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 14 of 15.
“Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. This debate is a pretence. It is a pretence brought by Sinn Féin, not because of any internal reasons in Northern Ireland but to appeal to the electorate in Donegal, where it has seats that it wishes to retain. That party has to appear to be defending the rights and interests of Donegal hauliers. That is the reason why the debate has been brought. Let us be frank about it. Let Sinn Féin be frank about it: that is the reason. <BR /> <BR />Of course, it is a dig at the SDLP. It is a poke at Mark H Durkan, who is a border MLA and Minister of the Environment. It is an attempt to embarrass him and do him down. That is the reality of this debate. <BR /> <BR />I know Donegal very, very well. In fact, my mother came from Donegal. Many family members live there.”
“I say at the start that this is a bogus debate. It is a fraudulent debate. It has been brought for party political and campaigning purposes —”
“I ask the Minister whether it is sufficient for him to allow a period of eight weeks for consultation instead of 12 weeks, which would allow people to sufficiently answer the savagery of the Budget?”
“Further to that, there is intense outrage out there on this, particularly amongst the trade unions —”
“I am normally a very courteous person, but I cannot thank the Minister for the introduction of this savage Budget. I remind the Minister that, by introducing the Budget — I refer to the remarks of Mr Nesbitt — he has reduced himself to being a message boy for George Osborne —”
“That reflects the concerns that were expressed that those who are involved in the system should be intimately involved in the system of scrutinising applications on appeal. That is important, and I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that in his changes and for pointing out so clearly to the Assembly what he envisages. <BR /> <BR />The Bill is a good example of Members working together. We may not have got it right earlier today, but we have got it right this afternoon.”
“The appeals panel provides an important guarantee for applications for legal aid. Of course, the arrangements for the panel will be determined by secondary legislation and the House will have an opportunity to scrutinise that. It is a very important element, and the fact that the Minister agreed to a three-person panel, albeit that it is as yet undecided whether it will be composed of lawyers, non-lawyers or a combination, nonetheless —”
“I think that that is an important measure and should be welcomed by all. I hope that even the Minister, on reflection, may see that as a worthwhile proposition. Mr Elliott showed the House that useful amendments could be made to legislation, and that was an important contribution to the whole process of passing the Bill. <BR /> <BR />The Committee worked well with the Department on the Bill. There was a degree of cooperation, and I think that the Department took on board quite a number of issues that the Committee raised. I agree with the Minister when he says that we have to improve management, control costs and look at the efficiency of the system. Those are very important aims, and I hope that they will be achieved through the passage of the Bill.”
“My colleagues and I are satisfied that measures have been put in place to guarantee that independence, particularly in relation to the adjudication of individual applications. The Minister has given reassurance to the Assembly on that issue. I think that it is important to maintain that independence and to maintain that independent scrutiny and determination of legal aid applications without fear of ministerial intervention. <BR /> <BR />Mr Elliott brought forth some interesting amendments, as the Chair of the Committee mentioned. I had great sympathy with the amendments that he brought and, indeed, supported at least one amendment that was successful. It was an important contribution to the overall situation that we find ourselves in here with the Civil Service. We bring people in from outside, where possible, to revitalise it.”
“I support the Bill. Along with my colleagues in the SDLP, I think that this is a good and a much-needed Bill in reforming the Legal Services Commission; bringing it closer to the Department; giving it more resources; and making it a much more effective organisation. It has long been criticised, and I think that, in one report, the Criminal Justice Inspection described it as being not fit for purpose. In any event, the reform is overdue and we welcome it. I think that everyone recognises the need for such reform. Those in the legal profession and the stakeholders are all supportive of it. <BR /> <BR />We, along with colleagues in other parties, expressed concerns about the independence of the director of legal aid casework.”
“I thank the Minister for her very useful answers. Surely it is futile to argue about whether it is cheap labour, whether it is the illegal tobacco trade or whether it is the European directive. The fact is that this is a tragedy for those 900-odd workers who are going to be made redundant. The Minister has about 18 months to two years for the final run-down of the premises at Lisnafillan. Has the Minister any plans to put in place an intensive and extensive programme for both redeployment and retraining of the workers who are presently employed?”
“I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. Clearly, this is an area for future development with massive potential. Is there any way in which the industry here could benefit from cooperation with counterparts in the Irish Republic? I think that, in the field of creativity, we have to use all the talents and skills that abound on the island of Ireland.”
“— who should be at the very centre of our concerns. I welcome the debate, because it is properly focused on the Victims and Survivors Service. I think that all Members of the House should take note of that.”
“You cannot have respite care or educational care and opportunities suspended. There has to be a continuum. If we do not get that across to those who are attempting to provide that service, we are failing the victims —”
“Dealing with victims in a bureaucratic, administrative fashion and developing that culture of dealing with victims is entirely inappropriate. That is what those people said to me, and that is what victims' organisations say to Members of the House. We cannot ignore that. We have to improve the service. <BR /> <BR />I give credit to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for promoting the service and for attempting to act on the report of Kathryn Stone, but an awful lot of work needs to be done. The attitude has to change. It has to move from an administrative organisation to a service organisation — that is clear. We have to ensure that there is proper financing, even in the darkest of austere times and budgeting. We have to guarantee that. We cannot have a stop-start service for victims.”
“— during his address to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I go back to the point: there are institutional failings. Kathryn Stone pointed them out in her very detailed report, and those failings remain. Last Friday, I spoke to two victims of the Troubles: one had been injured by a republican paramilitary organisation and the other by a loyalist organisation. Both of them said that problems continue in relation to the service because it is not properly managed. There is no sense of empathy coming from the service to the victims. That is a problem, and it has to be addressed. For example, on the board of the service, there is no representative of victims. There may be good people on the board — I do not doubt that — who are doing their best, but there is no victim on the board. That is an incredible omission.”
“If the Member wishes to conduct a debate, he should enter into the spirit of the debate and accept points of intervention so that we can debate these subjects, but of course the Member remains silent and refused to accept my particular point —”
“Certainly not to the Member who refused —”
“I do not know what is worse: the false hurt and self-righteousness of the last Member who spoke, the silence of Chris Hazzard, or the excuses put forward by Bronwyn McGahan in relation to the victims and survivors' budget. It seems to me incredible that any of those Members would seek to justify cuts to the Victims and Survivors Service. Whether the cut be 4%, 22% or whatever, it still should not happen. The budget for victims and survivors should be ring-fenced and the service should be improved and enhanced. The problem with the Victims and Survivors Service, which is a great idea and should be a model of excellence, is that it has been dogged by underfunding, in my view, and, in addition, by institutional failings. Those —”
“In a sense, the Member tries to minimise the cuts that are being made to the Victims and Survivors Service, but the reality is that any cut is going to impact on victims and survivors, and that causes real damage and hurt.”
“I thank the Minister for that answer. I think that many parents will be reassured that the Minister and the Department are on track to introduce legislation that will help to create flexibility. A further issue that I wish to raise with the Minister is that some children who attend school and who are young for their years, as it were, underachieve. Has the Department done any work on that particular problem?”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for his reply. He referred to the United States Government. Does he envisage any role for the United States Government during the talks?”
“The junior Minister has underlined the need for reductions in costs, and so on. Is maintaining and sustaining a service, particularly one that serves as a respite for victims and survivors, not so important that it should remain unaffected by any sorts of cuts? You are sending out the wrong message to victims and survivors if you continue a policy of reduction in cost.”
“As a simple matter of history, the SDLP joined the Policing Board in 2001; and, in 2007, Sinn Féin joined the Policing Board in the wake of the SDLP and on the basis of the good work that the SDLP had done to build up the PSNI. That is history, so we are not in the shadow of Sinn Féin whatsoever.”
“That is the appropriate approach. That is what we want to see happening.”
“What I am saying to the House and what I understand very clearly is this: there is a problem with organised crime. We have to address that, and we will. We have PSNI resources here addressing it but not as fully as we want. However, as soon as there is agreement on the accountability measures that we have suggested, we will move towards that. The point I make and emphasise to the House is that, given the experience that we have had, we have got to tie these things down firmly and clearly. It is not right for people to simply say, "Well, look, there's the NCA. We've got parliamentary Committees looking at the NCA, and we've got the Home Secretary and so forth". We cannot accept that. It must be internal to Northern Ireland. The operations of the NCA must be subject to the PSNI and the Chief Constable and accountable to the Policing Board.”
“I am pleased that the Member has raised those issues. There was a very helpful letter from the Minister of Justice in relation to the NCA. That is no secret. In that, a number of issues were raised in it. I am not going to disclose what discussions we have had with the Minister of Justice or, indeed, with the NCA or the Chief Constable, but I will characterise our engagements with all those people as very positive. However, there are still issues to be addressed in relation to accountability. Until those issues are firmly tied down, we will not be supportive of the NCA, in operational terms, in Northern Ireland. I think that that is wise counsel. I do not believe that that is being thran or obtuse or trying to frustrate the rule of law. We know the history; we are right. We are going to get this right, and it is the right approach.”
“Let me get on a bit. We are not dealing with the intelligence services per se, but we are dealing with an organisation that styles itself as the FBI of the UK. In those circumstances, you need special rules and regulations to deal with the accountability of that force in relation to Northern Ireland. We know the history of a force within a force, the misuse of the RUC by the intelligence services, the misuse of agents and so forth. We want to avoid that happening again, and we will be robust in defending that position. We do not need any lectures from people on dealing with criminality — we are firm on that — but there must be accountability.”
“It highlights the need for the accountability that was dodged and avoided at St Andrews in relation to the intelligence services, and now it is a timely reminder to the House that the issues that arose in the debate on Kincora last week are relevant to this debate as well. Of course, we are not dealing with the intelligence services —”
“Although I disagree with the motion, I welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue and put the facts on the record. First, the SDLP is not opposed in principle to the NCA; we would welcome its resources and so forth. Certainly, we are not opposed to opposing criminality, whether it is organised criminality at an international level, at a national level or whatever. We are vigorously opposed to any form of criminality and welcome resources to deal with it. <BR /> <BR />Last week in the Chamber, we debated Kincora, and there was almost unanimity on the need for an investigation of that. It was widely accepted in the Chamber that the abuse that took place in Kincora was, in fact, covered up by the intelligence services.”
“I am asking the Member particularly about accountability measures in Northern Ireland, not in Westminster or the UK, as you put it.”
“The Member talks about all sorts of bodies looking at the NCA. Will he tell the House what accountability measures exist presently in relation to the NCA? Please describe to the House the accountability to the Chief Constable and the Policing Board?”
“I wonder whether the Member will give way.”
“<BR /> <BR />In relation to this inquiry, I support the view expressed by Members of the House that there should be a much wider inquiry under the chairmanship of Fiona Woolf and that Kincora should be included in that inquiry. Quite clearly, the powers that Mr Justice Hart has in the historical institutional abuse inquiry do not go far enough. Technically, how would he be able, for example, to subpoena people in the intelligence services who are resident in Great Britain? How could he do that? There are all sorts of technical reasons why Kincora should be absorbed into the Woolf inquiry. <BR /> <BR />Finally, it is important for us to remember once again those who were exploited so cruelly —”
“Therefore, it is important for us to probe the full depths of the intrigue and this web of sinister interference by the intelligence services. Those who say, "Don't worry about the intelligence services; they are under the control of Parliament", should remind themselves that in this instance they were not. Indeed, even Harold Wilson, the then Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain, confided to people that he was not sure that the security services were not conspiring against him. It is important for us to exercise or to try to exercise further democratic control over the intelligence services. As a note of caution, we should not simply allow those intelligence services to govern themselves and not be subject to democratic control. That is very important.”
“They fabricated a legal case of manslaughter against him, which, incidentally, was quashed in 1996 by the Court of Appeal. It is very important to remind ourselves that there was a web of intrigue that was assisted, organised and administered by the intelligence services. It is appropriate to say that, and many Members are in agreement with that, as are Members of the Westminster Parliament. <BR /> <BR />It is also appropriate for us to note that the intelligence services were, at times, out of control. As a political party, we took an awful lot of stick because we said exactly that. I think of people like Seamus Mallon, people who probed what was going on, people who defended people like Mr Stalker, who investigated the shoot-to-kill killings in the 1980s.”
“It is not very often that I agree with the First Minister, Peter Robinson, but he said in reference to Kincora that it was a national scandal, and I believe that it is. However, the scandal is not simply about abuse; it is about the cover-up and the use of the premises and the unfortunate boys who were residents in Kincora as a source of information and material for use by the intelligence services. That is the nub of the scandal. <BR /> <BR />The more you probe that sorry episode, the more you come to the conclusion that there has been a major cover-up. If anybody is in any doubt about that, I advise them to read Paul Foot's book 'Who Framed Colin Wallace?'. In that book, you will see the depths to which those in the establishment have gone to impugn the integrity of Mr Wallace.”
“There is one other technical difficulty and that is that anybody who is called to give evidence could claim that they cannot give evidence because of the Official Secrets Act. That aspect of the inquiry also needs to be addressed, because it restricts the amount of information that a person can give.”
“The Member referred to Paul Foot's book 'Who Framed Colin Wallace?'. If one now reflects on that book, one realises that what Mr Foot was in fact revealing was the depth of the intelligence service's involvement in trying to suppress the truth that Colin Wallace had tried to reveal.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. On that point, taking the present incumbent and moving them over on a temporary basis would not be prohibited by this amendment because, by its very nature, it would be a temporary appointment, which is in keeping with what everybody seems to want in relation to this position. Surely, a temporary appointment could not be prohibited by this particular amendment.”
“If, for example, the Department was of the view that we should limit legal aid and not permit it to support judicial reviews, that would have a profoundly negative effect. It is something that we should be wary and protective of and should try to prevent it happening. If amendment No 2 helps to do that, and reinforces the point, I think that we should support it.”
“We are very concerned about that, and if this helps to achieve the objective of limiting the Department's power to do that — the Minister has indicated that the Department could not do it — I still think that as this is intended to reinforce that point of view it is not only a well-intentioned amendment but an effective one, as well as being a belt and braces amendment. It is worthy of our support, but, again, I wait to see what the Minister is going to say about that. <BR /> <BR />I would not even dare to anticipate what the Minister is going to say on this point, but, in any event, the House is very concerned about the matter. The example I gave last time was in relation to judicial reviews.”
“In those circumstances, I would be thrown back to the position where I would give sympathy and support to Mr Elliott's amendment. So, a lot hangs on what the Minister will say on this matter. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 2 has been brought forward by Mr Elliott with very good intentions, and, again, I am sympathetic to it. It is a belt and braces exercise, which is worthy of support. It merits support because the issue raised last time by me and other colleagues was about trying to limit the power of the Department to interfere with the grant of legal aid for certain categories of cases.”
“<BR /> <BR />If I were to anticipate what the Minister is going to say — I do not know what he is going to say — and if he said that he was in favour of open competition but could not guarantee it in the circumstances of the situation, then I am not certain that that would fully satisfy my party, which wants to see wider open competition for senior positions in the Civil Service, not just for this position but for permanent secretaries, their deputies and so forth. That is a proper aim on our part as a political party, and other Members would agree with that. I cannot see inside the Minister's mind — he will reveal that in due course — but if he says he is sympathetic but cannot guarantee this, that falls short of what the House, my party and the Justice Committee wants.”
“It highlights the collective wish of the Justice Committee and many Members to see open competition for the ultimate appointment of the director of legal aid casework. That is a reasonable objective and I support it, as does my party. The question is this: how do we achieve it? Of course, the two previous contributors, leaving aside Mr Elliott, have indicated that they await the Minister's comments on the matter.”
“I, too, am very sympathetic to amendment No 1, which Mr Elliott has brought to the Floor of the Assembly.”
“Will the Minister indicate what level of contact there is between himself and his counterpart in Dublin, in the Irish Republic, in relation to monitoring and taking action against dissident republicans?”
“I hope that Members in the House will recognise that.”
“<BR /> <BR />It is important that the United Nations implements its own doctrine, which includes the responsibility to protect, to provide safe havens, to provide protection for displaced civilian populations in order for them to maintain their culture and their historic heritage, to bring to justice those who are responsible on all sides for the violations that have been so properly identified here today and to have those violations dealt with by the International Criminal Court or, indeed, a specially mandated regional court. It is important that actions be taken and that we do not rely on words alone. Action should be taken. Leading people throughout the world have now come to the conclusion that actions must be taken, and people must be protected. If we do not do that, we — all of us — are failing.”
“Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his intervention. It is important that we do not simply use words alone here. The United Nations, other countries and, indeed, the European Union must use a menu, as it were, of actions to deal with the protection of Christian communities. They are ancient communities that go back to the time of the apostles. It is important to remember that they are not colonists or people who have been imported; they have lived there for two millennia.”