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 7 of 15.
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I also endorse the valuable work being done between Ministers and Departments, North and South. <BR /> <BR />With regard to the management of sex offenders, the statement says that:”
“I am saying that, in my opinion, the restrictions that the Minister has brought forward are balanced, proportionate, reasonable and fair. I am not saying that they are absolutely set in stone. The Minister has indicated that there is space for consideration of other ideas, and so forth. Indeed, in relation to your amendment, what I was saying was that it was coming late in the day. I am not criticising you for that, but it needs further time for consideration. I think that it is right and proper that we aim for that. If there can be flexibility in this, let us show that flexibility now.”
“I also think that the period of learning for a probationer or a provisional licence holder of at least six months is also an important contribution, because it gives a wider experience over a more prolonged period to the young driver, and that is important. It helps young people. The Minister's original suggestion of one year was too long, but I think that six months is the right balance, and I support that.”
“It is also important to take into account the cost of driving here in Northern Ireland, and insurance premiums add to that. If we extract from what Mr Lunn said, and it reflects accurately what the insurance companies say, then, if we reduce the level of accidents and reduce the level of injuries, costs will come down, and that is a good thing for all of us. I make that point, and it is an additional point, but I think that it is relevant to the issue in hand. <BR /> <BR />I think that the Committee worked well with the Minister, and I said that during the debate on the previous group of amendments. The age of 17 was the right approach, and the Minister has responded to that.”
“I thank Mr Lunn for his intervention. I know that this is a separate issue, but it is germane to what we are discussing. The first important thing is road safety and protecting lives and preserving people from serious injury or, indeed, any injury.”
“I share that scepticism, Mr Speaker, because I have heard insurers say, in relation to other issues, "If you abolish jury trials for personal injuries in Northern Ireland, that will certainly see the reduction in premiums for motor insurers". Of course, jury trials were abolished, and I did not notice any reduction in premiums by the motor insurers.”
“I belong to an all-party Assembly group on motor insurance. I see Mr Lunn, who happens to be the chair of that group — and a very fine chair he is. One of the issues that came up in exploring the high cost of insurance in Northern Ireland was young drivers. I can be corrected by the chair if I get this wrong, but there was a very positive response from insurers to restricting young drivers. Indeed, on foot of those restrictions and of other provisions — not just young drivers — insurers indicated that there could be a reduction in motor insurance premiums in Northern Ireland. That is an additional consideration. I see Mr Wilson expressing some scepticism.”
“I still think that seven a year is very high for the families who suffer a loss of life. In those terms, you are talking about five. It is high, and it is those casualties — those fatalities — that we, collectively, and the Minister in particular, are trying to address. The Minister has a responsibility to get this right, and it is right and proper that he should approach it, given the extent of the figures. The figures are, I think, unchallengeable. <BR /> <BR />It is also striking that the hour that most passengers were killed or seriously injured by a 17- to 24-year-old driver was between 9.00 pm and 10.00 pm, and those facts should be considered and taken into consideration when we are determining the issue. <BR /> <BR />I have to make the point that restrictions are necessary.”
“It is a fact that, between 2009 and 2013, 17- to 24-year-old drivers were deemed responsible for 83% of all passengers aged 14 to 20 who were killed in Northern Ireland. That highlights the issue that the Minister has, quite properly, recognised and addressed, given the advice from officials and experts.”
“In that context, it is quite a modest proposal, and there are exceptions in relation to family or to a qualifying driver — somebody who is over 24 and has had a licence for more than three years. These are important qualifications on this restriction on a young driver and I think that they are proportionate, reasonable and fair in the circumstances. <BR /> <BR />I want to make a further point, which is that we are retaining mobility for young people. I am one for giving young people as much freedom as possible. That is right and proper, but there is a good balance here between giving young people the freedom to drive and restricting the number of passengers that they can carry.”
“<BR /> <BR />I make that point but I am not being overly critical, nor am I saying that Mrs Overend should not have tabled her amendment. I am just saying that this is a very important aspect of the Bill and we have got to get it right. The Minister has asked us to think about it and not be too hasty in introducing changes and new amendments to the Bill. That is wise counsel and I am saying that Members should take their time about this. We have Further Consideration Stage to come and we must try to get this right. If we get it wrong, there could be consequences. <BR /> <BR />We should also bear in mind that this restriction is not for a year, two years or an excessively lengthy period of time; it is for six months.”
“I think the Member's point is straining things. The danger for people walking, albeit on rural roads, is much smaller than the danger for a carload of young people who, perhaps, are in a jolly mood and are distracting the driver in some way. That is the type of danger that I think we can all conceive of and imagine, and that is the mischief that the Minister is trying to address. There is no doubt that there are different ways of addressing it, and I am sure that there are alternatives, but the Minister brought these proposals to the Committee, I believe, in a very balanced and measured way. During the course of the Committee's meetings, there was a general acceptance that this was probably the right structure in which to consider restrictions on young drivers.”
“I think that it is a proportionate one and has been well worked out. It may well be complex, as the Chairman of the Committee indicated, but it strikes a balance nonetheless. <BR /> <BR />Of course, the aim of all of us in the House is to reduce the number of occasions on which young people are in cars, when there are a number of young people in cars and accidents occur.”
“The point that Mr Wilson made has merit; I do not dispute that. All I am saying is that this is a particularly different amendment insofar as the Member is introducing a time limit in relation to restrictions. That is not something we considered during the Committee Stage, and it brings a new element into the debate. I think that Mr Milne raised a very interesting point, if I understood it correctly, which was that, in effect, you are almost introducing a curfew to the way in which young drivers will be permitted to drive. <BR /> <BR />The point I am making is that Mrs Overend has every right to bring her amendment. She has given thought to it, but I think that the House requires time to consider it. We should not rush into a decision on it. I prefer the Minister's approach.”
“I am simply saying factually that it comes very late in the day. We really have not had the space and opportunity to think through the amendment.”
“I understand Mrs Overend bringing the amendment. I do not agree with it, but I understand nonetheless. I am sure that in the House and, indeed, outside it there are concerns about putting restrictions on young drivers, particularly in rural areas. There are fewer problems, I think, with young drivers in urban areas, but certainly in rural areas those concerns have been expressed to me personally, by other MLAs and by people outside the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The only point I am making is about whether we move forward on the basis of a, that there should be restrictions and b, what type of restrictions they should be. If we accept the principle that there ought to be restrictions, we can move on from there. What I am saying about Mrs Overend's amendment is that it comes fairly late in the day. I am not criticising her for that.”
“I am not certain whether, in fact, it is appropriate in these circumstances. We spent a lot of time in the Committee's work examining the issue. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for us to determine this particular issue now, insofar as there have been various contributions and different views on it. I am not certain —”
“I have listened very carefully to Members' comments, particularly on the restrictions on young drivers. Many people are clearly exercised about that provision. It is important to establish very firmly a principled approach to this and to decide whether there should or should not be restrictions, and, if there are restrictions, the types of restrictions. It seemed to me that the Committee was accepting that there should be restrictions. That is a fact, and the Minister, quite rightly in my opinion, has introduced restrictions on drivers under 24. The question is this: what types of restrictions? <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 12 from Mrs Overend would bring a time limit into effect for that provision.”
“In such circumstances, it may be that the law is not proportionate and is, therefore, not fair. I invite the Minister to have a look at that provision again to see whether any alteration can be made to it. I ask Members to think about that carefully.”
“However, in my view — I have said this in Committee, so it does not come as any surprise, and I have said it to the Minister and officials — the period of three years is excessive and disproportionate and, in that sense, would be unfair. <BR /> <BR />If you disqualify a taxi driver or lorry driver who earns their living professionally from driving, you are, effectively, depriving them of employment, not just for three years but possibly for ever. The chances of them getting back into that sector of employment have been seriously and significantly reduced. It may well be that colleagues in the House do not feel sympathetic to the point I am making; nonetheless, it is important to make the point that the law should be proportionate and any penalties imposed should be fair.”
“It applies to new drivers as well as probationary drivers. <BR /> <BR />On a first conviction, there can be the acceptance of a driving course, which is important because it provides a method of rehabilitation for those who have committed a first offence. It is important that they be given that opportunity to improve their driving and learn a lesson. That is subject to judicial discretion in any event. The point I will make is this: where professional drivers marginally exceed the new limit of 20 milligrams and that is established on a second offence, they would be subject to disqualification for three years. That is my understanding of the Bill as it stands. There should be a period of disqualification for the professional driver in such circumstances, having been warned, effectively, when carrying out a first offence.”
“The general approach taken by the Minister will lead inevitably to safer driving and a culture of awareness on the part of motorists who drink alcohol that they must be very careful about their consumption of alcohol. It creates a deeper culture of that awareness and responsibility. That is an important point to understand when making the law in the Assembly. The reduction in the levels for testing is important for better road safety and the reduction of injuries and fatalities and the misery that is caused by them. <BR /> <BR />I raise one point of concern in relation to dealing with professional drivers. They will be obliged in their employment not to exceed the new limit of 20 milligrams. That is as low as you can get to approaching zero tolerance when dealing with drink driving. It is an important step, and I am supportive of that.”
“It was a win-win for the Department, the Minister and the Committee.”
“One of them is that, if you retain the statutory option, there can be a delay in the removal of the arrested person to a designated police station for testing and awaiting a medical practitioner to carry out the testing of blood or urine. That could lead to a person avoiding a charge relating to excess alcohol. The other point that the Minister has adverted to is the closing down of checkpoints established, quite properly, to deal with people who may be breaking the law. The removal of that checkpoint could permit other guilty people to go undetected. That is an important factor to take into consideration. However, the fact, that the Committee had urged the Minister to reconsider the legal opinion that he had initially received and to be reassured that the further legal opinion was supportive of the removal, was important.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Minister and the Chair of the Committee have both adverted to this: throughout Europe you have a similar situation, where there is no statutory option. Indeed, throughout the UK and Ireland, there is no statutory option now available. That is consistent with the law and protecting the individual citizen. The other reassurance is the reliability of equipment for breath testing, which, I believe, has been so modernised and has become so good and reliable that the citizen can be assured that breath testing is accurate and fair to the individual who is being tested. That is important. <BR /> <BR />The Minister makes a number of other, collateral points.”
“I congratulate the Minister for bringing forward the Bill and the Committee on its good work in cooperation with the Minister and Department on significant elements of it. In particular, the Committee raised the issue of the statutory option and its removal, and that was a worthwhile exercise on the part of the Committee. Initially, I was not minded to be fully supportive of it because I felt that there were certain protections in the present law that were important for the individual citizen. However, I have been convinced by the arguments put forward by the Minister and the Committee on protecting the individual and making sure that the removal of the statutory option is consistent with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“I thank the Minister for his very detailed answer. Is there anything further than can be done on the free movement of university students, North and South, and, of course, A-level and leaving-certificate students both ways? It seems an absurd situation to have all those obstacles. Surely the goal must be free movement of students, North and South.”
“The Member has raised some very interesting points in relation to the Audit Office and the reduction in funding. The points she raised were really, in a way, constitutional points. Should it be that the Executive can curtail the capacity of the Audit Office? Should it not be that the Audit Office's funding is ring-fenced so that it can carry out its functions to its full capacity? <BR /> <BR />If I may, the further point I would ask the Member is this: if the PAC is so exercised by the reduction in funding to the Audit Office, will it or its members table an amendment to the Budget (No. 2) Bill to try to remedy the situation that it has rightly highlighted?”
“The process for getting to the Court of Appeal is that the Attorney General looks at what is described as a lenient sentence and determines, in his opinion, that it is. It goes to the Court of Appeal, which can then look at that in depth. That is the mechanism that we have created, and we should use it.”
“I thank the Member for giving way. From time to time, people are outraged by lenient sentences, but we have not heard any evidence in the House today or at the Justice Committee on the issue of lenient sentences, particularly in relation to violence against older people. That is why I suggest that the amendment is based on what I would suggest is a false premise. We have not been able to properly analyse the problem that the amendment is supposed to address. If the Member has evidence in relation to lenient sentences that is more than simply anecdote, he should present that evidence to the Assembly.”
“Sometimes, they get it right; sometimes, they get it wrong. The point is that we appoint people to judge and to exercise a judicial discretion. What we are doing in the amendment is removing that judicial discretion. It is something of value. We could replace our judges with computers and just feed in the information to the computer and get the result, but we do not do that; we employ a human being who is experienced and legally trained to exercise judgement and discretion. We should leave it at that. The amendment, whilst well intentioned and based on a need to protect the vulnerable in our society, particularly the elderly, is ill thought-out and defective. Therefore, we in the SDLP cannot support it.”
“I will make one further point, and it is a point of substance. The amendment — I know that it is well intentioned, but it is ill thought-out — should really have been discussed at the Justice Committee thoroughly in detail. We should have heard evidence in relation to the proposal. Mr McCartney made a fair point on that. That did not take place. It is such a serious proposition and such a point of substance that it requires further examination, and it would have required the full attention of the Committee in a series of meetings and discussions. That reason also makes the amendment something that should not be acceptable to the Assembly. <BR /> <BR />The final point is this: we employ judges to make decisions and to exercise judicial discretion. We put a lot of faith and trust in judges.”
“It is sufficient to raise that point, which shows a specific and, I would say, fatal weakness in the amendment.”
“Now, if Mr McGlone were over 65 — he is not; he is a very young man — and I gave him a clout on his head, which of course I would never do, and he sustained injury, would I be within that category if I was found guilty? Would the court then decide or feel obliged to impose a seven-year sentence? My point is that physical injury in the context of the amendment is ill defined; in fact, it is not defined at all. I understand the proposer's intent, which, I assume, is to deal with a much more serious injury than simply giving Mr McGlone a clout on the side of the head. It is something that I would have thought would cause some sort of serious injury. That requires definition, but that definition is not contained in the amendment. The amendment is defective, at least in that regard. I could explore that even further, but I will not do so.”
“I quote that, but the material point I want to make is that the offence relates to:”
“I listened carefully to what the proposer said in relation to exceptional circumstances and understand that that, to some extent, qualifies the mandatory nature. Nonetheless, from our point of view, it is still not an acceptable proposition. We do not believe that you should constrain the discretion of the court to the extent that the amendment does. <BR /> <BR />The other point I want to make on this is that the tariff is seven years. I do not know how the supporters of the amendment arrived at seven years. You could easily have arrived at five years, four years, 10 years or whatever. There is no visible rationale for arriving at what I would suggest is an arbitrary figure of seven years. I recognise that it is a fairly substantial sentence, but where is the rationale for arriving at the specific figure of seven years?”
“As a party, we take the view that mandatory minimum sentencing is not in itself a good thing. There are certain exceptions where it, in fact, is done. In excess alcohol cases, for example, you will lose your licence for six months, a year or whatever. Those are mandatory minimum sentences, but they are the exceptions. Murder, of course, carries a mandatory life sentence, although that is an expansive term. A life sentence is an elastic term because it can mean a wide range of years of imprisonment. Mandatory minimum sentencing is a very limited thing, and we should proceed cautiously in creating a new mandatory minimum category that, effectively, ties the hands of the court in exercising its judicial discretion.”
“It means that a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years will be imposed on somebody who is convicted.”
“I could not have put it better myself. The point that has to be made is that the authors of the amendment — I do not, in any way, impugn their motives — have selected the category of older persons. That is a category that is deserving of protection and support, but as Mr McGlone said, there are other categories. Children are, of course, one such category. We have talked about older people, and we could talk about children, who particularly require protection, help and support. <BR /> <BR />There is no opposition to the general thrust of amendment No 7, but it is focused on one particular group. Our objections to amendment No 7 are much wider than its selective nature, no matter how deserving that category. Our objections are, in essence, to the mandatory nature of the amendment.”
“Violent crime is something that is repulsive and something that all of us condemn, but there are other categories of people that we could select as being extremely vulnerable, such as vulnerable adults, those with learning difficulties, those with mental health difficulties —”
“I am not sure whether our combined efforts satisfy Mr McCrea. As I said, the fact that it is not mandatory is a useful entrée into the next amendment, amendment No 7, which is mandatory and which we in the SDLP oppose. <BR /> <BR />People are quite rightly outraged by violent offences against older people. That goes without saying, and I think the whole House would defend older people against violent attacks. That is right and proper, and the SDLP, amongst other parties, supports that. However, I have to say that there are other violent crimes against other categories of individuals.”
“It does not exclude a person, where an opportunity arises, from taking up gainful employment. I will give way to Mr Ross.”
“First, it fills a gap, and, secondly, it provides a flexibility that is helpful in dealing with the early release of prisoners. In circumstances where a prisoner has gained early release, we have to provide, in my view, an environment in which that person can constructively live in the community and, to some extent, pay for the harm that he did to the community. <BR /> <BR />I believe that Mr Ross and his colleagues intend for this provision to do that, and that is a worthwhile objective. It remains to be seen how it would work in practice. Nonetheless, it is better that a person who is released from prison early, who is carrying out work in the community gratis, without being paid for that, is provided with discipline and a structure to their lives that might otherwise be absent.”
“The SDLP is supportive of amendment No 6, and we commend Mr Alastair Ross for bringing it to the Committee and the House. The amendment will fill a gap that he spotted. It does not exclude the possibility of a prisoner who is released early from, if it is appropriate, getting gainful employment. In any circumstance, one would desire that to happen, and it is important that this is permissive rather than mandatory. <BR /> <BR />In a way, that helpfully leads into amendment No 7, on sentencing for violent offences against older people.”
“However, given the fact that amendment Nos 2 and 3 address the protection of witnesses, in those circumstances, it may well be that amendment No 4 is not required in any event, even though, as I said, I am very sympathetic to it. <BR /> <BR />My colleague Dolores Kelly will address the other amendments in this group, particularly those that deal with domestic violence and protection notices and orders. We are obviously grateful to the Department and the Minister for tabling those amendments and reflecting the propositions and the needs of vulnerable people in those circumstances and delivering on the assurances that the Minister gave to the House and my party, the SDLP, on the last occasion. I end my contribution there.”
“It certainly would seem to address the situation of a rape victim or the victim of violent sexual assault, but there is a problem with the definition of "violent sexual assault" and what it actually means. That might be a deficiency in that amendment. <BR /> <BR />I and my party would be very sympathetic to that amendment, but I am not certain that it provides the necessary cover or protection that the Committee wanted to be afforded to vulnerable witnesses. I know that Mr McCartney cannot answer those questions, but I make those points by way of constructive criticism. Having sympathy is insufficient; the Member obviously seeks support.”
“Does that mean that the law would not provide, in any circumstances, that a person charged with such an offence would be permitted access to a preliminary investigation? Will the Minister clarify that position in his summing up of this group of amendments? <BR /> <BR />I take it that the intent in amendment No 3, which will amend clause 8, is to address the situation in relation to mixed committals. I want reassurance in relation to that. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 4 was tabled by Mr McCartney, Mr Lynch and Mr Hazzard. I am very sympathetic to that amendment, but I am not certain that it addresses the issue of vulnerable witnesses, in totality anyway.”
“The other aspect that I would like the Minister to clarify relates to amendment No 2 and clause 7(6), which states:”
“I presume that the intent of that provision within the amendment is to provide protection for vulnerable witnesses. I ask the Minister to clarify that and indicate to the House that he has considered that that provides the protection that witnesses would require in circumstances where they may be faced with a preliminary investigation. I seek an assurance from the Minister on that.”
“I accept that a written application and a representation should be made to the court where necessary and that a case is established, essentially, that this is in the interests of justice. <BR /> <BR />However, I would hate to think that in some way the intent of those amendments is to create a situation in which it would be more difficult for a defendant to bring an application in relation to the commencement of a preliminary investigation. I just seek reassurance from the Minister on that. That is a proper position for me, as an MLA and a legislator, to adopt. <BR /> <BR />I also ask the Minister to clarify the position in relation to amendment No 2, which introduces article 29A(5)(b), which states:”