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 2 of 15.
“I used to say that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment was the best Committee in the House. It is not. I want to make it clear and official that the Committee for Justice is quite definitely the best Committee in the House. Previously, of course, I was Chair of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, so I was the judge of my own cause. I am not the judge of my own cause here. I think that the president of the Supreme Court might well be a very suitable judge to comment upon the work of the Committee for Justice. On 3 March, he said:”
“I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. It is an exciting opportunity for those in the third sector, particularly social and church groups. On the issue of criteria, will there be an opportunity for assistance to be given to encourage recipients or beneficiaries to establish themselves as mutuals or, indeed, as cooperatives?”
“<BR /> <BR />I believe that this process will be ongoing, and we will, I am sure, reflect on how effective the new system is. I want to give it my full support and that of my party. I hope that it will work out to be another way in which we can engage with the public and the public can engage with us.”
“Here is an individual citizen who was able to influence the workings of the House, and I think that she is to be congratulated on that. <BR /> <BR />I agree with and support the report, but I just have one reservation about it, and that is the threshold. I think that the threshold, which is 100, is probably a little bit high. We are dealing here with an arbitrary figure of 100. In some jurisdictions, it is much lower, and in others, it is enormously higher, but then you are dealing with a massive population such as in Britain. Nonetheless, I think that 100 is probably a little bit high. I would have preferred to see a much lower figure, but that was the collective wisdom of the Procedures Committee, and I have to accept that.”
“<BR /> <BR />We have now moved a step forward in this report, where the public can e-petition the Assembly. It is right and proper, given the advances in technology and all the safeguards that there are in modern technology, to use that medium to petition the Assembly and the relevant Departments and so forth in the Executive. <BR /> <BR />This is a very significant step forward, and I concur with the Chair of the Committee, Mr Gerry Kelly, in congratulating Mairaid McMahon, who as an individual citizen brought forward this idea to the Procedures Committee. The Procedures Committee, in fairness, recognised that this is a new way of dealing with the business of the House and, I think enthusiastically, supported this idea. I give credit to the Committee collectively in relation to that.”
“In the early days of the Assembly, the petition was simply presented, and there was no speaking on behalf of the petitioners by the sponsoring MLA. Now that has changed, and the MLA is able to make a three-minute speech on the petition. I think that that is very helpful in highlighting the petition and the issue that the petition is concerned about. Those who are behind the petition are able to watch it from the Public Gallery. They get a sense of ownership of this body, and it is a good direct contact between the public and the Assembly. That should be encouraged. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of the petition system, but I do think that it is a good thing for people to be able to access the Assembly directly, albeit through the good offices of an MLA.”
“This report from the Procedures Committee is to be welcomed. I think that it adds to the current system of petitioning of the House. If you reflect upon it, you will say that it has been effective in many ways because the public have a direct opportunity through an MLA, in the first instance, to petition the House and to bring that petition to the Speaker and then have it forwarded to the relevant Department. I do think that the Departments take petitions seriously. I do not think that it is a matter of form. I think that they are concerned about the level of opinion that has been expressed in those petitions. On a number of occasions, I myself have brought petitions to the House. <BR /> <BR />The public presentation of petitions to the House is important.”
“I understand what the Chair is saying. Nonetheless, Mr McMullan raised an interesting point that is worthy of further consideration. <BR /> <BR />I will conclude by once again congratulating Mr Frew for bringing forward this aspect of the legislation. It is very worthwhile and adds additional protection to those in the public sector who serve us in emergencies. They deserve our respect, support and legal protection.”
“I am not certain. In fact, I doubt whether they would be covered. The Minister might be able to shed further light on that. Certainly, if they came under the categories that I mentioned, they would be covered. Mr McMullan raises an interesting point. That category of person may be more difficult to define.”
“That is useful and helpful in giving added protection to emergency workers in what I would broadly call the Ambulance Service.”
“I have very little to add to what the previous contributor and the Minister outlined, save to say that, in amendment No 6, the Minister has proposed a useful amendment to the definition of an ambulance worker. It tidies up Mr Frew's amendment, which creates an offence to assault or interfere with an ambulance worker or anybody who assists an ambulance worker. The definition of an ambulance worker has been more widely and broadly defined as someone working under the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust, St John Ambulance Northern Ireland, the British Red Cross or the charity registered in the Republic known as the Order of Malta Ireland. That is a fairly expansive list that incorporates the type of personnel whom the House envisaged being covered in this clause.”
“The Minister is obsessed and keeps repeating that it should be Justice. I sympathise with him, but I think that I am the only member of the Justice Committee who would, in relation to this particular issue. <BR /> <BR />I reiterate, or perhaps recycle, my previous comments in relation to the reconstructed Bill that Mr Beggs is presenting to us tonight in terms of his amendments, which I will support. I think that whilst the Bill will be weaker than Mr Beggs had anticipated, it at least puts legislation in place and is a useful addition, worthy of support even at this late hour.”
“I am happy to say that the small business of re-election does not affect me, but I wish you all well in your re-election campaigns. <BR /> <BR />It looks like this particular Bill will not pass muster tonight. It is a credit to Mr Beggs that he has brought this Bill and highlighted an issue which affects our society and needs to be tackled. I hope that Mr Beggs will be able to direct this Assembly in relation to whatever shape or form a new Bill, regulations or type of legislation will take in the next mandate as regards this, because he has put a lot of work into it and has some good ideas in relation to dealing with the issues that have arisen. I think everybody recognises that. <BR /> <BR />There has been a bit of recycling of speeches tonight, which is appropriate enough for an environment debate, but—”
“I simply reiterate my previous comments on the first group of amendments; my comments are applicable to group 2 as well. I will support Mr Beggs's amendments. The Bill, even as amended, may have weaknesses. Nonetheless, the Bill, as amended, would be an extra tool in dealing with the problem and with the objective that Mr Beggs laid out at the beginning of the process. I think that it would be a useful contribution to waste management and to the creation of a waste management licensing system to tackle the problem of metal theft. For those reasons, I support his approach in group 2. I will conclude with that.”
“It now boils down to the House considering whether the amendments are sufficient to meet the objectives of the Bill. <BR /> <BR />I congratulate the sponsor for taking the Bill forward and for trying to deal with the misappropriation, misuse and theft of metals in this jurisdiction. The problem is perhaps not as serious as it once was but is, nonetheless, serious, and it needs to be addressed. The Bill, in its present form, may or may not address that fully. The best way to address the issue fully is to take a criminal justice approach, which may require further legislation. <BR /> <BR />So I leave it there. Just to say that I give the Bill, in its present form, my support.”
“Whether those are sufficient to meet the Bill's objectives is a question for all of us and, ultimately, for the plenary sitting to make a decision on. Despite my misgivings, I think that the Department has helped to reshape the Bill but perhaps not to my full satisfaction. I am giving the amendments and the reshaped Bill the benefit of the doubt. Some merit remains in the restructured Bill, so I will give it my support, but .I understand the criticisms of members of the Committee, including the Chair and the Deputy Chair; these are proper criticisms that should not in any way be treated lightly. At a very late stage, the sponsor made a valiant attempt to reshape the Bill to reflect the assistance and counsel that the Department gave him. That is where we are.”
“Therein lies the problem because, even with perhaps a little more time, the Environment Committee said that, because of circumstances and the lack of response from people involved in the industry, we have not had sufficient time or qualitative engagement, and that is another aspect in making a determination. <BR /> <BR />I am as torn as other members of the Environment Committee about the Bill, but, in fairness to the sponsoring Member, he has said that he will leave out clause 1 to clause 7 and concentrate on the waste management licensing element of the Bill. That is a fair enough approach, and the Member is wise to do that, and I sympathise with him. <BR /> <BR />This is an open process, so the Member went to the Department, which suggested certain draft amendments, and the Member wisely accepted those amendments.”
“If the Bill had landed at the feet of the Justice Committee, members would have said that they did not have sufficient time to look at it.”
“I share some of the misgivings that colleagues who are members of the Environment Committee have expressed. I sympathise with the sponsor of the Bill. He has put a lot of work into it, and it is certainly well-intentioned. It is intended to deal with a basic mischief of the theft of metals and the misuse of metals in the scrap metal industry. <BR /> <BR />One of the problems goes back to the debate that we had about whether the Environment Committee or the Justice Committee should deal with the matter. Most of us on the Committee, reflecting on that debate, would say that the Justice Committee should have dealt with it. As an overtaxed, overworked member of the Justice Committee, I do not think that it would have been welcomed — it would not have been warmly welcomed anyway — by the Justice Committee.”
“I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. Is she fully satisfied that everything has been covered in relation to consultation? If not, you could subsequently come across unexpected roadblocks, if I may put it that way, in the development of the scheme. That must be avoided at all costs. Is the Minister fully satisfied that the necessary consultation has taken place?”
“Not at all, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his answer. Progress has certainly been made in relation to providing the means for the rehabilitation of offenders, but much more work needs to be done. Will the Minister outline any plans or ideas that he may have on expanding the area of employment that ex-offenders are able to avail themselves of in order to provide for their full integration back into the community?”
“I thank the Minister for that good news in relation to unemployment in North Belfast, but we still have a particular problem with economic inactivity. Does the Minister have any indications as to the level of economic inactivity in North Belfast? Has there been an improvement? What is the situation?”
“I note what the Minister has said. I also note the neighbourliness between Mr Murphy and Mr Kennedy, and long may it reign. In relation to the current financial process, the Minister talks about transparency. I do not see much transparency; I see a lot of opaqueness. Having been here for 18 years, I would like to see an improvement. Can the Minister guarantee that?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. Only a Minister like Mr Durkan, who has the patience of Job, could have successfully concluded this legislation. I welcome the dead miles recommendations and look forward to them. Will the Minister outline the net benefit to the consumer in relation to the overall taxi changes?”
“Or end. It is as simple as that. That is the way in which they approached it. They said, "You are putting us into a most difficult position if you pass this legislation".”
“In terms of diagnosis, they said that they could not predict; that it was not an accurate science.”
“They said to me directly that they cannot possibly predict. It is simple as that; they cannot predict. They are the top people and that is what they are saying. They said that they are opposed to these clauses, particularly clause 61. It is as simple as that.”
“The day before yesterday, I met senior clinicians who deal with these specific issues. They said to me directly —”
“That confirms the very point that Mr Allister has raised and that he believes the Attorney General has referred to in his letter.”
“Apologies. Leaving aside the Attorney General, if one refers to paragraph 64 of Mr Justice Horner's judgement in relation to abortion, which is now under appeal, he refers to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. He confirms in his judgement that the convention is specified as one of the EU treaties under the Definition of Treaties Order. He says of the Attorney General:”
“I hear what the Minister says, but experience leads us to the conclusion that, wherever national security issues arise, even in an arcane way, there is some usage made of them, which we believe negatively impacts on transparency and proper investigation. I remain to be totally convinced, no matter how persistent the Minister may be on the issue. I think that I have covered all the points that I should have covered, so I will conclude.”
“Well, we need a doctor to decide that, do we not? Is there a doctor in the House?”
“Despite the Minster's persuasive observations on clause 38, it seems to us that they are not totally persuasive — I will put it that way — and we feel that we must oppose the clause and support Sinn Féin's opposition to it. I am not sure if there is any —”
“Nonetheless, I think that there might be some merit in the additional aspect that Mr McCartney has raised. <BR /> <BR />In relation to that point, we are unhappy with the inclusion of clause 38. It does not seem necessary to us to include it in the Bill if, in fact, the power already subsists in the Prison Act. We are very wary of the whole issue of using national security as a broad brush and restricting or, effectively, obstructing investigations. We are very wary when we see those references in any legislation. Maybe that is just because we are politically neuralgic about national security, but we have seen national security used in the past as an umbrella and in a fairly blanket fashion.”
“We think that there is merit in this, and we are therefore supportive of the amendment. It is important, however, to note that, throughout the contribution of the Prisoner Ombudsman — as he is known, although he will not continue to have that name — he said that 99% of people cooperated with him and that he was happy enough.”
“I hope I am quoting that accurately. The addition that Mr McCartney is seeking to make is:”
“We are not convinced that this is a right and proper amendment in relation to these matters. It is very difficult to conceive of a situation where you could compel a person to assist in an investigation. You might be able to compel someone to attend somewhere or arrive at some office, or whatever, but you could not compel a person to assist, as Mr McGlone said. I am grateful to Mr McCartney for responding constructively to the points raised by Mr McGlone. So, we are not supportive of that amendment. <BR /> <BR />However, amendment No 48 does add something to clause 36(4). The Minister has quite properly included in clause 36(4):”
“It is right and proper that this particular power be introduced by the Bill. So, we welcome that and believe it to be an important step forward. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 47, which is Mr McCartney's amendment, is allied to amendment No 48. The House will understand the points that Mr McGlone made in relation to amendment No 47, which seeks to:”
“I will try to be as brief as possible. The SDLP welcomes placing the office of the Prison Ombudsman on a statutory basis. It is something that we have sought for quite some time, and it arose specifically out of the Hillsborough Agreement in 2010. So, it is good that we have made progress in relation to that and that there is a consensus on the issue. It is right and proper that his office is put on a statutory basis. The ombudsman welcomes it, and his predecessors also sought to achieve it. <BR /> <BR />The own-initiative aspect of the Bill is also to be welcomed. The Minister introduced that aspect, and we are very supportive of it. It is important that the ombudsman can look at an overall situation and see whether there are patterns developing or a systematic issue that needs to be addressed.”
“I thank the Minister for giving way. The Minister says that the power is within the prison regulations. Does that mean that the power subsists within the prison regulations? Why is the Minister adding this to the current Bill, if the power already subsists?”
“We fully support the intention of the Department and the Minister in relation to this part of the Bill and welcome, in general terms, the provisions.”
“Mr McCartney has very succinctly described what I was attempting to explain, so I will not deliberate any further, save to say that we will support Sinn Féin on that aspect of things. We have great sympathy with Sinn Féin in relation to the other amendments. It is a belt-and-braces exercise, but, in the circumstances, it is necessary to give those protections and reassurance to the public. <BR /> <BR />This is a good section of the Bill. It deals with fine defaulters, which has been a constant problem. It was highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee and others, particularly the Prison Service, whose resources are stretched because it has to accommodate fine defaulters. Quite frankly, sending fine defaulters to prison is an archaic way of dealing with them. It is a waste of public resources.”
“I understand that point, too. I accept the Minister's assurance that, if he were to become Minister again, he certainly would not outsource collection officers, but another Minister might say, "Well, I'm going to save some money here. I'll outsource". Therefore, civil servants would be replaced by private companies. That is a real possibility under the Bill as drafted.”
“It does not mandate; it does not say "shall". This is the problem when we try to develop law and bring about good legislation: sometimes, we are not zealous enough in writing in protections.”
“I understand what the Minister has said, but clause 2(1) states:”
“That is, in essence, what the Sinn Féin amendments are attempting to do and, therefore, my party and I support them. I understand the Minister's assurance that collection officers will be civil servants and that he has no intention of outsourcing the collection process and having private companies as collection officers carrying out that process. However, I am not content with that, because I think that it should be in law. Of course, there will be regulations in relation to the collection officers, and those regulations will be governed by what we put into statute.”
“I do not want to go on any further; it is probably more appropriate simply to highlight the issues that have been raised by the Committee under the imaginative chairmanship of Mr Ross. <BR /> <BR />The amendments brought by Sinn Féin are worthy amendments. I would call them belt-and-braces amendments, because the Minister has included within the Bill safeguards in relation to fine defaulters to protect their families and dependants and so forth. I understand what the Minister said about the safeguards in the Bill, as it currently is, being sufficient protection. However, if we are serious about protecting people and the dependants and families of those who are affected, I think that it is helpful that we write those protections into law more clearly.”
“The visit to the United States, in particular to Brooklyn, to try to see and understand the actuality of how another jurisdiction deals with these issues was a very worthwhile undertaking. Of course, we look at the American criminal justice system and see it as heavily punitive, and, of course, it has been. I do not know how many millions there are in prison in the United States, but certainly it is a very substantial number of people. With those pressures and the expense and so forth, people in the United States are looking for a different approach and solution to criminality. Therefore, the United States is now innovative in its approach to criminal justice.”
“Let us take, in particular, those who are addicted to drugs or are alcohol dependent. It is very important that we look at them and see how we can help them. How can we rehabilitate those unfortunate enough to have these dependencies? Therefore, this has been a very valuable exercise. I understand that the Chair, having been reassured by the Minister that the Department will do further work on this, will not move these amendments. I think that that reflects the view of the Committee. The Committee sought to try to push the Department, so this has been a worthwhile exercise. I think that most Committee members are in agreement with that. My party and I certainly are.”
“In group 1, there are two sets of amendments, one brought by Sinn Féin and the other by the Committee. I think that the Committee amendments are very appropriate and timely. They highlight the need, which the Chair has led on vigorously, in and out of Committee, to develop a new strategy for offending, a strategy that involves problem-solving, where you take the individual not simply isolated in the criminal justice system but at large in society. That is an innovative approach. It is to be welcomed, and we have to do more work on it. The Minister has properly recognised that and that it is probably the direction in which the Department will go. <BR /> <BR />The Committee has been very supportive of the approach. These amendments reflect the Committee's consensual thinking on problem-solving.”