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 5 of 12.
“There is absolutely no doubt that the charter reflects many of the things that they said and, indeed, many of the things that the organisations involved in the criminal justice system also acknowledged, but perhaps there was a gap between what people knew and what should be done, and now it is on a statutory footing. I have absolutely no doubt that some of the things that people said would have struck you as very ordinary and very straightforward, but when they were going through the journey, it seemed like an impediment and, sometimes, an imposition for them. <BR /> <BR />We are very satisfied that the work of the inquiry has helped to inform the charter. I know that, on other occasions when it was being debated in the House, the Minister acknowledged that.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I welcome the introduction of the regulations today in relation to the victim charter, which now puts it on a statutory footing. The Minister and the Chair have acknowledged the role of the Justice Committee in relation to the inquiry, which was carried out by the Committee at the time, and it is right and fitting to acknowledge the role of the former Chair, Paul Givan, who was perhaps the person who steered us through this particular piece of work. <BR /> <BR />There is absolutely no doubt that, during that inquiry, through the witnesses who came forward to give us evidence and the many places that we visited, we got an insight into the experience of victims and witnesses as they journeyed through the criminal justice system.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer. One of the issues that surrounds the NAMA situation is the idea of claim and counterclaim: sometimes confusion but sometimes evasion. When the permanent secretary was before the Committee, he said that he could not answer questions because of the possibility of a criminal investigation. However, other people have said that he could answer some questions because they were not related. It is a good sign that he is coming back in, because I think that it is in the public interest that he clears up any issues that he can.”
“So, I will not take lectures from the Member on that. <BR /> <BR />As I said, there may be issues here that need some teasing out in the public domain. We do not think that legislation is the proper way forward. We do not think that the motivation of this particular Member is about the public good; it is more about attacking these institutions. He is on record as having done so: we have seen how he used the Special Advisers Act in the past to attack republican ex-prisoners in particular, and we will stand as gatekeepers to ensure that that does not happen in the future.”
“I certainly could not, nor will I. There has to be a discussion around that. People can vote with their feet. We proposed a 15% reduction in all regions in times of austerity. In this party, we know that, because we take the average industrial wage for our salaries, so perhaps if we had discussed this before Danny Kennedy left, then if his SpAd had been on a different band, the Member might have had a different position. <BR /> <BR />However, this idea of consciences suddenly being pricked about particular things in the absence of anything being done about them — whited sepulchres — will ring hollow with people. We will vote with our feet. We asked whether people wanted to make a voluntary contribution of a 15% reduction across the board. Sinn Féin tabled that as part of a Budget, which people opposed.”
“They are not recruited by the Civil Service, and they do not go through the same procedures. Indeed, we would have difficulties with how the Civil Service recruits, because, again, we believe that it is discriminatory, and even putting someone into the realm of that disciplinary code could create the situation where other people would be asked to leave their position. We would certainly never be in a position to support that.”
“Indeed, in our opinion, that Bill was vindictive and targeted at a republican ex-prisoner, who subsequently had to leave that particular post. We do not see this Bill as in any way materially different. There may be a popularity around this. Mr Allister is well known as an opponent of these institutions, and he takes every opportunity that presents itself to attack them. <BR /> <BR />I even look at the consultation, and our points have been made. It is a very poor consultation document, even in terms of the disciplinary code. There was one single question and no explanation of the need or rationale. Indeed, he describes them as "other civil servants". SpAds, whatever you think about them — and people are entitled to their opinion — are not "other civil servants". The legislation is very clear: they are temporary civil servants.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I suppose that, in one respect, some of the issues in the Bill do require some sort of public focus. That is fair enough, but we do not believe that the legislation is the vehicle to do that. Indeed, in terms of reductions in salaries, Daithí McKay, the Chair, who has already spoken, on behalf of Sinn Féin on a number of occasions has put the challenge out that perhaps there should be a 15% reduction across the board, but even the sponsor of the Bill did not reply to him. I suppose that it is no surprise given that Sinn Féin is the party that proposed this. <BR /> <BR />I think that even in principle this Bill is an amendment to the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Act 2013, which we believe was bad and discriminatory.”
“We realise that the Executive have a role to play and, in our opinion, they should not be found wanting, but the British Government cannot walk away from it either.”
“<BR /> <BR />Therefore, what we are doing in relation to the motion and the amendment is saying that the Executive should open up discussions with the British Government to see what their responsibilities are, and, if they have responsibilities — in our opinion, they do — it is up to them to address it. In times past and in other situations, in very generous settlements for other state agencies, the Government were not found wanting, with sums of a quantum far higher than these civil servants want. <BR /> <BR />Let me state it very clearly: I, personally, and Sinn Féin, believe that the British Government have a responsibility in this and, up to now, they have abdicated it. That is why we tabled the amendment.”
“No. I disagree. One of the reasons why there has been no settlement is because the two Departments have not taken responsibility for which of them is wholly responsible. I think that it is wrong to say that. As Mr Allister often does, he looks for the bogeyman, and Sinn Féin is the easy one. It is easy for him to play that out there. This is an issue that is broader than trying to put the blame on one particular party. This issue needs to be resolved in the interests of those who lost out on the equal pay claim; but there are issues for the Executive that the Executive need to address. As I say, this goes back to 1996, when the NIO took a decision that these civil servants would be in its remit and under its terms and conditions. The NIO has walked away from it.”
“I do not want to be unkind, but what we have seen since the Assembly debate in June 2013 is like a game of ping-pong, where responsibility is thrown from one Department to the other. In fairness to them, both Departments have said that this is an issue that can be addressed, but still there is no resolution. That is why we believe in some attempt to break the logjam. Our motion clearly does not bring it down to two particular Departments; we say that it is an issue for the Executive and remains so.”
“There was a pay delegation that they were treated separately when they were employees of the NIO and the old Police Authority. That aside, there is absolutely no doubt that, when the equal pay settlement was realised and accepted across a number of Departments and, indeed, across a range of civil servants, there was a group of people who were left outside. They still carry that sense that it was not addressed in a proper way.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is no doubt that a big rupture in the matter was the legal case, where it was ruled that there was no legal entitlement. In many ways, from that, the issue has proved very difficult to resolve. I agree with Leslie Cree in the wording of the motion. A legal judgement is binding, and nobody doubts its binding nature, but it leaves space. When the judge spoke at the judgement, he said that there was a sense of grievance and a lack of fairness, but he could rule only on the legal entitlement. <BR /> <BR />The issue has been brought in front of the Justice Committee, which I sit on, and, on a number of occasions, departmental officials have tried to explain the complexity. These were people who were once in employment.”
“That remains our position. I said then that none of us could predict the outcome but it was an issue that was not going to go away until it was addressed. That has come to pass. Indeed, a quick look at the Research and Information Service's pack on the issue shows that it has been raised by all the parties. Something like 42 Members, across the variety of instruments open to us — plenary debates, the Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Justice Committee, Assembly questions and questions for oral answer to both Ministers — have ventilated all the issues, but there has been no resolution to this. Therefore, it remains unresolved and at its core is an issue around the equality of treatment of civil servants who were public service workers and have provided a service.”
“At the outset, let me say that we have no real issues with the main motion. If Mr Cree had read the amendment, he would know that we are not apportioning blame to anyone. We are saying that the British Government were the employer at the time through the NIO and that representations should be made to see if they have anything to address in this issue. It is not about apportioning blame, so I hope that, in light of that and of some of the remarks that we will make, perhaps dividing the House will not be necessary because the composite motion will deal with the issue. <BR /> <BR />The issue has been dealt with in a number of ways in the last number of years. Indeed, on 4 June 2013, there was a debate here in the Assembly, and I stated on behalf of Sinn Féin that:”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move the following amendment:”
“You might say — we would be opposed to this — to someone, "Bring in legislation", but, if you do not give them any boundaries within which to do that and they come back with something that you do not agree with, you could find that you cannot do too much about it. <BR /> <BR />In terms of the broad principles and the presentation that the Member made, we have no issue with giving it approval today. We certainly want to play our full part in the scrutiny at Committee Stage. However, the Member is well aware of our broad proviso: we feel that many aspects of this do not require legislation and can be brought about by changes in Standing Orders. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.”
“I do not mean this in a dismissive way: the easy thing to do sometimes in politics is to run to the microphone and get a sound bite. What you want to do here is get not a sound bite but something that will bite, so that we have some sort of position as we go forward. <BR /> <BR />I see the import and content of the schedule, but there are aspects that require good scrutiny, irrespective of what position you take. In our opinion, there are aspects that need to be Good Friday Agreement-proofed. Some of them hand too much power and responsibility to the British Secretary of State in terms of legislation.”
“One aspect is that we would not be in a position to do it on our own. When Mr McCallister was speaking, he made that point very well. When you are trying to change things, here in particular, you are better to have a consensus and a collective. There is an implementation group around the Stormont House Agreement, so, hopefully, coming out of the other end of that implementation group will be many aspects of the Stormont House Agreement that have been agreed and can be projected forward. One of those will be opposition. If we took a position to change Standing Orders, other parties could block it, so what would be the point? Is it not better that we all agree that there is a need for it and agree on the shape, content and form of it? We would then have more success.”
“That is why I made the point about intention: there are people who would be fairly comfortable with the idea of putting up any model as long as Sinn Féin was not in the Executive. We will protect the Good Friday Agreement, which allows the people to decide who is in the Executive. <BR /> <BR />The dysfunctionality is another issue that can be teased out, and we have no issue with trying to do so. As I said, under the terms agreed in the Stormont House Agreement, there is provision for an opposition. I am not saying that you accept that, Mr McCallister, but, in one of the clauses, you are broadly saying that Standing Orders "must make provision", which, in our opinion, should say that they could be amended to bring in many of your suggestions. We are not opposed to the idea of opposition, if people desire it —”
“He said rightly said that that would put everybody into opposition, but I think that it shows the intention: it would ensure that Sinn Féin was not in the Executive. Sometimes, people are prepared to cut off their nose to spite their face. I have also heard the said Member say, time out of number, that the democratic norm or principle is having to be in a position to vote a party in and out of government. Yet the British Labour Party does not stand here, the Liberal Democrats do not stand here and when the Conservative Party stands here it gets a derisory number of votes. He says that you must have the ability to vote somebody out of power, but he does not want to extend that to the people here in the North.”
“<BR /> <BR />People say, "We respect Sinn Féin's mandate", as if in some way that is a concession. Mr McCallister said that the weighted majority was not designed to put Sinn Féin out of the Executive. Sometimes it is not intentional, but his tone and presentation suggest that we are somehow in a privileged position over and above all other elected representatives in the Assembly or elsewhere. We are here by virtue of the privilege that people voted for us, and we will certainly ensure that that happens. <BR /> <BR />Mr McCallister referred to the leader of the TUV and his presentation of options last week. I think that he described one in which English Ministers here would be scrutinised by the Assembly.”
“Not only was it copper-fastened but the formal Opposition had many of the speaking rights that, as he outlined, are necessary in that type of system, and the history of opposition in that institution was far from impressive. I think that they were permitted to pass only one piece of legislation: the wildfowl Act. <BR /> <BR />At the core of any system is the intention of the people involved. When we come to talk about it, we will ensure that whatever legislation goes through the Assembly must be Good Friday Agreement-proofed. I make the serious but perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek point that we will be the gatekeepers and ensure that no rogues or renegades try to undermine the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. I do not include your good self in that definition. That is the position that we will take as the Bill is taken forward.”
“When we talk about the dysfunctionality and the reason why the Good Friday Agreement came up with the structures that we have, we often try to avoid that reason. I am not saying that the proposer of the Bill is doing so; he has outlined on a number of occasions that he is a supporter of the Good Friday Agreement. He has shown that many times in the Assembly and by his actions, and I welcome that. He referred to 1929 and the change from proportional representation to first past the post. Whereas there may have been an intention to deal with the independent unionist voice — I do not doubt that — I think that most observers would say that, with first past the post, the level of nationalist representation fell dramatically and, as a result, discrimination was copper-fastened.”
“That is fine, but, when people talk about the institutions being dysfunctional, they sometimes forget the reason why and the history of the place. Indeed, Seamus Heaney once said:”
“He quoted the stepped-aside-at-present First Minister, Mr Robinson, when he talked about this place being dysfunctional. He then made a reference to Seamus Heaney — I will paraphrase it as this: what is said then what is to be done.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. First of all, in welcoming the Second Stage of the Bill, I appreciate the amount of work that the proposer of the Bill has put into it and the detail that he outlined today. I know that he had the good grace and the courtesy to consult other people, our party included. At the end of today's proceeding, we will allow the Bill to go to Committee Stage. I am a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and already provision is being made, second-guessing the outcome of today's debate. <BR /> <BR />When the Member spoke about the need for this, he was aware that we said that we feel that many of the things that he has outlined today can be brought about without the need for legislation, but I am sure that that will be teased out as we take this forward.”
“The Committee wishes to give careful consideration to the provisions in the Bill that relate to fines and enforcement and the Prison Ombudsman to ensure that the legislation will introduce sound and robust systems for the future. Members therefore agreed, at the meeting on 24 September 2015, to seek an extension to the Committee Stage of the Justice (No. 2) Bill until 15 January 2016. <BR /> <BR />The Committee began taking oral evidence on the Bill at its meeting on 1 October. The extension will enable us to schedule further oral evidence sessions with stakeholders and Department of Justice officials during November, carry out detailed scrutiny of the clauses and schedules and compile and agree the Committee report. The Committee will report to the Assembly on the Bill as soon as possible within the proposed timescale of 15 January 2016.”
“As the Chairman said during the Second Stage debate, the Committee is already very aware of the problems associated with the current fine default and collection scheme and its governance arrangements; the significant value of unpaid financial penalties — the total outstanding debt at 31 March 2014 was £22·684 million, of which it was estimated that £7·335 million is impaired and unlikely to be collected — and the findings of the judgement delivered by the divisional court in five judicial reviews. It is clear that a radical revision of the system is required.”
“Some relate to proposals for fine collection and enforcement, and others relate to firearms legislation, which is not currently covered by the Bill. To assist its scrutiny of the clauses and schedules, the Committee has sought views from a range of key stakeholders and placed notices in local newspapers and on the Assembly website. The Committee has also taken the opportunity to seek views on the amendments proposed by the Department. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has received 21 submissions, many of which comment on or raise a number of issues, particularly in relation to Part 1, which covers the arrangements for fine collection and enforcement; Part 2, which covers the arrangements for the Prison Ombudsman; and proposed amendments to firearms legislation.”
“In the absence of the Chairman, who is chairing the Ad Hoc Committee on the Mental Capacity Bill, I am pleased to move the motion today. Committee Stage began on 9 September 2015. The Bill consists of 47 clauses and three schedules covering a number of policy areas, the most significant of which are the collection and enforcement of fines, and the establishment in statute of the functions of the Prison Ombudsman in terms of complaints, the investigation of deaths in custody and investigations requested by the Department of Justice. <BR /> <BR />Prior to the commencement of Committee Stage, the Department of Justice informed the Committee of proposed amendments that it intends to table at Consideration Stage.”
“Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the Minister for her answer. She has given an indication of the work that she has done on the Foyle valley gateway master plan and the number of interest groups involved in that. Will she accept an invitation to come to Derry and meet the groups and, if they develop the stadium, perhaps the football club?”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer. I welcome that news, and I am conscious of the future development of the Brandywell site, which I also commend the Minister for. Will he provide some insight into other uses that are now being undertaken on the site?”
“If we are telling families that they have the right to the truth but that the system that we put in place does not have the resources, they, quite rightly, will make up their own minds. <BR /> <BR />In tabling the motion, it was our intention to bring into the public domain, through the Assembly, the concerns of families and those in the legal profession about the way in which the Coroners' Court is being resourced. We welcome some of the measures that the Minister has put in place. He will know from the Committee that we are supportive of his attempts to bring in the proper resources. That was the intention of today's debate.”
“It pushes families down the list, so they raise concerns, and that is what we need to address. <BR /> <BR />Last week in Committee, we had a document that was going to the Council of Ministers — the Council keeps an eye on article 2 considerations — saying that the Lord Chief Justice would be in place on 1 November, but he will not be in place. We were told that the document had to be rewritten and that a new document is being sent. That is where public concern comes in. Some say that the Lord Chief Justice has said that it is an issue about political will. Those of us in political life have to address that. Underlying that is a sense that the necessary resource to do this effectively and meaningfully is not there. It is the role of those of us in political life to ensure that the resources are there.”
“We would then have had a smoother transition from a retirement to a full-time appointment, which is what would happen in other situations. If it were a chief executive in a health trust or somewhere else, people do not like an absence or someone being in an acting position; they want continuity and for things to move on. Two of the full-time coroners are on sick leave, and that has an impact. One wishes them well and a speedy recovery, but none of us can predict when they will be back in post. Anybody who is trying to organise the system has to contend with that as they try to allocate resources and court time. A number of investigators are missing from the system, which, given the nature of some inquests, is accepted. That creates a delay and a backlog.”
“The Minister referred to an attempt by some, perhaps during the Stormont House talks or as far back as the Haass talks, to remove inquests as a vehicle for bringing about truth and justice. Our party opposed that, as did many of the families. Any analysis that tries not to allow the Coroners' Court to do this is flawed. We have to create the circumstances in which proper resources and mechanisms are in place. <BR /> <BR />I will address some of the issues that the Minister raised. Three full-time coroners are in place, but that has not addressed the problem. It is compounded by the fact that Mr Leckey announced that he is retiring, and this is where public concern comes in. Many people, including legal practitioners, families and observers, have said that the process should have started once he made his announcement.”
“In the system at present, there are some 53 legacy inquests. In case there is any doubt — Ross Hussey mentioned it — that includes the Kingsmills killings, and an inquest has to take place on that. In that inquest, families will be seeking the truth, which is what the process should be about. However, some inquests stretch back over 40 years, so, at the core, there are a number of very damning indictments. If we are to take this forward, we have to do so in a way that addresses the concerns of those families.”
“The Minister spoke today about the number of measures that he has taken to ensure that there are proper resources, and he will find that we are supportive of him.”
“Again, Stewart Dickson, and, indeed, the Minister, talked about the role of the British Government, and we do not disagree with any of that; but, with the transfer of justice and policing to the Assembly, the Assembly has the capability to address the concerns of those families in the pursuit of truth and justice. Indeed, the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister showed how it could be done in terms of the Public Record Office. There were attempts, particularly from the NIO, to prevent her from disclosing what were, in essence, public documents, redacted at various stages because of the processes that took place. There were those within the system who did not want the system to work. That is what we are out to try to address. <BR /> <BR />We are supportive.”
“Sometimes many of them were closed down, but they have found a useful, practical and appropriate way, through the inquests, to ensure that the truth came out. So, in a sense, David Cameron would not have been put in the position where he had to accept that there was collusion between British state forces and unionist paramilitaries. He had to apologise on behalf of what he called his Government. That is not an attempt to rewrite history. What it was doing was putting history down as it should have been. It was falsified at a particular time. <BR /> <BR />One of the other failings was in the role of the DPP to actually prosecute where evidence was clearly present. The DPP failed at that time. All in all, there were serious and very deliberate flaws within the coroner system. That is where the responsibility lies.”
“Let us remind ourselves what actually happened and what the court findings were. Those investigations were deemed not to be independent. There was a failure by the RUC, which was the policing structure at that time, to properly investigate collusion between the RUC and unionist paramilitaries. Lest anybody thinks that that is an attempt to rewrite history or that republicans are the people who rewrite history when they state that, it has been stated by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, because he has a recognition. <BR /> <BR />People talk about rewriting history. At a particular time in history, the records were falsified, so the families have found themselves left, sometimes on their own, to find all the avenues open to them.”
“At the core of it, we always have to remember that — it is part of the public concern — as, I think, Stewart Dickson, the Minister himself, and indeed Mrs Kelly accepted, since May 2001, the British Government have consistently failed in their obligations, and in particular were found to be in breach of article 2 in terms of procedural investigation obligations, which, in effect, were to have independent, effective and prompt investigations — particularly because of the responsibility of the British Government — into state killings. <BR /> <BR />Sometimes when people talk about attempts to rewrite history, I think what they are actually saying — perhaps they do not mean it — is that they are putting obstacles in the way of due process. I do not think that any of us should do that.”
“I think that, if the debate had been properly approached, perhaps we would have had a better outcome. <BR /> <BR />As I said, the retirement of John Leckey has, in some respects, brought it into the public domain recently. In his public commentary over a long number of years, he has certainly pointed out the failings and directed us towards where we should be going.”
“It was not designed to be politically sensitive or to allow people to feel that in some way we were being pejorative around the issue. It is an issue that needs addressed. Alban Maginness acknowledged that when he spoke. I was a little bit disappointed when Mrs Kelly said that Sinn Féin should expect some measure of retaliation. I do not think that was the spirit of the debate. Everybody is entitled to frame their response in a particular way, but I think that Stewart Dickson was right when he said that at the core of it are families who are seeking the truth and seeking redress. I think that we all accept that the current system has failed them. In particular, there have been obstacles in relation to the Coroners' Courts, and now we see that there is an issue around the resource.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank everyone who took part in today's debate. Mo mhíle buíochas daoibh go léir. <BR /> <BR />When we framed the motion, we tried to do so in a factual and straightforward way to give us a snapshot of the current situation.”
“— the British Treasury has control over the rules and regulations, and it is sometimes not easy to change its mind. Glasgow is finding out already that the vast majority of the money in the Glasgow city experience is coming from the Scottish Government and from the local councils —”
“I am wondering about the implications for that, particularly if one of the demands is the idea of an elected mayor covering the whole area. How would that affect local government? Would legislation need to be tweaked as a result of it? <BR /> <BR />You will have read about the Glasgow experience. There are two aspects of it. You do not have to be from this part of the world to know that —”