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 3 of 15.
“I thank the Chair for giving way. On foot of the Member's point, it was, indeed, a very interesting and successful visit to Brooklyn in New York, where the problem-solving approaches were being successfully undertaken, and we could learn an awful lot from that. It is true to say that even the likes of Donald Trump would support this type of approach. The Chair has raised an important issue. I note what the Minister said previously, but it is very important that we pursue this and pursue it vigorously.”
“Unlike the previous questioner, I really do not have very much sympathy with the Minister in relation to his summary decision on the renewable heat initiative. It is not acceptable. It will impact adversely on many small installers. Will he review his decision or take remedial action to strengthen those small tradesmen?”
“I thank the Minister for his answer, but, in a sense, he is avoiding the real issue: in the overall structure, this is an unplanned series of developments, which could have negative impacts, as well as positive ones, on local communities. Is it not necessary for both universities to get together, along with Belfast City Council and any other planning authority, to work with your Department and satisfy the needs of students?”
“<BR /> <BR />I congratulate everybody involved — the officials, the Department and the Committee. I reiterate that the Committee has undertaken good work in relation to the Bill. I hope that the House will be unanimous in supporting it.”
“The Minister is right that this will establish a more intelligent framework and context in which we address the issue of the environment. That must be the strategic objective for the Department of the Environment. Mr Boylan quite properly said that the Department of the Environment will be subsumed and divided, like Gaul, into three parts. However, it will continue to exist in successor Departments. It is very important that, in dealing with the environment, we set the proper regulatory and legal basis for it to continue its good work. I hope that the successor Departments will take that challenge seriously. I know that the Minister has taken it seriously; Minister Durkan has proven to be a very able, effective and innovative Minister. I hope that that position will remain with whomever takes over from Mr Durkan in the near future.”
“In the period that I have been on the Committee, I found that she gave considerable and significant leadership. She brings a particular passion to the whole issue of the environment. As Committee members, it is right and proper that we acknowledge that, as, indeed, Mr Boylan mentioned. <BR /> <BR />The two Members who spoke before me referred to the Bill as a skeleton. Flesh will be put on the bones. That flesh will be the regulations as they come through. You need this basic piece of law to build on in order to bring about what the Minister quite properly said is his objective: to get the right balance, to simplify the burden of regulation for those involved with the environment, to remove a level and burden of cost on individual businesses and individuals, and to streamline the regulatory framework and make it innovative.”
“I support the Bill — no surprise there. This is another example of good work and cooperation between the Environment Committee, the Department and the Minister, Mr Durkan. It is fashionable to be very critical of this institution — the Assembly — and say that we are all wasters, we are doing nothing, we are bringing politics into disrepute and so on. That is the view expressed by the commentators who populate television, radio and the press, but, in fact, lots of valuable work is done by the Assembly. I congratulate everybody in the Assembly who contributes to that work, particularly on Committees. This is a good example of the Committee working very well to bring about good legislation in cooperation with the Minister and under the very able chairmanship of Anna Lo. I pay tribute to her work on the Committee over a number of years.”
“I thank the Minister for his interesting reply, and I congratulate him on his appointment. I did work with him before in various guises and I know that he brings a lot to this position. As you know, housing on the Girdwood site has been a contentious issue. How soon will the review that the Department intends to undertake on housing take place, and what progress does the Minister feel might be made in augmenting the proposals for housing on the site?”
“We know now that we have a period of imperfect stability and progress. To use Mr Frew's term: we should bank it. It is important for us, therefore, to support the Bill as it stands and to reject the Alliance Party amendment.”
“The reason for that is that we are a society with many different and significant points of view, and they should be articulated. There should at least be the opportunity to articulate them through election to the Assembly. It is up to the people. I do not know what the people will do in May; none of us in the Assembly knows. The commentators might know, because they tend to know more than any of us. However, I believe that it is within the gift of the electorate to decide, and they are not stupid. They will make their decision wisely. <BR /> <BR />In five years' time, what will the people be thinking? They may think quite differently, and there may be different political formations. We cannot predict the future. Politics is an organic process, and humankind makes different decisions.”
“I think that the amendment is well intended. However, it misses the point that we have achieved a lot but cannot take things for granted. If we change the number of MLAs for the May election, we will undermine what we have achieved, and it is no mean achievement. The postponement of the reduction to 2020 or 2021 is not unreasonable. A period of four or five years is not too long in our history. <BR /> <BR />I want to make one further point. It is one that Mr Maskey also raised and it is important. We cannot compare our ratio of representatives to population with that in other jurisdictions in these islands — Scotland, Wales or the Republic.”
“I did not quite hear what my DUP colleague across the Chamber said.”
“As Mr Frew said, we have achieved an agreement, and it was not an easy agreement to reach. The Stormont House talks 1 and 2 were very difficult, but we achieved agreement. <BR /> <BR />I take it that the Alliance Party amendment is well intentioned. I am not certain that I buy into the point that Mr Frew made — that it is an election stunt. I take it that the amendment is well intended, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
“I am absolutely certain that that is not what is intended by the Alliance Party, but, unfortunately, I think that that party is taking for granted the peace, this institution and the considerable progress that we have made. I do not think that we should do that. <BR /> <BR />The reduction in the number of MLAs set out in the Bill is, I think, a suitable compromise. We are on a political journey, and politics are organic, not static. We are on a journey to try to improve what we have. We, in the SDLP, buy into the principle of that improvement. The Bill allows for a development in the numbers in the next five years. As Mr Maskey says, he does not know whether there will be greater inclusivity by 2020 or 2021, but we hope for it, and there is consensus in the House on that and on the Bill.”
“I am old enough to remember the old Stormont Parliament, a model that did not serve the people of this region well. We should congratulate ourselves on the progress that we have made. Everybody in the House, from every political party, or perhaps most political parties, would say that the involvement of people at the highest possible level in government is very important. The principle of inclusivity, which was referred to by Mr Frew and Mr Maskey, is very important. We must involve our people in order to get greater engagement and build on the peace that we have achieved. That peace should not be taken for granted. If we take that peace for granted, we are on a perilous road.”
“I say that as someone who has gone through the whole process, from 1998 until now. Indeed, beyond that, I was involved in all sorts of negotiations.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The SDLP opposes the Alliance amendment, and it is right and proper for us to oppose it, as indeed do the DUP and Sinn Féin, as I understand it. There a number of reasons why, in fact, this amendment should not be supported. It is important to remember that we come out of a very terrible history, where this society was engulfed in political and sectarian violence. We suffered appallingly and we arrived at a political agreement called the Good Friday Agreement or the Belfast Agreement. Through that agreement, we worked out a new political system. It might be imperfect — it might not be to everybody's liking — but at least everyone in this Assembly is engaged in it. We brought about a degree of peace, stability and political progress of which we can be rightly proud.”
“Every day is a bonus, especially when you are 65.”
“They look at the cooperation and partnership between St Patrick's College in north Belfast and Little Flower Girls' School. It is a wonderful cooperation and a wonderful partnership, particularly at sixth-form level, and they say, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" They are saying very strongly to the Education Authority and to CCMS, "Let's leave this alone". So, I am pleased to bring to the Table the petition against the development proposals.”
“There could be many more signatures, such is the strength of opinion. They are saying that, for girls in particular, it is advantageous to have a single-sex school. They believe that the Little Flower school has had an excellent performance and, in the recent past, it has had excellent inspection reports. Indeed, no later than Friday, the headmaster of the school, Mr Jim McKeever, won the best principal award given by Blackboard. That is some achievement. <BR /> <BR />They also look at the grammar-school sector and see St Malachy's College, which is single sex, and the Dominican College, which is a single-sex girls' school. They also look at the controlled sector and see that the Boys' Model School — an excellent school in north Belfast — is single sex, as is the Girls' Model School.”
“Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is my honour to present to you this petition in relation to education in north Belfast; in particular, the proposals put forward by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and the Education Authority to discontinue Little Flower Girls' School and St Patrick's College — development proposal Nos 440 to 442 — and to amalgamate both schools. <BR /> <BR />The petition is a spontaneous and genuine expression by concerned parents, particularly at Little Flower Girls' School. The parents have read the proposals and believe that they should be given the option of a single-sex girls' school and, indeed, a single-sex boys' school in the Catholic sector in north Belfast. They feel very strongly about that. They went about obtaining signatures, of which there are now 1,617, and those continue to flow in.”
“Will the Minister apply his mind to guaranteeing that such representation would be achieved for young people?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. It is a problem that the implementation of the youth justice review has really slowed down. I agree with the last Member that there seems to be a loss of momentum, with 40% of the recommendations outstanding. One aspect is the youth engagement clinics. Contained in that there was at least an attempt to have legal representation for young people at the clinics, which has not been achieved so far. It is a serious situation when somebody goes through a clinic without legal representation and then gets what is effectively a criminal record.”
“I thank the Minister for a very interesting reply. It is one of the ironies of Anglo-Irish relationships that the meeting of the triple alliance took place in Dublin. Long may that continue, and long may the Minister continue to attend such meetings and encourage such a triple alliance. <BR /> <BR />The Minister pointed out the difficulties and the unintended consequences of the levy, particularly in the public sector, but there must be great added value with the levy. Will he outline how that might affect us here in a beneficial manner?”
“I thank the First Minister for her kind remarks. Her answer to my original question was a wee bit like the curate's egg: it was good in parts. Does the First Minister agree with me that a proper and in-depth historical analysis of the events surrounding the Easter rising and, indeed, other events throughout 1916 should be appropriately visited by her and other Ministers from different parties so that people here, North and South, may derive some lessons from what happened in the past and be educated in the history of those events?”
“I take this opportunity to congratulate the First Minister on coming to office. In all my dealings with her, particularly as Chair of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, she has showed great professionalism and great courtesy, and I am sure that will continue.”
“Sir Anthony Hart has said that there should be financial redress. Given that he has said that and given that some of this will ultimately lie with government, would it not be right and proper for government now to scope out the nature of such financial redress and be prepared for it so as to prevent delay and frustration on the part of victims who deserve it?”
“It might well be that the Department says that it will, over time, conduct such a review. However, it is a balanced argument, and the consensus of the Committee seems to be in favour of it. I will leave the matter there. <BR /> <BR />By way of summary, it is a good Bill. It is long overdue, as I have said before, and I think that it will be of benefit to the public at large and certainly to the legal profession.”
“However, contrary to that, as the Minister said, clause 4 allows for the Department to request the oversight commissioner to review certain matters and to submit a report to the Department relating to the organisation or regulation of the professional bodies as the Department may specify. So, even if the amendment is not accepted by the Assembly, there is still the power — albeit with the Department and albeit that the Department does not have to conduct a review in a specific period of time — for a review of sorts to be conducted.”
“<BR /> <BR />The other point that the Minister made is that it sends out the wrong message to professionals, whether it be solicitors or barristers — I am paraphrasing what the Minister has said, and I might be getting it wrong — who see this as the thin end of the wedge and think that there will be something more draconian down the line as the result of such a review. So, one has to tread carefully in relation to this particular amendment. The bedding-in period of three years could well be conceived as a fairly short time, but I understand the point that the Chair of the Committee has made, and he made it well, that there should be some element of review of the legislation to see if it is working properly, to see if there are faults there, what we can do to remedy it, and so forth.”
“<BR /> <BR />There is some contention over amendment No 10, which comes from the Chair of the Committee, I presume, with the approval of the Committee, and that is that there should be, no later than three years after the commencement of the Act, an independent person to review and publish a report on the implementation of the Act. I see nothing wrong in principle with that. It seems to me to be fairly straightforward, but one has to balance these things, and I take the Minister's point that the period is probably too short. Three years is not a huge amount of time to elapse for a proper review of the Act. One could argue that it should be five or six years or something like that.”
“It is a provision that could be applied right across the public service, incidentally. It is one that, I think, has taken the form of an Act introduced by the Scottish Parliament. It would be particularly applicable in cases in which the ombudsman is dealing with complaints against public bodies. It is a good way of dealing with complaints from the public against public bodies. So, this is a good innovation. It is one that should be thought about carefully by us as an Assembly, and perhaps we should seek to apply it to other public services and insert it into other legislation. So, I very much welcome those two amendments.”
“That is a very innovative provision and it is to be welcomed because it frees up the professional who has been complained against to say, "I apologise for what has happened here." In many instances, as the Minister said, that is all that is required. The person who has made a complaint just wants some acknowledgement through an apology. However, there would naturally be a reluctance because consequences flow from any apology that you are admitting to negligence in circumstances where you are making that apology. This statute, if it is amended by amendment Nos 4 and 9, will free up the professional to be able to say, "I apologise", and no legal consequences will flow from that. I think that that is innovative and helpful.”
“Of course, the Bar has a different system and does not require the sort of amendment that the Minister highlighted today. There are other amendments that are purely technical, which I will not go into. <BR /> <BR />I was interested in amendment Nos 4 and 9. Those two amendments are to clause 19 and clause 38, which deal with the Bar and the Law Society respectively. They deal with the whole idea of an apology, which, the amendments state:”
“The principle that you should not be a judge in your own cause is appropriate to dealing with complaints in the legal professions, as it is, indeed, in other matters. <BR /> <BR />Although I am no longer in practice as a barrister, I was for many years. I declare that to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />I support what the Minister has said in relation to the amendments. There is very little controversy. The amendments strengthen the Bill. They allow additional power for the Law Society to ascertain the number of complaints made against individual solicitors. They provide the public with greater access to information on the number of complaints. That is good because it will help the public to ascertain the level of complaints that there may be against solicitors.”
“Professor Bain and his colleagues emphasised that point when they produced their report. They did not, as it were, slavishly follow the Clementi provisions in Britain. It is a local solution to local problems that have arisen with the legal professions here, and I think that is a very good thing. <BR /> <BR />I take this opportunity to thank Professor Bain and his colleagues for their good and sterling work 10 years ago. We have now reached the point of almost enacting their report, and that is a good thing for the public. It will increase public confidence in the legal professions and, I believe, will assist the legal professions in dealing with complaints in a much better fashion.”
“Unlike other colleagues, I come to this rather late in the day but, of course, the Bill is rather late in the day. The Minister is a very brave man to come into the Chamber and deal with this legislation that affects the legal professions. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in his term of office. I worked with him as Minister for Social Development and received nothing but courtesy from him, so I am sure that he will continue that in his term of office. <BR /> <BR />First, I will just make a few general points and then I will get on to the particulars. It is a local Bill; it is a local solution to local conditions, and I think that is the important thing. It has been tailor-made; it is bespoke to Northern Ireland, and that is the right way to go.”
“Professional drivers will have to take care in the future, and that is right and proper, but I hope that there is no disproportionate impact on them, even when they do offend. We will have to monitor that situation. <BR /> <BR />I support the Bill. I want to thank, in particular, the Chair of our Committee for her work. As usual, she led the Committee in a quiet but determined fashion. I want to thank the Minister again for his good work and his imaginative approach to the Bill. I would also like to thank the staff of the Committee, who, as usual, worked very hard and assisted us with the legislation.”
“We all know, to our cost, that tragic accidents follow as a result of that. So, the Minister is quite right to take this action and to provide for these restrictions, which, in any event, will only last for six months. They have been properly brought into the Bill, and the Department should be commended for that. <BR /> <BR />I will end simply by saying that I thoroughly support the Bill. I raised with the Minister and in the Committee that I had some misgivings about some of the penalties to be imposed upon professional drivers whereby, effectively, you have a zero limit in terms of driving. I retain some misgivings about those penalties, and I hope that no injustice will arise from that. We will see in due course, because we can sometimes be over-prescriptive, and that can lead to unfair and unintended results.”
“I understand the issue about young drivers being prohibited from carrying other young people in cars at certain periods of the day. The Committee responded to that in a very positive way. Sandra Overend, in particular, took the lead on that. I think that we have got a proper compromise from the Minister and the Department, and credit to Mrs Overend for bringing the issue forcefully to the attention of the Committee and the Minister, who positively and quite properly responded to that. <BR /> <BR />Young people will feel a bit put upon, but it is in their interests because there is positive evidence to show that when young people get into cars, particularly at night, and when there is perhaps a number of them, unfortunately, irresponsible actions and driving take place.”
“<BR /> <BR />We do so in the hope that we will not simply reduce the levels of injury and death and the misery that I referred to but that we will encourage young people in particular and drivers at large. By doing so, one would expect, given these reasonable measures, a response from the insurance companies in which they say, "We will reduce the level of premiums here in Northern Ireland". Those premiums are, by all objective accounts, higher than those in other parts of the UK. Therefore, the insurance companies should listen to us, as legislators, because it will encourage drivers, particularly young drivers, if there is that response in terms of cash, as it were, in people's pockets.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister is right to proceed along these lines. There was discussion about reducing the age to 16 and a half, but the Committee thought that that was probably not the right level. The Minister responded to that very positively, too. The introduction of graduated driving licences is taken as granted in other jurisdictions because it improves the level of driving in whatever jurisdiction it takes place. As the Deputy Chair of the Committee said, the insurance companies in Northern Ireland should take note of the approach that this legislature, the Department and we as legislators have taken to introduce the GDL and to raise standards on our roads, particularly amongst young people.”
“The Minister has quite properly responded to what the Committee suggested. <BR /> <BR />Where learner and new drivers are concerned, particularly young learner drivers, the introduction of the six-month period for learning is good. It will acclimatise young people to learning and raise the level of safe driving by our young people. As was said before, young people are, unfortunately, responsible for a disproportionately high number of accidents on our roads. That is a fact that we have to face up to and a fact that young people have to face up to. I know that there will be irritation amongst young people, who are very anxious to get out there, learn to drive and get onto the roads. That is very natural. As Mr Boylan said, young people might feel put upon in a way; nonetheless, it is for their good and the good of society at large.”
“The removal of the statutory option, which the Chair of the Environment Committee referred to, was, I think, a natural step forward. It was an archaic aspect of the law and had to be removed, given the technological advances in, and the accuracy and reliability of modern techniques for, testing for substances in a person's body. That was the right step, and I think that the Minister, urged on by the Committee, it has to be said, responded to that positively. <BR /> <BR />When talking about environmental issues yesterday, I referred to the good work between the Committee and the Minister. I think that the relationship between the Committee and the Minister has been a good and positive one. It is not unique in the House, but it is a good example of a good and constructive relationship between a Committee, a Minister and a Department.”
“He has done a great job as a Minister and particularly with this Bill, which deals with the terrible scourge of deaths on our roads. If I were him, I would feel very proud of this legislation. <BR /> <BR />It is, as the Minister has said, another step in the right direction. The harmonisation of drink-driving limits between us and the Republic and other parts of the UK is a very important step. That will deter people from drinking and driving, which is, unfortunately, one of the great contributors to death and injury on our roads. Anything that goes towards reducing death and injury on our roads is a good thing, and I think that the Bill will do that.”
“I start off by saying that, if I were the Minister of the Environment — it is very unlikely that I will be, given the 10 weeks or so left in the mandate — I would be very proud of the Bill. It is a very practical and, hopefully, very effective contribution to reducing the number of road deaths and accidents and all the misery, heartbreak and pain associated with road traffic accidents. The measures that have been introduced are very useful, and they will be very effective in preventing the level of road traffic accidents rising in our community. In fact, they will be effective in doing quite the opposite, which is to reduce the level of road traffic accidents in Northern Ireland. All credit to the Minister, Mark H Durkan.”
“In relation to North/South crime, what practical steps does the deputy First Minister see arising out of the cooperation that is clearly envisaged between North and South, and was there any discussion in the Council meeting of what practical steps could be taken by the gardaí and the PSNI?”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for his detailed statement to the Assembly on the meeting. <BR /> <BR />First, the institution is very important: it is vital to the development of relationships between North and South. We must all work very hard. There is good work here, and everybody involved, and who was at the meeting, is to be congratulated for the work that they did. <BR /> <BR />The SDLP is fully committed to tackling North/South crime. It is a little bit disingenuous of the deputy First Minister to single out the SDLP and suggest that we may not approve of that.”
“I note that amendment No 6 will not be moved by the Minister, and I understand the reasons for that.”
“Under the clause, the Department must, in making regulations under section 2, have the objective of reducing regulatory and administrative burdens in environmental protection. That is a laudable aim that can be achieved. As colleagues have said, the devil is in the detail, and, in this instance, the detail will be the regulations, which, of course, we have not seen and will not see for some time. Nonetheless, those regulations will be subject to scrutiny, which is important, given that this is an enabling Bill that could, if not properly drafted, exceed the proper remit of the Department. <BR /> <BR />This has been a good compromise. I support the amendments that have been tabled by the Minister. They accurately and faithfully reflect the views expressed by the Committee and therefore should be properly supported.”