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 9 of 15.
“<BR /> <BR />Having said that, I recognise, as the Committee Chair said, that arising from the Committee's investigation into victims and witnesses, there is an important need to be protective of witnesses, particularly those who are vulnerable. Further provisions may have to be made for those vulnerable witnesses; but I do not think that it is beyond our capacity to create a situation whereby vulnerable witnesses in particular are further protected during the course of preliminary investigations, on the rare occasions on which those investigations would take place.”
“<BR /> <BR />I think there is still value in having a form of committal proceeding. In the circumstances and context of what Mr Allister is proposing, the Minister's aim would be achieved to some extent, insofar that the committal proceedings would be reformed. There will be very few preliminary investigations, but they will be looked at rigorously by the court in the interests of justice. I think it is important, in those circumstances, that the House takes that into consideration and believes there is value in keeping that failsafe mechanism in our current legislation. Therefore, I think that Mr Allister's proposals are to be preferred to those that the Minister has suggested, and we will be supporting Mr Allister's amendments.”
“I believe that we have to be cautious in relation to something as sensitive as a criminal trial. I err towards being cautious and I remain to be convinced that the English experience is as smooth as the Member suggests; and I am not saying that facetiously. <BR /> <BR />The Minister made a point about committal proceedings, and I accept that this would not see the end of those proceedings. There will still be preliminary enquiries, but the preliminary investigation and mixed committals will be abolished, or repealed, as a result of this legislation if it is passed. That is the stated aim of the Department, and the departmental officials were quite forthright in saying so. I am not so certain that this is the destination to which we should be going. This is being seen as an intermediate stage on the way to achieving that.”
“Again, I understand the strength of Mr Dickson's point, but I think that we have to balance our own experience with the experience of others.”
“I do accept the point that the Minister has made. It is a valid point and a point of some strength, but I do say to colleagues in the Chamber that, whilst we can reflect on the experience of other jurisdictions, we have to make up our own minds ultimately in this jurisdiction, doing the best that we can to preserve what I think is valuable in the system. The Minister —”
“It is an interesting point that you raise, and it is a point that was raised by the PPS and, indeed, the Department of Justice. People did talk about minuscule numbers. In a way, you can turn that argument around and say that the amendments that Mr Allister is putting forward to retain, at least vestigially, the committal proceedings in the interests of justice does not really affect the situation as greatly as the Department or the PPS have suggested. If it is so small and so minuscule, why interfere with the process to the point of extinction? I am not against, as it were, reforming the committal process, but it is the extinction of the process that worries me. At least, there should be some residual power given to the court to test the evidence if it is truly in the interests of justice.”
“I know that the notion now is that you can get rid of something that was described by the PPS as a historical anomaly. You can get rid of that, and you can describe it as that, but there is a contemporary value to a historical legal development.”
“It is of great value, and it is something that we should not forget about. Once we interfere with the process, we could do irreparable damage to it. I say that as a health warning more than anything else, but when we are considering changes that are quite fundamental, we should bear that in mind. <BR /> <BR />During the course of discussion in relation to committal proceedings, I expressed misgivings to officials and colleagues on the Justice Committee in relation to the changes that were being proposed. The committal proceedings are an important filtering process that allow the defence, the prosecution and the court at large to test appropriately the strengths or weaknesses of the charges that people are faced with. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that that is an important process.”
“I listened with considerable interest to all the contributions, particularly that from Mr Allister in relation to preliminary investigations. I also take the point that we are trying to modernise our system and make it better and that we want to be innovative. That is all very well and good, and, in general terms, I support that, but I have to remind colleagues that we are making law, and we are making changes that are substantive and fundamental to the whole trial process. Obviously we are talking about pre-trial, but it ultimately affects the trial process nonetheless. <BR /> <BR />Once you make changes, they are permanent: you do not go back. The history of the criminal process in Northern Ireland, in Ireland generally and in Britain shows that it has stood the test of time in many respects.”
“It is on another point, but I sense that the Member is about to conclude. Has the Member any comment to make on clause 11, "Direct committal: indication of intention to plead guilty", or, further to that, clause 12, "Direct committal: specified offences"? Is the Member content with those clauses? Are they affected directly or indirectly by your amendments?”
“I thank the Minister for his detailed and worthwhile report on the environment and environmental issues. I note in the report a reference to the drawdown of EU funding and a commitment to collaborate. Will the Minister enlarge on that and indicate whether there is match funding between North and South for European funding? Is there any further development that might be useful in dealing with a wide range of environmental issues that affect us both North and South?”
“It is just absolutely inconceivable and is something which, in effect, is nonsense. <BR /> <BR />Indeed, people have said that the reason why the repeal of the Human Rights Act was put into the Conservative Party manifesto was simply as a last-minute attraction to those people who traditionally supported the Conservatives but were not quite supportive enough —”
“What the Tory Government are presently attempting to do is wrongheaded because it will not work. It cannot work. It certainly cannot work without the consent of the various constituent parts or devolved Assemblies throughout the UK. <BR /> <BR />The further point that one has to make is this: if you were to repeal the Human Rights Act, the convention rights still stand because Britain, the UK, is part and parcel of the European Convention. It is a treaty member. It has a solemn obligation to carry out and obey the values and what has been laid out in the convention. It is the duty of the Westminster Government to do that unless the British Government withdraw completely from the European Convention. It is inconceivable for a leading country in Europe, indeed throughout the world, to withdraw from the convention.”
“In fact, it is so embedded now that there is no way, even if you were to repeal the Human Rights Act tomorrow, that you would change the jurisprudence now, which is human rights-based and convention-rights based. It is just simply inconceivable that you could do that. That is the way judges and lawyers think. There is no way in which you can remove that from our jurisprudence, whether in London or in Belfast. You just cannot do that. That is a fact of life. If you do not believe me, read what the former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said. He said that the Act is "well embedded". Further to that, he said that it is well embedded in the constitutional settlements that underpin devolution throughout the UK, making it difficult to do anything against the wishes of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments.”
“Well, yes. I accept the generality of the point, although it did not actually introduce the Human Rights Act per se: that was coterminous with the Good Friday Agreement. If there had been no Human Rights Act on its way through Parliament at that stage, it would have had to be legislated for. I would remind people that also promised in the Good Friday Agreement was a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, which was supplementary to the convention rights that came into being here as a result of the Human Rights Act. <BR /> <BR />The Human Rights Act was a great achievement by Tony Blair and his Government. It is very important. It has embedded convention rights. Mr McIlveen is absolutely right that it was a deliberate attempt to bring convention rights into British courts. That was the right thing to do.”
“Yes, I accept that. It is a much wider concept than simply majoritarian rule, as we know here to our cost. <BR /> <BR />The fact is that we are trying to develop a system here where government is based on consensus. It is not working terribly well, I have to say, but, nonetheless, that is and should be our aim, and it is certainly the aim under the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement called for the convention rights to, effectively, be integrated into our legal system and into our courts.”
“On the point that Mr Givan has raised in relation to judicial activism, that is common to all jurisdictions. Go to the United States, Canada, any continental country or Dublin, and you will see that judicial activism in one shape or form takes place. That is the reality of any democratic society. The courts play a role where the law is being interpreted. It is a fact of life, and as politicians we have to accommodate that.”
“The Member says that the Human Rights Act has failed. In what respect has it failed? It has brought into British jurisprudence and here in Northern Ireland the values and the standards of the convention. That is what it has done, and it has been very successful in embedding itself in the jurisprudence of this jurisdiction.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he assuring everybody who has been told that they will not receive funding for furniture and equipment in schools that that will be remedied by his Department? The impression given is that they have new classrooms but no furniture.”
“I warmly welcome the Minister's statement. I think that it is very important that we pursue vigorously ways and means of preventing young people, and children in particular, from being put into custody. In particular, I welcome the involvement of the Commissioner for Children and Young People. That is very important. <BR /> <BR />How long does the Minister envisage the steering group will take to come to conclusions that have, in many ways, been prefigured in the youth justice review?”
“I thank the Minister for his answers. Have there been any discussions with the Minister for Justice and Equality in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the current position of the Republic's Government on prisoner transfers under the EU arrangements?”
“— to allow these projects to finish what they started. Without staff in place, DEL would have to hand back up to £6 million of EU funding. There is a risk here of a cost to government and a very real human cost.”
“It is a balanced motion that is fair to all Departments and to the Executive, but it asks the Executive to look at the issue again. <BR /> <BR />The TWN has also experienced delays in receiving funding to the sum of £400,000, which has been owed since March 2014. This is the third delay of the ESF because of the Department's audit process, and it has had a detrimental knock-on effect on funded projects. Small organisations that have had no money for a number of months have been put into a desperate situation. They are struggling to pay inland revenue and pension payments, and, consequently, face fines and overdraft costs that DEL does not cover. These organisations do vital work and projects cannot sustain without this funding. This is why I support calls for an emergency fund to be set up and put in place to allow a six-month extension —”
“Indeed, and I accept that point. To be fair to Mr Swann and his colleagues, the motion states:”
“I accept that, and the way in which it has been managed has been criticised right across the Assembly today. The weight of criticism is such that I think that the Minister really needs to reconsider what has been happening with that.”
“The Minister really has to take that into account. <BR /> <BR />I take some of the points that Mr Wilson made, although he made them in a very adversarial manner. We do need an overall rain check on different Departments. It is not all down to budget cuts.”
“Add that to the Education Minister's cuts to the vital early years — colleagues mentioned those — and the disproportionate detrimental effect on women is exacerbated. <BR /> <BR />The Minister for Social Development will be relieved to know that I am seeking clarification from the Minister for Employment and Learning and asking him to explain how his attempts to create a level playing field have benefited the private sector. Many of the private companies that were successful in securing funding have contacted TWN's partners to recruit participants. Imagine that. The Minister needs to explain how those groups were awarded funding without demonstrating that they could reach those groups. The Minister should also address the issue of formal freedom of information requests being ignored by the managing authority.”
“That cannot be right. <BR /> <BR />I would prefer to concentrate on the impact that the cuts have had on women's centres throughout Northern Ireland. The Training for Women Network (TWN) is one of Northern Ireland's largest networks promoting women's training and development. Almost half of the applications to the European social fund by those organisations were rejected at the first phase of the process: 98% of women's sector funding applications were rejected at the very first stage of the process. That translated into a loss of 35 full-time jobs, 100 part-time jobs and over 2,400 training places. That is very disturbing, and it could lead to the total wipeout of the training and education services provided by the women's sector. That is not just one hit.”
“I think that the motion is very balanced. Mr Swann and his colleagues are attempting to create room for manoeuvre in the Executive rather than allocating blame and, as it were, over-criticising individual Ministers for their decisions. They are also highlighting the ambiguity surrounding the European social fund, which has had a very negative effect on many community and voluntary organisations in relation to staff reductions and, indeed, their operations. It is an attempt to ask the Executive to bring about a more coordinated approach to funding and the disproportionate impact that those cuts are having on the community and voluntary sector. The arts sector, for example, accounts for 0·6% of the overall Budget, yet we see the devastating and disproportionate impact that the cuts have had on arts organisations across Northern Ireland.”
“The Member, quite rightly, raises questions about early years and women's services. However, there is another crucial service, and that is the one carried out by NIACRO in relation to the resettlement of offenders. NIACRO's cut is in the region of 33% — £1·4 million — and the loss of European funding is very significant. That means less-safe communities; that means that ex-offenders are less likely to gain employment, and there is a huge social deficit in that.”
“I thank the Minister for his answer. May I commend him for trying to fund as many NGOs as possible, given the very brutal settlement that he received in his budget allocation? Has the Minister put in a bid, in the June monitoring round, to allocate moneys to environmental NGOs?”
“You do not get it, Gregory. You do not get it.”
“Yes, of course, and the Member makes an appropriate point. A reorganisation or reformation of the company in a different format would, of course, have been advantageous. That benefit, in my view, was clearly against the interests of the public and of those in the Housing Executive who were trying to carry out their work properly and impeded proper competition in the public realm. Therefore, it was wrong in relation to that, but the Minister's attempted influence on the Housing Executive was entirely wrong. It stands in stark contrast to the two preceding Ministers, Minister Attwood and Minister Ritchie, whom the Committee found to be at no fault whatsoever.”
“<BR /> <BR />On foot of that meeting, the Minister then refers the matter or attempts to refer the matter to the Housing Executive board and attempts to influence the board in relation to what is an operational matter. Of course, that operational matter was very important to the company that was in administration. If, for example, the Housing Executive had acceded to the Minister's view on the extension of the contract, it would have given that company a commercial advantage. That must, on the face of it, be entirely wrong.”
“The Committee came to the conclusion that that was inappropriate. I understand other political representatives being involved in meetings with a company that was in administration, but the Minister himself cannot simply say, "Well, I am an MLA. I am no longer a Minister when I go into this meeting". He is clearly a Minister. He is advised against the meeting, but he goes into the meeting and deals not with policy issues but with operational matters. They are matters that are within the purview of the proper public body — the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. In my view, it stretches the credibility of the Minister that he attended such a meeting.”
“Yes, indeed. I have used the term loosely and probably should have qualified that. I was going to go on to say that Red Sky was in administration and that the administrator, BDO, was not present at that meeting. <BR /> <BR />The point was that the Minister was advised by his officials against attending the meeting and that, despite that advice, the Minister attended the meeting. It is clear from the note of the meeting that the Minister stated that he would:”
“<BR /> <BR />The central feature in the matter is the fact that the Minister met East Belfast MLAs and met Red Sky on 27 June 2011 and it was indicated to the Minister —”
“Much ground has already been covered in the debate, so I hope to avoid going over ground that has been exhaustively outlined. However, it is clear, when one takes the report in the round, that there is not just a smoking gun but a series of smoking guns in relation to the behaviour of Minister McCausland in relation to Red Sky. <BR /> <BR />I want, first of all, to compliment the BBC on its investigative reporting of the matter. It has done the public a good political service. However, I regret the fact that, despite the extensive and significant documentation that it provided, it did not provide oral evidence to the Committee. It would have been helpful had it done that, and, of course, its witnesses would have been open to examination by the Committee, and that would also have been helpful.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. I note the progress on dealing with drink-driving in both jurisdictions, but I note in the statement that the Minister has produced, under "road user safety", reference to addressing drug-driving. Is there any progress in relation to dealing with that particularly difficult problem in both jurisdictions?”
“I concur with my colleagues. This is a sensible way forward and we support it.”
“The SDLP is in agreement with the proposition.”
“I thank the Minister for her answers. Notwithstanding the good news in relation to the acquisition of Windsor House by the Hastings group, there will still be a fairly significant deficit of beds in 2020, and the Minister referred to that. Is there not a more radical approach that she could take in order to remedy that potential deficit?”
“I thank the deputy First Minister for his answer and welcome the fact that over £8 million will be invested in certain projects in North Belfast. However, given the divisions, the long history of violence and suffering in North Belfast and the current divisions between communities, will the deputy First Minister assure the House that, whatever projects are promoted, they will do their utmost to bring communities together and provide an alternative to the division of the past?”
“I thank the Member for accepting the intervention. I hear what the Member says, and it is worthy of further consideration throughout proceedings, particularly at Consideration Stage, but would not the position of a non-student — an employee — be covered by relevant employment legislation, which, in any event, would, perhaps, be more effective than even the intervention of the ombudsman?”
“In dealing with all the bodies and offices that investigate on behalf of you, me and the public, it is important that they receive proper resourcing, without which you cannot have an effective use of the capacity of that body. <BR /> <BR />I conclude there. Once again, congratulations to the Committee and its staff for their sterling work on the Bill. Congratulations also to the draftsmen for their monumental efforts in the preparation of the Bill.”
“An issue was raised about the circumstances in which national security may somehow be compromised by the operation of the ombudsman here as envisaged in the Bill. At no time has the operation of an ombudsman infringed on national security, so it is difficult to understand the Secretary of State's reasoning on the matter. No doubt the matter will be expanded on as the debate proceeds, but it seems to us in the SDLP to be a very unnecessary intervention at a very late stage indeed. <BR /> <BR />It is important to note that the new body, which, obviously, is a bigger body with a higher level of function, will need to be properly resourced.”
“As I said, that is an extremely useful tool and one that will provide reassurance to the public out there. <BR /> <BR />It is truly right that all the authority vested in the two current statutory agencies — the Assembly Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints — should be placed within the one remit. That is not to create a one-stop shop for rights but to maximise authority and input it into one organisation, which will lead to better results for the public. <BR /> <BR />The late intervention by the Secretary of State must have taken most colleagues by surprise. It was a very late attempted intervention in the progress of the Bill by the Secretary of State, and it was regrettable.”
“<BR /> <BR />The report on the Committee's consideration of the Bill is lengthy but comprehensive. It is a testament to the work carried out by the Committee in supporting and improving the Bill from its inception right through to today's Second Stage. <BR /> <BR />A key tool that the legislation will afford the ombudsman is the ability to self-start investigations. I am not sure whether that in itself is unique, but it is certainly unusual. It will be an important addition to the capacity of the ombudsman's office. I look forward to seeing that in practice if and when the legislation comes into being. No longer will a matter need to be referred to the ombudsman from an external party. It will be able to be initiated from within the ombudsman's office.”
“As a public representative, I have been heartened by how the ombudsman's office has tackled these sometimes difficult and complex issues. It is important that we build on that and that the Bill improve on that. <BR /> <BR />The Bill has been brought forward entirely by the Committee — again, I compliment the Committee — and that proves the strength of Committees' ability to take on legislation by themselves. That is an important reminder to all Committees in the House. Reflecting on the powers of our Committees here, I venture to suggest that they are probably unique within these islands in how they can initiate legislation in this way. That is not something that we have taken advantage of in the House, but the Bill is testament to the fact that a Committee can do it and do it in a very worthwhile way.”
“It is important that the public be reassured that those mechanisms are robust and this is not just some sort of a gesture to the public around accountability. These must be robust mechanisms that will achieve the desired result, which is accountability. <BR /> <BR />In my dealings with constituents, the role of the ombudsman has played an important part in reassuring people who believe that they have been let down by public bodies that there is a way of achieving some sense of justice. Obviously, this is not a judicial process, although it has quasi-judicial aspects, but the members of the public who came to see me about dealing with the ombudsman are people who felt entirely frustrated by the way in which they had been treated.”