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 7 of 12.
“Those were all denied at the time, we had all the theories about rotten apples in the barrel, and every one of those was exposed. <BR /> <BR />Alongside that form of repression came the culture and apparatus of denial and impunity. We have seen how that had many guises and how it was particularly facilitated by policing and justice agencies. Thankfully, the damage that was done by that has, in some way, been restored or addressed through the Good Friday Agreement. We have also seen the political denial, which was very obvious today. <BR /> <BR />To understand the nature and extent of the culture, you have only to read the Stevens report number 3 — even much of that was redacted — Judge Cory's report after the Weston Park Agreement and the de Silva review, a lot of which focused on the killing of Pat Finucane.”
“That will not be without challenges, and Gerry Kelly and others talked about those challenges. There will be challenges for republicans, for other people and for other combatants, but we must face those challenges. If we do not, the families who are seeking the truth will not get the truth. <BR /> <BR />Sinn Féin has long contended that collusion was a policy that was central to the British Government's approach to dealing with the political conflict in Ireland. It was a policy that was sanctioned at the highest level of the British Government. It was a policy that was used as a form of repression, and it came along with many other policies of repression, such as internment, torture, Castlereagh and emergency legislation.”
“That documentary has been trailed on a variety of media outlets over the last number of days, and I think that we are increasingly dealing with the reality that there was collusion. Some are still in denial and are just not dealing with the fact that collusion existed. Most accept that there was collusion and that we are now dealing with its extent. <BR /> <BR />Whoever was involved in collusion — any form of collusion — should be exposed. There should be no hiding place for them, and they should all be held to account. In the debate, we had the opportunity to decide what we want to do, as an Assembly, to take it forward, and that was through the institutions that were agreed at Stormont House last December. We have to do what we have to do to make them work in the way that they are designed.”
“It is also churlish for anybody to suggest that British state collusion with loyalist paramilitaries, or, indeed, unionist militias, is not worthy of discussion. I do not know where they are living, given the recent commentary. The debate was very interesting. It seemed that a number of contributors had failed to read the motion. That is for them to decide. <BR /> <BR />There is absolutely no doubt that the families who are striving very hard to expose collusion and search for the truth have had a very difficult year. I have no doubt that part of that has been the result of the legal processes that they have gone through, which have been obstructively slow. There is no doubt that the recent 'Spotlight' and 'Panorama' programmes have added to that. Indeed, the RTÉ programme tonight will no doubt be part of that process as well.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin. When Caitríona Ruane opened the debate, she, quite correctly, reminded us all that there are many families — I am talking about all families — still grieving and in a grieving process. We have to be very sensitive to their feelings. I leave it up to those who spoke to decide whether they lived up to that standard. <BR /> <BR />On a number of occasions, parties have, quite correctly, tabled motions on a single incident, a collection of incidents or a theme. That is appropriate. It would have been churlish had any of us got up and said, "You are singling out one over the other", because that is not the way to proceed.”
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is not a matter of accepting what Mr McCartney said; it was said by the Court of Appeal and, indeed, the Supreme Court in London.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those convictions were quashed. I fought a very successful campaign to have those convictions quashed. I ask Mr Poots to withdraw those remarks.”
“I am holding a copy of the Hansard report of that debate. There were four Sinn Féin contributors. I have read through the four contributions. The lack of consultation was at the tail end of each one of those contributions. It is either disingenuous or misleading to say that the only opposition to that particular amendment was around the lack of consultation. You are being unfair to the debate and unfair to us.”
“First of all, overuse would be detected through the number of cases, because it could be compared with the number that the coroner referred to inquest or, indeed, that the Health and Social Care Board itself surrendered for inquest. Secondly, if there was a need to either lower or adjust the powers, the sunset clause would allow for that. The policy — the Minister has said it — needs teasing out. You have the Attorney General asking for what is a second pair of eyes. Tonight, people will look on and ask, "Why would you not want a second pair of eyes?". We have a process that in the main is very open and transparent, but if we block this people might feel that we are hiding something. I do not think that is a good place for anyone involved in the process to go.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is a suggestion that if this power was given to an Attorney General — not to the individual but to the office — they could perhaps overstretch themselves and use it in too many circumstances, which would itself put additional and unnecessary pressure on health care professionals. Now, the Attorney General was very clear that in recent times he has not used the powers that he has. If he has used them, he has done so infrequently. But if people felt it would be abused, putting undue pressure on health care professionals, a sunset clause would allow for a review after three years and then for it to be continued with the approval of the Assembly. That in itself would make it fail-safe.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is in that type of scenario where you could have the second pair of eyes. If the Attorney General was asked on behalf of a family, this type of document could be brought forward more quickly, openly and transparently. I am not saying that death could have been prevented in this case, but certainly the family would not have been put in a place of further trauma. Secondly, it would ensure that documents that should be disclosed are disclosed in a meaningful way, rather than being hidden behind — maybe "hidden" is the wrong word — the fact that there is no legal imperative to do something. The point was made in Committee that, if a document in the hands of a trust could illuminate things and bring relief to a family, there is a moral obligation to release it in that spirit.”
“It says that it is only documents that are compellable for a High Court action, but it was found out, particularly during the O'Hara inquiry, that the trust had a report that, it said, was for internal use and was not compellable to the High Court. However, it revealed that there were issues with a particular child who, tragically, ended up dying that should have pointed up and should have been seen and, therefore, should have been acted on. However, because that document was not compellable, it was only found out through the inquiry. When that came out in the inquiry, the trust accepted that it was a document that the coroner perhaps should have had, but there was no legal imperative for it to provide it. I think that the point was made at the Committee and, indeed, at the inquiry, and the trust went on to admit negligence in that case.”
“<BR /> <BR />On the issue of the risks that health professionals take, given that people were saying that the coroner had access to all of the documentation, I do not think that anybody was making the case that, because the coroner has the ability to have the documents, it was in any way preventing health professionals from doing the dedicated work that they do. However, unfortunately, there were, perhaps, in the past, circumstances where documents that should have been provided to the coroner were not. Perhaps we are in a better place now. When the health trusts were at the Committee, I raised a particular case. Again, I agree with what the health trusts were saying because, in the legislation as it is framed, there is a grey area.”
“<BR /> <BR />The health professionals put forward the issue of staff reluctance to engage in adverse incident reports. Indeed, during Committee Stage, Edwin Poots, speaking as a Committee member, made the good point that sometimes health professionals are involved in operations that are very sensitive and that sometimes, in a sense, they take calculated risks that something can perhaps go wrong. He was mindful and fearful that too much scrutiny would perhaps leave health professionals where they would take a step back and perhaps not make decisions in light of that. On a number of occasions, he made the point that he could see why this was, if not necessary, something that he would not argue against.”
“The health board said that, in many ways, the amendment was unnecessary and that all of the relevant documentation was already being provided to the coroner. Similarly, with reference to an earlier part of this discussion, I think that when people say that something is unnecessary and that there is already provision to do this, you ask why they do not want to it happen. The Attorney General made a number of observations. He referred to it in evidence as "a second pair of eyes". He was not in any way casting any shadows or any doubts on the process as to when a coroner would deem an inquest necessary. He made the point very poignantly at the Committee where he said that there were people out there who perhaps do not have people to advocate on their behalf, and he said that he would provide that in that way.”
“Throughout Committee Stage, none of us, whatever way we came to the proposal by the Attorney General, was casting any doubt or making any observations on the professionalism of the people who work in the National Health Service, those providers. We all said, particularly when the people from the health and social care trusts were in front of us, that none of us was questioning that. Indeed, I think that most of us congratulated them on their professionalism.”
“When it came down to the vote on the last day — the result was five each — there were people who voted yes and no and throughout the process had reservations, doubts and fears. We felt that bringing the amendment here tonight would allow a wider discussion and let other Members be part of the process. In many ways, the petition of concern makes some of the arguments that we will make tonight a bit academic, but putting on the record our position serves a purpose.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We will support the amendments tabled by the Minister. As the Chair outlined, they help the process of streamlining, particularly around convictions and other processes of disclosure. <BR /> <BR />I turn to the amendment tabled in our names in relation to what became known during Committee Stage as "the Attorney General's amendment". We tabled the amendment for two reasons. We honestly believe that the provision provides an appropriate and necessary level of public protection in relation to the power of the Attorney General, particularly in relation to inquests that arise out of deaths in hospitals. <BR /> <BR />The second reason was that, at the Committee, as the Chair has outlined, there was a discussion in which there was a fair degree of push and pull.”
“Saying that, as the Member said, between now and Further Consideration Stage, much like Mrs Kelly has offered to the Minister, if this could be tightened up so that we do not end up bringing in legislation and there being unintended consequences, we will be broadly supportive of the amendment.”
“They could ask for information on the person and the person has no record at all, but the person might then say, "I tried to find out information about such and such." People might say, "Well, why would somebody ask about a person if there was no reason to do it?" The person might be totally and absolutely innocent of any offence. We have to make sure that that is done. <BR /> <BR />The Member touched on the idea of balance and risk being at the heart of it. When you have risk and balance at the heart of it and guidance from the experts, I think we have the basis to proceed. We are broadly supportive of the amendment.”
“The Member's amendment refers to article 50 of the Criminal Justice Order. Specific within that is the idea of consultation and using the agencies and the experts in the field to continually provide guidance so that it is refined. I welcome the fact that this will be strict and that, when a person receives the information, they will be bound by legislation and cannot disclose it. In other words, if someone gets information on an individual, damning as it may be, they then cannot share it, because, as you said, the potential for vigilantism or sensation in the media is increased as a result of that. The Member touched on the fact that this is already in place. People can go to PPANI and find out certain information. You do not want someone to be able to use this maliciously in the rumour mill.”
“The idea of safeguarding a child is at the centre of all that it does, so that was the right approach. It even talked in the document about the idea of a regular independent evaluation of the work that is being carried out. That is something that we can maybe put to it as we go forward. The Member talked about situations where it could be abused or overused. Maybe that is not the right phraseology, but you want this to be taking place in a situation where it is about protecting children. People have real fears, and, when they have real fears or real doubts, they have a process that they enter into.”
“<BR /> <BR />One of the big parts of this for us is that people are asking what should be disclosed, when it should be disclosed, how it should be disclosed and who it should be disclosed to. That is important, because the Member talked about PPANI and what they already have in place. They have a good system in place. I think that most people are happy with what they do. As the Chair said, no matter what protections you have in place, it will not, in every situation, prevent further crimes from being committed. You are trying all the time to try to close that down. <BR /> <BR />When he was introducing his and Lord Morrow's amendment, the Member talked about working alongside the NSPCC. That is the appropriate way to go about this. It has it at its core, even in its briefing document for Sarah's law.”
“I thank the Member for that intervention and the information. At its core, most of us are reasonably content that something is put in place to provide additional protection for children, never mind whether they are vulnerable or not. Most of us support that, and the broad thrust of this is around that, so that is why we agree in principle. Certainly, and perhaps in the commentary and other contributions this afternoon, there may be some place at Further Consideration Stage to tighten up what we believe may be gaps, but that is something we can come back to. I say that in light of some of the commentary over the last 24 hours, but what has been said here today has helped to close that particular gap.”
“He was very precise when he said that he wants this classed as "child protection disclosures" rather than, as he said, some sort of wide hunt to find where certain people live and how they live out their lives.”
“That point applies to amendment No 19, tabled by Paul Frew and Lord Morrow. Even when Paul Frew was speaking today, you could see how the information was becoming wider. Perhaps we missed out because it was not tabled earlier so that it could have gone through the Committee Stage. All of us would then have been in a better place to know the issues. You made the point about how sometimes this is presented in the media, and I noticed in the commentary over the last 24 hours that you can see how there can be a tendency, although not in any malicious way. It nevertheless narrows down what the amendment is trying to achieve. Last week, Mr Frew spent some time with Seán Lynch and me explaining the content of it. We appreciated that.”
“I remarked earlier today that the Committee's inquiry into victims and witnesses informed many of these amendments and, indeed, a big thrust of the Bill. From an earlier part of the discussion, I hope that, as we come to define what we class as a vulnerable witness or a witness who should be exempt at a particular stage of trial proceedings, the inquiry and some of the work that we have done will inform that as well. <BR /> <BR />My colleague Seán Lynch dealt with the amendments tabled by the SDLP, and I note that when Dolores Kelly was speaking she mentioned that she may not be moving some of the amendments, in light of a commitment from the Minister to a process of consultation. That is to be welcomed because the wider we consult and the more scrutiny there is, the tighter the legislation will become.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will concentrate most of my remarks on amendment No 19, tabled by Paul Frew and Lord Morrow. I have just a couple of wider remarks in relation to the group of amendments that we are debating. My party is broadly in support of the Minister's amendments. We will support his amendments on victims, witnesses and other aspects of disclosure.”
“I was part of the process in the Committee over those five years and do not consider myself as having any legal voice, but I think that there are merits in the amendments.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra. I thank the Minister for his answer. Indeed, I congratulate him on his recent appointment to the post. The Minister will be aware that the business start-ups that were administered through the local councils have been cut, particularly in neighbourhood renewal areas, where they were of some value. Has the Minister any proposals to alleviate that cut?”
“Perhaps the Minister will address that, because if there was any sense that a jury should do something swiftly rather than justly, it just needs to be cleared up procedurally. Go raibh míle maith agat.”
“<BR /> <BR />Most of us accept, and the Minister has given the figures, that it is a small number, but it is an important part of a trial process, and we have to be very, very careful that we do not just wipe it out without giving some consideration to the fact that there are many cases in which a person has not gone through the unnecessary procedure of going to trial. We also have to ensure that the right to a fair trial is not simply legislated away. <BR /> <BR />The Chair covered amendment No 43. The Bill talks about coming to:”
“That is why I am looking for some sense that exemption is there. Perhaps then, in the interests of justice, if the defence felt that the witness was not a good one, it could be examined in that context. What we are looking to see, particularly to protect a person who has made the allegation of rape, is the magistrate going in with the threshold and it being up to someone to convince the magistrate that it was in the interests of justice for them to be called, rather than the reverse. That is the important caveat that we would put in. It is with that in mind in particular that we are supportive of these amendments, so that at Further Consideration Stage, there can be a second run at trying to get this right.”
“I thank the Minister for that. I want to take up on the point, particularly in the case of rape. I accept that any magistrate, when he is considering the threshold around the interests of justice, will have that in mind. Again — this came out very clearly in our inquiry and in evidence given to the Committee — that often puts off a person from even coming forward as a witness when they know that there is the possibility that they will be cross-examined twice.”
“I accept the figures, but the rejigging is still a high enough number to be worried about.”
“I accept the point that it is sometimes difficult to say that in all rape cases or all particular cases, but the experience of the groups is something that will assist us if this goes through this stage. I do not want to make that assumption either way. However, it would be helpful if what is meant by "in the interests of justice" could be defined at Further Consideration Stage. <BR /> <BR />It is worth noting that, in the small number of cases among the thousands of prosecutions in any given year, only 56 went to that stage, but 18 did not proceed, and that is over 30%. That, in itself —”
“<BR /> <BR />Jim Allister talked about the best of the current system being kept but then, obviously, to put in some protections. In some way, I think that that goes a long way to ensure that you do not have a system where, when a person is charged, it is a trial and there is no testing for prima facie status anywhere in the process. In that situation, it is worth considering those amendments. I think that the offer was held out that if "the interests of justice" becomes the framework in which the magistrate, from a defence or a prosecution point of view, can put forward a proposition that it is not in the interests of justice to proceed, then the magistrate could take that into consideration.”
“We heard that when we were conducting our inquiry into victims and witnesses; indeed, when representative groups and the Prosecution Service came before the Committee, they outlined the situation. That is why I asked for the intervention to define the interests of justice. There was a feeling among groups that putting a person, particularly a rape victim, through the process of cross-examination twice was unfair. Sometimes, even though the person who went through the process was a very credible witness and would have come through the first run, so to speak, of the cross-examining process, the Public Prosecution Service and victims' groups said that their resolve was weakened by the process, and that they found the second attempt or second run at a trial very daunting.”
“At Committee Stage and throughout, we have always been broadly supportive of, if you like, refining or reforming committal proceedings to help speed up the process of making trials take place quickly and within a reasonable time frame. Mr Allister outlined that. Over a long time, committal proceedings have evolved to a situation where the overwhelming majority of cases now proceed straight to trial, with an agreement of what will be contained in a trial process. <BR /> <BR />It was brought to the Committee's attention that a small number went between PI and mixed committals. I think that there were 56, but 18 did not return for trial. That gave us some cause for concern.”
“The victims' charter and many steps such as the care unit are all very significant steps forward in doing that properly. Indeed, many of the things in the Bill were part of the Committee's inquiry into victims and witnesses. Speaking on behalf of my party colleagues, we got a good insight from that inquiry and from meeting many of the groups that work with victims and witnesses and the whole system. Indeed, we saw many of the gaps in the system, and the Bill goes some way now to begin to fill some of those gaps. I know that it is an ongoing process, and that is to be welcomed. Indeed, we will turn to that when we talk about the amendments tabled by Jim Allister. <BR /> <BR />I will turn to that part of the Bill now.”
“<BR /> <BR />Similarly, we were supportive of the idea of prosecutorial fines for low-level offenders, up to a maximum of £200, as an alternative to taking people into the court system. In all the evidence that we have heard, it appears that sometimes the longer people are in the system, the harder it is for them to get out of it. We were mindful that, in the past, there were issues around the collection of fines, and we said that we did not want the impact that more fines were being imposed. That creates problems further down the line, but that is something that the Committee will look at when the fines and enforcement Bill comes forward. <BR /> <BR />Another major part of the Bill as it goes through its various stages is about how we treat victims and witnesses.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In the wider concept of the Bill at Second Stage and Committee Stage, we were very supportive of the main principles of the Bill because it is designed to improve the operation of the justice system by improving services to victims and witnesses who find themselves in the court system. Part of that was speeding up the efficiency and effectiveness of justice. In that particular context, we are very supportive of the idea of a single jurisdiction, although the Committee said that, in the operation of that, it did not want to see any disadvantage given to people in terms of travel, particularly for witnesses and victims. The Committee made its views known and wrote to the Lord Chief Justice to see how that operation and consultation process will be carried out.”
“The Member's first amendment mentions the interests of justice, and he has just spoken about it. It was said at Committee on a number of occasions that there should not be investigation at that stage in sexual cases. Does the Member agree that, in the particular case of sexual offences, it may not be in the interests of justice to call a witness, particularly the victim?”
“Thank you very much, a Cheann Comhairle. I suppose that is a fair enough point, but our view is that you strengthen rights and give people more protection. Why oppose it, therefore? It has been pointed out by many, many people in many, many avenues. I have heard people make different arguments here — unionists have used the European Convention to promote aspects of legislation that we were featuring here. You cannot take the view that it is good one day but so bad the next that we have to do away with it. Everybody in every piece of legislation has their favours and puts weight on it, and then some days they will not. The best way to ensure that a rights-based approach underpins all that we do in the Assembly is to have a Human Rights Act to assist that process.”
“If that is the case, why fear it? If all the laws in Britain are so good and wholesome, why fear the Human Rights Act? The Human Rights Act only protects people who believe that their human rights are being undermined.”
“In fact, if you have an opinion on human rights, it is detrimental to his position. Mr McCausland almost rebuked the British Prime Minister for daring to slow down the process of examining that legislation, yet I heard Jeffrey Donaldson say, on Radio Ulster, that it was at the intervention of the DUP that the British Prime Minister changed his mind. I am not sure whether Nelson and Jeffrey have had a discussion on that issue. <BR /> <BR />As to the need for and the desire to ensure that the Human Rights Act remains, there is the idea, underpinned by the Good Friday Agreement, of a rights-based approach. The British Prime Minister may have his reasons, and Mr Attwood outlined some view of that. However, when Tom Elliott was speaking, he said that Britain does not seem to have a need for the Human Rights Act.”
“That might be the case from his perspective, but he then went on to question why a Government, when elected with a large majority, bring in what they think to be a vital piece of legislation. That is one of the virtues of the British constitutional system: that Governments do that and do it for the right reasons. People can question it, but that is one of those virtues. <BR /> <BR />Other people commented on the performance of Nelson McCausland. It was very interesting that he did not make any particular point about either the strengths or weaknesses of the Human Rights Act; he seemed to attack the people who supported it and he listed some of them. He implied that, if you were once a member of the Communist Party of Ireland, you should not seem to have any opinion on human rights.”
“When people start to examine the need for it, particularly in this state as we try to repair the damage and the lack of confidence in many of the institutions, particularly around policing and justice, it is only natural and understandable that people in Sinn Féin, supported by the SDLP and the Alliance Party, will do all that they can to ensure that the principles of the Good Friday Agreement will not be undermined and that the Human Rights Act will remain very much a part of the judicial process and, indeed, the justice process. <BR /> <BR />I found it strange, in the course of the debate, that Mr McIlveen talked about the virtues, although perhaps that should be "virtues", of the British constitutional system. He said that if he had to list all those virtues, we would be here for the rest of the evening.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i bhfabhar an rúin seo. I will speak in favour of the motion tabled by the Alliance Party. It is fair to say that most people would have a degree of suspicion when a Government try to repeal, or propose to try to repeal, a very recent and significant piece of legislation. Mr Attwood, in his contribution this afternoon, gave us more food for thought with his scenario around the European referendum, which I think is worth considering. <BR /> <BR />The question that we should ask ourselves is why it was necessary, particularly in the context of an international treaty — the Good Friday Agreement — to have the Human Rights Act as part of it.”
“Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra. I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she give us some detail on how the successful projects will be selected and the sorts of criteria that she will be using for them?”