gives people the opportunity to be more constructive while they are in prison. <BR /> <BR />It remains our view that the agreement reached in 2010 and the principles that underpin it, which are repeated in the stocktake — I agree with Alban Maginness about the part of the motion that the amendment would remove — make very clear what conflict-free means. People should be able to live their life without being under the threat of intimidation or violence. We support that.”
“We welcome the initiative and the work of all concerned — the assessors, Anne Owers's team in the past, the Prison Service and senior management in Maghaberry — to bring about a conflict-free situation in Maghaberry and a place where everyone can be treated with dignity and respect, and that means everybody. <BR />Thankfully, in the 21st century, we have reached a place where the concept of prison as "lock them up and throw away the key" has long since been confined to where it should be: the dustbin of history. I have visited Maghaberry on countless occasions.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will speak in favour of the amendment and in opposition to the motion. However, given the way that the motion is framed, I have no disagreement on the need to remove the threat against prison staff, and, if there are issues about staffing levels, perhaps there should be an ongoing review. <BR /> <BR />The reason why my party is opposed to the motion and favours the amendment is due to the supposition outlined by Mr Givan and Paul Frew that the independent assessment and stocktake is somehow wrong and should not be supported.”
“Indeed, they serve only to undermine it. Evidence is not the baseless allegations of untested intelligence sources.”
“The interest of justice is not served by half-truths and innuendo.”
“— to mount attacks, both physical and verbal, on other innocent people and on homes and properties. He cautioned against that, saying that it did not serve the interests of those seeking justice and, indeed, stood in the way of it.”
“In the same debate in February 2008, Conor pointed out that there were those using this death for their own narrow interests, be it those who are opposed to the Sinn Féin political strategy or those who are trying to use it for political or electoral advantage. He pointed out that the campaign for justice for Paul Quinn was used by some —”
“For people to come here and put forward the position outlined by the IMC, rather than that of the PSNI and an Garda Síochána, is also questionable. The IMC had no role or remit as an investigative body. Indeed, it permitted itself, time and again, to be guided by untested and unknown intelligence sources. <BR /> <BR />Conor Murphy, as MP for Newry and Armagh, is on the record from 20 October 2007 as saying that Paul Quinn was murdered and that anyone with any information should bring it forward. He has offered to meet the Quinn family to assist them in any way that he or Sinn Féin can to ensure that those responsible face the full rigours of the judicial process. This remains his position and that of our party.”
“That is because neither he nor anyone else can offer a single shred of evidence that somehow, as the motion tries to suggest by coverall but meaningless titles, members of Sinn Féin have evidence in relation to the case that they are deliberately withholding. That is simply not true and is designed to create division. If Dominic Bradley or anyone else has any information that any member of Sinn Féin is withholding information in relation to the case, they should by now have passed it on to the PSNI and an Garda Síochána.”
“It is selective and is designed to create division on what should be a motion that commands total and absolute support in the Assembly; that is, a universal declaration that anyone with information should bring it forward and those responsible for Paul Quinn's murder should face due judicial process. I ask this: why is that not the objective of the motion? Indeed, to seek anything less, in my opinion, leaves it open to question. <BR /> <BR />The motion is premised on an assumption that has no basis in fact. It is obvious from the contribution of the proposer of the motion that he cannot offer any substance to the claims made in his motion.”
“I am not giving way on this sensitive issue for very obvious reasons. <BR /> <BR />That has been and remains our position: anyone with any information should bring it forward. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the motion tabled by the SDLP. The murder of and search for justice for Paul Quinn has been debated in the Assembly before. Indeed, Alex Attwood referred to a contribution from Conor Murphy that day but was inaccurate. If he goes back and reads Hansard, he will find that out. At that time, we stated that the motion was selective and divisive: so is this motion.”
“Paul Quinn was murdered on 20 October 2007, just over seven years ago. To this day, no one has been held responsible for his murder. I am very conscious of the grief and pain that his family endures. As we speak in the debate, I am conscious that they are in the Public Gallery. We have to be mindful that their journey for truth and justice will continue beyond the debate. From the outset, let me say again on behalf of Sinn Féin, echoing the comments made by Pat Sheehan and Cathal Boylan, that anyone with any information on any matter relating to the murder of Paul Quinn should immediately bring it to the proper authorities, be that an Garda Síochána or the PSNI. We will assist the Quinn family in any way we can as they continue in their search for justice.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Dúnmharaíodh Paul Quinn seacht mbliana ó shin, agus go dtí an lá seo ní raibh éinne os comhair na cúirte mar gheall ar an dúnmharú sin. Ba mhaith liom ár gcomhbhrón a dhéanamh le tuismitheoirí Paul Quinn agus lena gclann; tá siad inár smaointe fríd díospóireacht an lae inniu.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she outline what provision has been made in the white paper for rural communities to be part of the roll-out, the discussion and the consultation, particularly in relation to community safety?”
“— is it not unreasonable that, four years into the process, there is failure to get a technological replacement for a full body search?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. In relation to the point made by Mr Eastwood, given that, in August 2010, an arrangement to bring in new technology was supported by the Anne Owers report and, indeed, only last week, the independent assessors came to the same conclusion —”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for his answer. This morning, the former Finance Minister was involved in a very interesting discussion on Radio Ulster. Despite the different political perspectives, productivity featured, which would be no bad thing for all aspects of the economy. Are there any other steps that the Civil Service could take through flexitime to increase productivity, which would be a bonus for all concerned?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. The Minister has outlined that there will be some form of public consultation. Can he perhaps give some insight as to what sort of consultation he would like to see happening on this issue?”
“The consultants give us a cost, and we discover months later that it was grossly underestimated. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will find out why this went wrong, particularly the first estimate?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagraí agus as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for his statement and his answer to the first question on it. He talked about his anger and disappointment, which I know that many will share. Obviously, the Committee will delve into this in more detail. Here is another capital project — there are reports just this afternoon about the college at Desertcreat — in which consultants are paid large sums to come up with a project design.”
“We can all make excuses, but we cannot ignore, nor should we forget, that there was a very public commitment made by the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, recorded and broadcast to those who wished to hear it, in which he said very, very clearly that he would honour the commitment made by Ian Paisley, the then First Minister and leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, that Mitchel McLaughlin or a Sinn Féin nominee would be the person who would sit in your seat. Therefore, when people leave here today, they should be in no doubt that this was a commitment made and a commitment broken.”
“I think that people out there will well remember that commitment, and I think that all that we have heard this afternoon from the Members who have spoken so far was excuse after excuse for a reason for not fulfilling what was a very public commitment. <BR /> <BR />It is easy to list issues that people feel perhaps should have been delivered that were not. I could mention Long Kesh, which was a Programme for Government commitment, and we could talk about the letter from America.”
“Go raibh maith agat, Acting Speaker. First, I also send my best wishes to William Hay. I hope that he has a speedy recovery and that he will in the future provide good representation for the people of Derry, which he has done for a long number of years. <BR /> <BR />I add my words of support for Mitchel McLaughlin. Martin McGuinness outlined very clearly why and how Mitchel McLaughlin would make an excellent Speaker for this Assembly. Of course, I share the disappointment that the Democratic Unionist Party will not honour the public commitment that its party leader made on its behalf. I think that it is very noticeable this morning that not one of the people who was speaking on its behalf in any way suggested that there was not a public commitment.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for that answer. We know that the target is 1 April 2015, which is when the new councils will kick in. What would the impact be if the Bill were not introduced and made law by that time?”
“Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.”