Alban Maginness
North Belfast · Social Democratic and Labour Party · Northern Ireland
“I look at the Justice Committee, which was mentioned yesterday during the Justice Bill debate, and see it as an exemplar of how people can work together, despite their political differences, and create a political consensus in order to make worthwhile changes in the justice system.”
“I hope that, as I leave this place and a new mandate starts, I can relinquish the function of alchemist and that we will have a new dispensation in which we can, in fact, create that reconciliation, because the Assembly was created as a forum for reconciliation.”
“— people used to ask me what I did. I said that I was a fireman — a political fireman who put out political fires. That is what we did for the first five years or so: we put out political fires. I have become redundant, or semi-redundant, in relation to putting out political fires.”
“There is, indeed, a dark shadow over the Assembly as we prepare for the elections. The attack on Adrian Ismay was not just an attack on a prison officer; it was an attack on the Assembly, it was an attack on the political process and it was an attack on non-violence and peaceful politics.”
“I thank the representative of the Commission for her kind words. I have enjoyed working with Karen McKevitt and, indeed, with the Commission. In the programme, will there be an emphasis on dealing with legislation, particularly draft legislation? It is a process that needs considerable skill and knowledge. Is that available?”
“On this legislation, he helped to put forcefully the views of the Committee to the Assembly, the Minister and the Department of Justice, and I compliment him on his work. It has been very positive.”
The complete record
Every one of 739 lines we hold for Alban Maginness, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 15.
“I will speak as a member of the Environment Committee on the report produced on wind energy. <BR /> <BR />I am a little bit disturbed and concerned about the way in which the debate is drifting. This is not about wind energy per se; it is about particular aspects of planning, separation distances, community engagement and so forth. So it is a given that we accept that a common good is derived from wind energy. It is important to remember that all parties in the House, without exception, support renewable energy and, indeed, wind energy in particular.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her encouraging remarks about the Irish cricket team. Given that remarkable success and the obvious focus that there is on the island of Ireland, what plans has she to encourage Tourism Ireland to exploit that market opportunity in the near future?”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for his very detailed report. It seems to have been a very businesslike and comprehensive meeting. The deputy First Minister's statement mentions new sectoral priorities, which seem to have been an important item of business and will be an item for discussion at future meetings. Will he elaborate on what those new sectoral priorities will be? Is there any documentation that he can publish that might inform the House further?”
“I thank the First Minister for his statement. With the proposed disappearance of DCAL, there is an obvious point to be made about the role of arts and sport in our community. That will be absorbed in the Department for Communities, but would it not have been more appropriate to have included, together with communities, a reference to the arts and sport, given their central importance?”
“I thank the Minister for her detailed responses, particularly in relation to social isolation. Can she quantify the rural development programme moneys that will be specifically targeted at rural isolation and, indeed, combating rural poverty?”
“It is shameful that the DUP comes to the House and makes unsubstantiated points to sabotage the regulations.”
“Mr Weir referred to paragraph 4(8), which does the same in a situation in which legal opinion indicates that the call-in does not have merit, so both situations are covered. In that situation, a council again has protection. That is important, and the ultimate determinant is qualified majority voting. <BR /> <BR />That mechanism was agreed by all the parties not just in the House but outside the House by their political representatives who were elected to council and appointed by those parties to look at and thoroughly vet the issues and come to a decision on them. That was good politics. The DUP has shown bad faith about the regulations today. It has gone back on what its public representatives agreed and on what it agreed in the Assembly, in Committee and in the Executive. It has given no proper reason for going back on those decisions.”
“That is another hurdle that has to be overcome. You cannot simply say, "I don't like this decision, and it might affect such-and-such a community". It is put in there so that you cannot just vexatiously or frivolously bring an application for a call-in. <BR /> <BR />There are good protections in the regulations. Of course, it has to say that it has the support of 15% of council members. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 4(8), which Mr Weir neglected, states:”
“That is unlike the petition of concern that Mr Weir has brought, whereby he has not specified why the regulations should be blocked. I emphasise that the specification of the reasons is an important safeguard in the use of the call-in mechanism. <BR /> <BR />Paragraph 4(3)(b) goes on to state:”
“I go back to the point of paragraph 4(3)(a). You have to:”
“Not only can you say to the clerk or chief executive of a council that you have a problem with it, but you have to specify the reasons why a decision should be reconsidered. That is another safeguard in relation to this matter. You cannot just, willy-nilly, say that you object to something; you have to state the reasons for that.”
“I emphasise that point to you, Mr Speaker, and to the rest of the House, because there, in one fell swoop, you have safeguards in relation to the abuse of this particular process of call-in. There is a proper and lawful blocking mechanism there to prevent misuse. <BR /> <BR />Let us move on to paragraph 4(3) of the schedule, which deals with standing order call-in admissability. It says that:”
“I am trying to address the point that Mr Weir raised, which was that this could subject councils to all sorts of abuse and that, willy-nilly, decisions could be called in and all the rest. There are proper safeguards, in my opinion, in relation to this. Paragraph 3(2) says:”
“I cannot think of any petition of concern coming so late in the day on an issue that has achieved — remarkably, in my opinion, and indeed thanks to the DUP amongst others — remarkable political unanimity in relation to these regulations. I just cannot understand why, at this particular moment, a petition of concern is being used in such a clumsy, crude and undemocratic fashion in the House. <BR /> <BR />Let us look at paragraph 3(2) of the schedule to the regulations, where it says:”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. He has a different political agenda, and he is entitled to that, but he does not seem to understand the necessity, in certain circumstances, for the genuine and proper use of a petition of concern. He would like to see the petition of concern mechanism removed completely in the House, but that runs contrary to the very nature of the House, which is to try to protect minorities on special issues. <BR /> <BR />I accept, Mr Speaker, if you indulge me, that petitions of concern have been abused in the House, but this is a most egregious example of the misuse of the petition of concern.”
“It is also damaging to the process of bringing the councils into full operation in a fair and proper manner. That is not good politics; it is bad politics. It is bad for the House, bad for the new councils and bad for the DUP that, at the last minute, has brought the petition of concern and objections, which, quite clearly, no Minister could have dealt with at the last minute. The Minister is quite proper to proceed today to bring these regulations and say to the House, "These are the regulations that have been agreed by everyone". No objections were raised to them in Committee or outside Committee. There needs to be an explanation from the DUP in relation to that. I am not convinced by the arguments that have been brought forward. Indeed, if you look at the regulations —”
“I find it peculiar that the Member reverses the onus to me, my party or the Minister. It is up to the Member to discharge to the House a serious reason why these regulations should not be adopted today. I do not accept the argument that the onus lies with the Minister or me, as a member of the Environment Committee, to disprove the points that the Member has raised in argument. <BR /> <BR />I want to go back to one other very important point in relation to process. This issue was raised yesterday evening by the DUP. It was, effectively, a political ambush and a misuse of political power to petition the regulations here today. It is highly damaging in relation to the political consensus that has been built around protections for minorities and the way in which the new councils will operate.”
“That political consensus, which has quite improperly been undermined today, was wrought out of many months of political discussion and debate and was of great value in informing this House, the Environment Committee, the Minister and the Department of the Environment on how these regulations should be shaped, formed and presented in detail to this House. In my view, what has been done today is irresponsible. I do not find the arguments put forward by Mr Weir in the House to be convincing in any way.”
“I support the regulations as tabled by the Minister. The Minister said quite rightly that the principles enshrined in the primary legislation are reflected in these regulations. It has to be said, and I emphasise the point, that there was never any challenge to those principles and never any questions in Committee — in particular, the Environment Committee. <BR /> <BR />There has, furthermore, been a massive amount of work done for many months on these regulations. Of course, a strategic leadership board was set up to consider all these provisions, and there was general agreement about the provisions on that board.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member is asking an impossible question of the Minister. Mr Weir and his colleagues in the DUP have raised this issue at the eleventh hour. They never raised it once throughout the Committee's discourse, and you are now expecting the Minister to explain what Mr Weir introduced at the eleventh hour.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I was not going to be brief. <BR /> <BR />This is a very exciting opportunity for local councils, and I affirm my support for the Minister in his desire to get it right. What about staffing transfers? Will staff be in place? Will they be able to exploit the new opportunities?”
“That gives rise to a situation in which a proper diagnosis cannot be made in all circumstances and which, I believe, is indicative of medical opinion on this very difficult area. I ask the Minister to comment on that.”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. Obstetricians and gynaecologists, to my knowledge, have said that option 4, which the Minister favours in his consultation paper, is not clear or precise and does:”
“I thank the Member for giving way. The Member referred to attempts to change attitudes and mindsets and said, quite rightly, that legislation alone does not change mindsets immediately. Effective legislation, however, imports values into society that change behaviours. Take, for example, no-smoking legislation. Some 10 years ago, smokeless zones in buildings, public service vehicles etc were unimaginable. Attitudes to smoking have been changed fundamentally. In the same way, this legislation could change attitudes. I see the Member disagreeing, but bear with me. That is the real effect, not immediately but down the line, of this type of legislation.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I do not want to detain him, but this is an important point. The whole thrust of thinking on welfare reform is to get people back into work. If somebody is going back into work, but sees that part of the obstacle to that is, for example, waiting until the expiration of one month to get paid, in those circumstances is it not reasonable to allow a period of grace of four weeks so that that person can get to a position where he or she will be able to pay that additional burden in rent?”
“Will the Minister indicate the impact of rates convergence and reductions in rates support for Derry City and Strabane District Council, given the brutal reduction in the Department of the Environment's funding?”
“He is doing very well and making very valid points, and I hope that Members will listen to them. I believe that amendment No 53 is very important. It puts victims of the Troubles and people who have suffered grievously, through either physical or mental problems as a result of the Troubles, at the very centre of the welfare system. Does the Member agree with the general thrust of the amendment? Does he agree with me that it would be a terrible shame for the House to reject the amendment, particularly through a petition of concern? That would do a grave disservice to all those who have suffered as a result of the Troubles.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. I am sorry if I have interrupted his train of thought —”
“That was the point made by Mr Kelly, the spokesperson for Sinn Féin on policing and on the NCA. We have achieved that. The Members outside Sinn Féin accept and recognise that, the Chief Constable recognises that and any reasonable independent observer will accept that. That has been an achievement for all of us, because we all made a contribution to this. It is important that it is publicly recognised that accountability has been achieved. That is what we sought at the beginning of our negotiations. It is what we sought to the very end of the negotiations, and that is what has been achieved. I believe that this is a triumph for common sense, a triumph for negotiation, a triumph for democracy and a triumph for the Assembly.”
“I thank the Member for his intervention. He, of course, reminds me of what Mr Kelly said in the Assembly in, I think, 2013 in relation to the NCA:”
“I accept the point that he made, but he spent all his time exclusively talking about procedure. Not once did he comment on the merits of the changes that have taken place in relation to the NCA here in Northern Ireland.”
“The previous Sinn Féin Member who spoke, Mr McCartney, spent most of his time talking about the procedures in relation to the motion. Not once did he refer to any point of substance — not once. He talked about the procedures. Now, the Business Office accepted the motion as valid. I assume it took advice in relation to it. I cannot see how on earth the motion is not a viable motion, not one in law or not one that can be agreed by the House.”
“So the Member cannot come to the House and say that his party — I do not recognise that his party negotiated at all in relation to this; he may claim that for the media, but I do not see any evidence, papers or anything else — did any negotiating. Similar to the way in which the PSNI was set up, it was the SDLP that did all the hard work. It was the SDLP that brought about the creation of the PSNI. So we are not going to accept the rubbish — the rubbish — that the Member has just stated in relation to negotiations not being completed. The negotiations were completed. The negotiations were substantial, and my party believes that, in law, we established a massive improvement in the accountability measures and the other measures necessary to bring about the operational acceptance of the NCA here in Northern Ireland.”
“No, just hear me out, just hear the list. There is a provision that the Minister of Justice can request HMIC to carry out an inspection of NCA in addition to the Policing Board asking the Minister to exercise his power. NCA officers will have to read and understand the PSNI code of ethics and NCA disciplinary code, which is explicitly referred to in statute and makes NCA officers bound by the code of ethics. There will be a statutory requirement on the NCA to supply the ombudsman with such information and documents as the ombudsman may require for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise of any of the ombudsman's functions. As with section 55 of the Police Act 1998, the NCA can call in the Police Ombudsman. I could go on and on; that is in law.”
“I will deal with the last points made by the Sinn Féin Member for West Belfast. The fact is that there have been substantial changes in law. I could go through all of them, but I will go through some of them to satisfy the House. It is in law that the Policing Board will monitor the exercise of NCA functions in Northern Ireland and not only its annual plan. There is in law a provision that the Minister of Justice can —”
“I thank the Member for giving way. He is a member of the Policing Board and has vast experience in that organisation. Does he accept that the additional accountability provisions made as a result of these negotiations and settlement will add to the credibility of the NCA and, indeed, the PSNI in the fight against organised crime?”
“I thank the Minister for his detailed answers. I condemn any threats or attacks on prison officers and the vile graffiti that seems to have appeared yesterday. <BR /> <BR />Good work was carried out by the assessment team. Will the Minister ask the team to come back to look at the situation and to come up with further proposals to try to ease the situation and get a permanent settlement of the problem?”
“It was right and proper for him to do that. Ministers are constantly criticised in this House for not making decisions. This Minister has made decisions. The decision that he has made is being thwarted by parties in this House. That is unfortunate, but there should be a short period of reflection after the inevitable happens here. I am supporting the Minister on this today.”
“Inevitably, this prayer of annulment will be passed. That is unfortunate, but we have to look to the future and see how we bring this about. I am not convinced that the exclusion zone system which is being put forward would work. If we are going to approach it, we have to think very carefully about the practicalities. I am not sure that it would be particularly enforceable, but we have to get our heads around this and find, in the words of Mr Eastwood, a "sensible" solution. <BR /> <BR />The Minister has acted quite properly. He has brought this to the Committee and, as a consequence, to the House, and he has confronted all of us in this Chamber to say, "If we are going to fulfil the will of this Assembly in terms of the 2008 Act, then we have to act, and act reasonably quickly." He was right, therefore, to bring forward his regulations.”
“People involved in this business have to realise that, to fulfil the wishes of the Assembly in the 2008 Act, it is necessary for us to reach an end point. <BR /> <BR />There are other issues involved, one of which is wheelchair accessible taxis. Public hire taxis are in a pole position to — I use this term properly — exploit the market, bring the capacity they have to that market and assist people who are disabled. That is why Disability Action is supportive of these changes. I also understand very clearly why the tourist industry is very supportive of these changes. In any other city in the world, you just stick your hand out and you get a taxi. In Belfast, alas, for whatever historic reasons, you cannot do that with all taxis; you can only do it with public hire ones. <BR /> <BR />We have to look very carefully.”
“Some people think that we were over-metered. <BR /> <BR />I do have sympathy, because change has come to the legal profession, and it is coming to those engaged in the taxi business and so forth. The public hire people have given great service to Belfast. I have used them frequently, and it is a quality service. They will be able to compete in the future whenever the single tier comes in. It is inevitable; the question is over how it will come in, how quickly it will come in, what shape and form it takes and what stages there will be etc. However, as Ms Lo said in her address to the Assembly, we have been dealing with this for the past seven years. That is a long period of time to allow any transition.”
“I hear a voice behind me saying that we were not metered.”
“Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I will take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election. Just because I did not vote for you does not mean that I do not wish you well. <BR /> <BR />It is unfortunate that we have reached this stage and that there is this prayer of annulment. We all look forward to a sensible solution to this particular issue. In all walks of life, whether it is business, the professions, politics, the Church or whatever, people find change difficult. I can understand in particular the decision of the public hire practitioners. They remind me of my old profession as a barrister because they are single practitioners who are subject to the market. In fact, when we were at the Bar, we were told that we were like taxi men, because we just picked up the next fare or the next case.”
“I am sorry, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, but I did not quite hear that. <BR /> <BR />At the end of the day, the single-tier system will have to come in. When does the Member suggest that that should happen, because that is the view of the House as expressed in the 2008 Act?”
“I have listened with great interest to the Member, and I understand where he is coming from, although I am not sure where he is going.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. If the Member was the Minister, what would he have done in such circumstances? Would he simply have imposed a Union Jack on people here, or would he have created a situation in which there were options?”
“I will. The Minister acted reasonably here and recognises, as we do in the SDLP, the difficulties involved in symbols and flags and emblems.”
“It creates a situation where somebody has, say, a Union Jack on their licence and some other person has not got a Union Jack or indeed has some other symbol — a tricolour or a harp or whatever — and that identifies that person politically. We end up with an apartheid type of identification in our society. That is entirely wrong.”
“Let me come to that point. I am sure the Minister will explain his position and that of the Department, but, as I understand it — I am subject to correction on this — officials in the Department explored the possibility of having an option in relation to the Union flag. That option was deemed to be prohibitively expensive, and it could not properly be done in the context of a realistic budget in relation to the production of the licences. That, I believe, is the situation. The Member can shake his head, but the Minister will speak in due course, and, if I am wrong, the Minister will express the official view of the Department and give details of that. However, that option was explored. <BR /> <BR />My view is that it is better not having options, and I will tell you why.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Member for her contribution. I think what is happening is that the Conservative Party is playing catch-up with UKIP in a British context, contesting that right-wing, jingoistic, nationalist space. This is the outworking of that, and it is very sad. Look at our situation here: as you have said, emblems and flags are contentious. If that is true, is it not better to have a neutral symbol such as the European logo? Is that not better than having a situation where you impose a Union Jack on somebody or impose a tricolour on somebody?”