Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 January 2002

103 contributions from 39 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Two points of order are being raised. The first is from Mr Alban Maginness.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order in relation to the death of a constituent of mine in North Belfast, Mr Daniel McColgan. I understand that it would be inappropriate to move for the suspension of Standing Orders, or to ask to make a statement in relation to this matter. However, on a previous occasion — in the aftermath of the death of Mr Martin O’Hagan — it was deemed appropriate by the House that it would stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect. Is it in order for the same tribute to be paid to Mr McColgan, who was so savagely murdered in a brutal sectarian attack at the weekend? Would it be appropriate, in the circumstances, to permit this at the beginning of the session?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take any further points of order before I respond. I understand that the second point of order has been withdrawn.

Mr Maginness must not have consulted with his Colleagues, because there was a clear understanding after the previous event as to how such matters should be handled. As regards this particular tragic and distressing event, several procedures might be followed, and one of those is presently being explored for later today. This is a sensitive and difficult issue, and it would be appropriate for the House to respond in a considered manner and not in a purely reflexive way. Therefore, I ask the Member to understand that explorations are presently ongoing as to how this matter might be addressed more fully than by simply standing in silence, though that is perfectly proper and appropriate. There may be a fuller way of dealing with the substance of this important issue. Given the sensitivities of the matter, I ask the Member whether he understands that this is a proper way of handling it.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I am grateful for your remarks, Mr Speaker. I was unaware that the House was contemplating any further proceedings in relation to the murder of Mr McColgan. I accept your ruling on the matter.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I appreciate that.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 14 December, you issued a statement to Members regarding changes to the SDLP ministerial team. You said that Mr Durkan had ceased to hold office as Minister of Finance and Personnel, and that Dr Farren was no longer Minister for Employment and Learning. You also intimated that, in her capacity as SDLP nominating officer, Ms Bríd Rodgers had nominated the following: Dr Farren as Minister of Finance and Personnel and Ms Carmel Hanna as Minister for Employment and Learning. You said that they had accepted the nominations, which took immediate effect. Is it in order to congratulate the SDLP and its Ministers, despite their previous criticism of my party, on what looks like, sounds like and has the appearance of ministerial rotation?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It would be wrong for me to comment otherwise, and particularly inappropriate for me to stand in the way of any form of congratulations, however they might come about or however they might be couched.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It is a case of twisting rather than rotating.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

North/South Ministerial Council: Environment

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, in its environment sectoral format, which was held on 14 December 2001 in the Dunadry Inn, County Antrim.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Ms Bríd Rodgers and I attended the meeting, which I chaired. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Noel Dempsey, Minister for the Environment and Local Government. This statement has been agreed by Ms Rodgers, and is also made on her behalf.

The meeting began with the Council noting the award of the contract for a joint web site of current environmental research to a Belfast-based company, Infinet Design. The web site will appropriately be named ANSWER, which stands for ‘A North South Web site of Environmental Research’. Until now, there has been no central register of environmental research projects in Ireland.

The ANSWER web site will be a central repository of information for researchers, academics and voluntary groups. It should be accessible by March 2002 through its own web address and from the web sites of the two environment agencies. After the meeting, Ministers viewed a prototype of the web site.

The Council then considered progress in the development of an all-island land cover map. A sample cross- border area between Dundalk and Newry was selected to test whether the United Kingdom’s mapping approach might be sufficiently compatible with that of the Republic of Ireland to enable an all-island map to be produced. The information will be of use to many interest groups, especially those concerned with forestry, natural heritage and agriculture and will assist them with their respective land management roles. The comparison of data for the sample area should take approximately three months.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Ministers were updated on progress in providing public access to environmental information and statistics. The two environment agencies have begun testing the compatibility of their separate databases using river- monitoring data. The more compatible the individual repositories are, the easier it will be to bring the information together for public access through the Internet.

The Council reviewed the work of the joint working group on water quality, which was established to consider water quality strategies for the Erne and the Foyle catchments and the implementation of the EU’s Water Framework Directive. Ministers were given a very informative presentation on the technical aspects of delineating international river basin districts under the Water Framework Directive. The Council endorsed the general approach adopted by the group and asked it to make recommendations for the areas to be delineated.

The Council then turned its attention to waste recycling issues. Ministers approved the establishment of a steering group to develop proposals for establishing a market development programme for recycled materials on an all-island basis. The group will comprise representatives of the Environment Departments and agencies of both jurisdictions, as well as a representative from my Department’s waste management advisory board.

The two Environment Departments are also exploring ways of establishing an all-island community recycling network with the help of the voluntary sector. The purpose of this is to encourage and facilitate the involvement of community-based organisations in reuse and recycling programmes and to promote partnerships between voluntary groups, local authorities and businesses in support of better waste management.

The Institute of Waste Management has also been asked to identify examples of successful recycling schemes and market development projects elsewhere in Europe, which might be examined as examples of best practice.

The Council was then updated on progress with the scoping study into the environmental impacts of agriculture. Ministers noted the establishment of the project steering group and approved the group’s proposals for the recruitment, supervision and funding of two researchers, one from each jurisdiction. The study will compare farming practices and controls on both sides of the border and will provide a basis for developing co-operative arrangements for nutrient management planning.

The Council next considered proposals for developing co-operation in promoting environmental awareness and education. The Council reviewed existing levels of co-operation and agreed that officials should work together to explore and develop opportunities for further networking and information exchange and for co-operation in the production of publications and exhibitions.

Finally, Ministers agreed the text of the joint communiqué that was issued after the meeting. A copy of that communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library. The Council agreed that the next sectoral meeting on the environment will take place in March 2002 in the South.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

As Chairman of the Environment Committee, I would like to raise two issues with the Minister.

The EU Water Framework Directive is a far- reaching and important piece of legislation, which has still to be transposed into Northern Ireland legislation to avoid infraction proceedings. My Committee has consistently been told by officials from the Department of the Environment that progress on a range of issues, such as the EU Directive, has been slow because of the difficulty of recruiting staff with suitable expertise, knowledge, experience and skills. Considering that the joint working group on water quality has been in existence for well over a year, can the Minister state exactly what contribution it has made to the transposition of the Water Framework Directive into Northern Ireland legislation? Is the Minister satisfied that his Department now has sufficient staff with the expertise, knowledge and skills to enable him to guarantee that the Directive will be transposed here in the time available?

The second issue concerns Northern Ireland’s waste management strategy. The Department of the Environment appears to have more success with the North/South waste recycling initiatives than with the three council partnerships responsible for waste management plans here.

The Minister talks about promoting initiatives and partnerships between voluntary groups, local authorities and businesses in support of better waste management. However, this week the Committee for the Environment will again have to call departmental officials to explain why none of the local partnerships have been allocated any of the remaining £2·5 million budget for this financial year to enable them to implement waste management plans.

Where does the funding for departmental officials involved in the North/South waste initiatives come from? For example, is it allocated from the £2·5 million budget? Are those same officials tasked with implementing the waste management strategy in Northern Ireland? Can the Minister assure the House that the £2·5 million will be spent on waste management plans in Northern Ireland in this financial year?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It takes time to employ staff. The Department of the Environment wants to enable faster movement, and I refute the argument that it is taking its time. My staff work hard and satisfactorily. The Department is satisfied that sufficient staff are now available to implement the Directive.

Before public consultation, the three waste management partnerships submitted waste management plans to the Department of the Environment in June 2001. The Department did not receive the final plans at that time — they were pre-consultative drafts — and that held up the process. The plans were reviewed by departmental officials and are being further developed by district councils in conjunction with the Department before the commencement of a major public consultation programme in February. The Department is distributing £2·5 million to deal with waste management issues.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

There are 11 requests to speak. Since there are 50 minutes remaining for the debate, I ask Members to make their questions as succinct as possible to allow the Minister time to answer.

Tom Hamilton (UUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister outline some of the benefits of the measures that he announced, which were gained as a result of participation in the North/South Ministerial Council?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Council is involved in many important and useful projects, including the implementation of the Water Framework Directive, which requires co-operation on cross-border waterways, particularly in the development of water-quality classification systems and in the production of water-quality management plans. The Council provides for the joint-ministerial oversight of that work.

Agriculture is another major contributor to the economies of both jurisdictions. However, the Department recognises the environmental impact of agricultural activities, particularly the run-off of fertilisers into waterways. It will explore and advise on those issues. The excessive use of fertilisers results in economic loss by farmers. The joint scoping study commissioned by the Council will examine controls and good farming practices in nutrient management on both sides of the border.

North/South co-operation in promoting recycling and the development of markets for the use of recycled materials will provide the economies of scale that are needed to render viable any investment in recycling and recovering facilities. It will also provide a larger market for products made from recycled materials.

The steering group’s work to establish an all-island market development programme for recycled materials will be critical in providing the economic incentives that are needed to make recycling and recovery a sustainable enterprise. The cross-border Council meetings have resulted in benefits, and they will continue to do so. I am satisfied with the progress that has been made.

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his statement and note the decision to set up a joint web site, which will appropriately be named ANSWER. Can we hope that the answers provided by the environmental research will be more forthcoming and forthright than the answers that we so painfully and despairingly try to wring from the UK Government about the environment —

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Is this a question?

Arthur Doherty (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Yes. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, it will be a three-part question. Can we hope that the answers will be more readily forthcoming than those that we try to wring from the Government about the environmental consequences of installations such as Sellafield?

With regard to the joint working group on water quality, I note that the emphasis so far has been on the quality of inland water and waterways. This is important and valuable. However, is it possible for the North/ South Ministerial Council to give urgent attention to what is considered to be the most polluted waterway in Europe? I refer of course to the Irish Sea, and again Sellafield is the bête noire.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Waterways do concern us, and the last point is very important. The working group on water quality is working well and has made good progress. It is now focusing on implementing the Water Framework Directive, which requires cross-border co-operation on shared waterways. I appreciate that there are concerns about Sellafield and the Irish Sea. However, we continuously monitor the waters of the Irish Sea, and although we cannot be certain, nothing in our findings causes us grave concern about pollution in the Irish Sea because of Sellafield.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh míle maith agat. I welcome the Minister’s statement and the report’s strong theme of harmonising and developing compatibility between the various research methods and data retrieval means.

With regard to the all-island land cover map and the project in Dundalk and Newry, it seems strange that it will take three months to establish whether the research methods are compatible. I imagine that one hour’s work would do that. I hope that we do not have to wait three months and that we will hear specific — [Interruption].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Is the Member coming to his question?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Yes. If there are problems with compatibility, can we expect specific proposals to be framed in those three months? We need to hear responses and solutions.

I support the Committee Chairperson’s comments about waste management. However, I am concerned that there is an emphasis on the community and voluntary sectors, when the main sources of waste material are obviously the manufacturing and industrial processes on the island. Should emphasis not be placed on them?

Is the Minister aware of the proposal to build a £30 million incinerator in north Monaghan, which is near this territory? If so, what is his response to it?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Member has asked quite a lot of questions, and it is difficult to remember them all.

I am not formally aware of plans to build an incinerator in north Monaghan. My Department has not been made aware of it either.

With regard to the length of time that it will take to develop the land cover map, we do not want to waste any time on these projects. However, such things take time, and we must move slowly to ensure that everything is done correctly. There should be no significant problems with the compatibility of the two land cover approaches that we are working on. The CORINE (co-ordination of information on the environment) land cover project for Ireland is a European land map that covers mapping projects used in the South. Northern Ireland is included in the more detailed UK land cover map 2000. A land cover map records in detail the extent and types of land — for example, forests, wetlands, farmlands and coastal areas. The North/South Ministerial Council project aims to integrate the UK and Republic of Ireland land cover mapping approaches to produce an all-island land cover map. A sample cross-border area between Newry and Dundalk has been chosen for initial comparison of the two mapping approaches, and that work should be completed by the end of April.

The benefit of an all-island map is that land types will be classified in the same way, North and South, and in the respective jurisdictions. It will be essential to have similar information, North and South, for characterising shared river basin districts under the EU Water Framework Directive. Moves will be made quickly, but cautiously, to ensure that the right thing is done.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

In the context of the market development programme for recycled materials, is the Minister aware of the Republic’s successful scheme for the recycling of agricultural plastic? Should Northern Ireland again become covered with the refuse from big bale silage, will the Minister ensure that Northern Ireland farmers can benefit from that scheme or a similar one?

In the Minister’s discussions with Mr Dempsey, the Republic’s Minister for the Environment and Local Government, did he mention the three species that are the subject of his Department’s special action plan — the chough, the curlew and the Irish hare? If not, will he do so as soon as possible?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

At the last North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting, Noel Dempsey and I approved the establishment of a steering group to encourage waste recycling and to develop proposals for the establishment of a market development programme for recycled materials on an all-Ireland basis. The first meeting of the steering group will take place at the end of January 2002.

A study which is being undertaken by the Clean Technology Centre in Cork in association with the Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology is examining the development of markets for recyclables recovered from the municipal waste stream. The project is assessing existing and potential markets for recovered materials, instruments and tools for the development of new markets and outlets, and it will prepare a strategic approach for such development. I assure the Member that the Department continues to work on that issue.

Mr Ford also referred to the hare, the curlew and the chough. That matter was not dealt with specifically at our last meeting. However, the issue remains at the forefront of the work of the Environment and Heritage Service at all times.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I welcome the statement on waste recycling and the North/South approach to this important issue. I also welcome the proposal for partnerships between voluntary groups, local authorities and businesses. I join with Dr McCrea and Mr McLaughlin in asking what action is being taken at a local level. What incentives are being offered to encourage local authorities to become involved seriously in waste management?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Department advises local authorities. Three different groups in the Province are currently working on waste management issues, and their efforts are now coming to fruition. The Department has helped where it can; £2·5 million will be distributed to district councils to help to deal with waste management issues.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

What arrangements are currently in place for North/South co-operation in the event of a water pollution incident? Will adequate east/west arrangements be in place with the Minister’s Scottish and Westminster Colleagues to deal with the concerns of my constituents in East Antrim should the proposed nuclear power plant proceed at Hunterston on the Ayrshire coast?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have that question again?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr Robinson, please take it a little more slowly.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I was acceding to your command to speed it up. I am sorry if I over- egged the pudding.

In the light of the Minister’s statement, what arrangements are currently in place for North/South co-operation in the event of a water pollution incident? Moreover, will he undertake to ensure that adequate east/west arrangements are in place with his Scottish and Westminster Colleagues to deal with the concerns of my constituents in East Antrim should the proposed nuclear power station at Hunterston on the Ayrshire coast proceed?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I apologise to Mr Robinson for putting him through that again.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I enjoyed it thoroughly, Minister.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sure that the Member did.

I am pleased to report that there have been no serious cross-border water pollution incidents recently. Emergency arrangements are in place with border-county councils in the Republic of Ireland for emergencies that involve shared river systems and with the Irish Marine Emergency Service (IMES) for coastal waters. Our water pollution incident response procedures identify key officials in Departments, agencies and local authorities on both sides of the border, and provide telephone numbers for 24-hour contact. A UK-wide 24-hour helpline number — 0800 807060 — is available for reporting all water pollution incidents.

The impact on a waterway will depend on the nature and volume of the pollutant involved, how soon the incident is reported, and the location. Those factors dictate the nature of any emergency co-operation between the pollution control authorities in each jurisdiction. Water-borne pollution is difficult to treat once a pollutant has entered a waterway. More can be done by way of booms and extraction if the pollutant is oil. Oil does not dissolve, but forms a surface film.

I have seen media references to the possibility of British Energy building a new nuclear power station at Hunterston on the Ayrshire coast, which could be operational by 2011. A spokesman for British Energy was quoted as saying that a replacement nuclear plant at Hunterston was only a draft proposal at this stage and would be assessed as part of the current GB-wide energy review. I understand that the Scottish Executive have confirmed that the possibility of building a new reactor in Scotland would depend on the outcome of the GB energy review. That review is expected to conclude in the near future.

In the event of any proposal to build a nuclear power plant anywhere in the UK, I shall seek assurances from my ministerial counterparts in Great Britain on the radiological impact on the Northern Ireland population and on the wider public safety implications.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the Minister’s statement on the North/South meeting as a progress report on many issues. First, the community recycling network aspect of his report envisages local authorities, community groups, voluntary groups and businesses getting together to make a concerted effort to manage waste. Does the Minister agree that there has been a great deal of procrastination and pseudo-consultation for many years, especially in local government, without any real determination to make a decision? Can he give us an estimate of the date or the time by which he hopes to have a concerted programme for Northern Ireland, which can, it is hoped, be matched by an equally successful one for the Republic of Ireland?

Secondly, on the question he has just answered, I am pleased to hear that he is now aware that matters outside his jurisdiction can also impact on nuclear waste management matters within his jurisdiction. The power station in Ayrshire is not a replacement. It is new build — and I want him to watch that. Regarding a recent statement by an eminent scientist on the difficulty of decommissioning the number one pile at Windscale — that is, Sellafield — is the Minister aware of the dangers that are there? Will he ensure that, as promised, he will place nuclear matters in Great Britain on the North/South Ministerial Council’s agenda?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I assure the Member and the House that we shall work on those aspects to ensure that what is good for this part of the world is right and proper. We shall meet our responsibilities.

Mr McGrady is continually concerned about the Sellafield issue. As I am sure the Member knows, responsibility for regulating discharges from Sellafield rests with the Environment Agency for England and Wales. It is an excepted matter over which the Northern Ireland Administration has no jurisdiction.

My officials have undertaken joint studies with their counterparts in the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and with University College Dublin on the impact of discharges from Sellafield. Those studies consistently demonstrate low levels of radioactivity on the coastline of County Down, County Louth and beyond. In the near future, the British-Irish Council will consider the difficulties Sellafield presents. However, I assure the Member and the House that we shall want to move quickly and efficiently to meet our responsibilities.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

The new body has been set up on a North/South basis. What east/west input will there be? What input will UK environmental rules and controls have? Will the Minister assure the Assembly that Directives, and requests from Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will be treated equally when the new North/South body draws up recommendations?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As well as the North/South Ministerial Council, which I speak about today, there is the British- Irish Council. Therefore, we are working North/South and east/west. The work that we shall engage in involves both islands.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I too welcome the Minister’s statement, but I am disappointed that he does not seem to know about the proposed incinerator in north Monaghan, especially as councillors from his party have attended meetings with me on the issue. As MP for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I ask the Minister to use his Department to seek information about that proposal as it will have adverse effects on the environment not only in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, but across the Six Counties. It will also affect health and agriculture.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I come from the Fermanagh and South Tyrone constituency, so I also have an interest in the matter. The proposed incinerator may affect the entire Province one way or another, and I assure the Member that we shall make enquiries to establish the intention.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the proposed initiatives to promote recycling and market development. As we know, the lack of a market holds up many recycling issues. The Minister will realise that another point on which the waste management issue revolves is waste reduction. Will he outline the efforts that have been made by councils and by his Department to liaise with businesses to reduce the amount of waste entering the system?

Further to the previous supplementary question, and in the knowledge that there will be residual waste no matter which system is used, will the Minister undertake with the Institute of Wastes Management, when it is within Europe, to examine some of the more modern energy-to-waste methods that are being utilised there?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Earlier, we talked about the North/South Ministerial Council’s approach to promoting recycling and to developing markets for recyclates.

That is an important issue, and I am aware of the concern throughout about reducing waste. The reduction of waste during the design and manufacture of goods is a key long-term objective, and it will be a slow process. The prevention of waste is essential, and recycling to get the best value for materials is also central to the waste management plans. There are the three Rs and the D — reduce, reuse, recycle and deposit. People must examine those mechanisms. Councils’ waste management plans are now almost fully developed. The more that we can recycle and, where appropriate, recover energy from waste, the less we shall lose to landfill.

I also assure the Member that we shall explore all avenues to determine the best way to reduce waste and deal with the surplus to which he referred. That is a difficult process; it must be worked on, and individuals must participate, not only councils.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

The Minister referred to the Erne and Foyle basins. What are the first outcomes that he has learnt from the study on the delineation of waterways?

He said that all-Ireland co-operation on waste disposal is becoming more prominent. Does that mean that the three strategy groups that were set up to operate waste disposal in Northern Ireland will be abandoned? What is to happen to the £2 million or so that was to assist that programme? Can councils bid for that individually?

Moreover, will the Minister respond to the question that was put — will there be an east/west contribution to this debate on waste disposal, rather than just a North/ South one?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There will always be an east/west relationship, because we are part of the east/west relationship that comes with being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A North/South dimension is working, with two separate jurisdictions respecting each other’s views but able to work together for mutual benefit.

The Member referred to international river basin districts (IRBDs). I do not know whether he wants an explanation, but where a river basin district overlaps the territory of more than one European member state, the EU Water Framework Directive requires those member states to identify it as an international river basin district.

Recommendations on the districts to be delineated will form part of a consultation paper on the implementation of the Directive in Northern Ireland. That report will be published before the summer. Due regard will always be given to any advice or guidance that becomes available on the application or interpretation of the EU Water Framework Directive in relation to the delineation of IRBDs. Where appropriate, guidance may be sought from the European Commission on the matter. One area in which such guidance may be needed is on the issue of assigning international river basins to IRBDs for practical administration and cost-benefit reasons.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Can the Minister provide some further details on the environmental research register? We should compliment whoever thought up the clever acronym, ANSWER. In particular, when will the register be posted on the Internet?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is planned that the web site will go live in March. I look forward to launching this state- of-the-art source of information. The register is appropriately named ANSWER, and I gave details of it earlier. Access to the register will be through its own web address at www.answer-online.org, or through the web sites of participating organisations. The register will be of great value to anyone who is involved or interested in environmental research, such as Government Departments and agencies, universities and colleges, environmental groups, and industry and environmental consultants.

The sharing of that information will help researchers and sponsors to avoid duplication of effort and cost, to identify new areas for research, to find partners for collaboration and to identify potential sources of funding. The register currently contains information on environmental protection research carried out by the two environment agencies. Work is under way to add nature conservation research findings. Thereafter, it is planned to add information from academic institutions and the private commercial sectors.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Minister explain what he means by an "international river basin district" and give some idea of what progress has been made towards delineating those?

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Where a river basin or catchment area covers the territory of more than one European member state the Water Framework Directive requires those member states to identify the district as an international river basin district. Member states are required to co-operate on the management of water quality throughout such cross-border international river basin districts in their respective jurisdictions. Each member state must establish appropriate administrative arrangements for water quality management within that co-operative context in order to achieve the Directive’s long-term aim of good water quality status by 2015.

The Erne, the Foyle and Lough Neagh form part of catchments shared with the South, and, as such, they lie within the international river basin districts according to the terms of the Directive. At previous North/South Ministerial Council meetings, Ministers agreed some general principles for the delineation of international river basin districts in line with the requirements of the Directive. I intend to include recommendations on the districts to be delineated in a consultation paper on the implementation of the Directive in Northern Ireland, and that paper should be published before the summer.

Industrial Development Bill: Final Stage

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That the Industrial Development Bill (NIA Bill 18/00) do now pass.

The Programme for Government identified, as a key issue, the focusing of the economic development agencies on the new economic challenges. In taking the matter forward through the Industrial Development Bill, I have considered how the economic development agencies in the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment can be reorganised to meet those new challenges in the most efficient and effective manner.

The Industrial Development Bill will establish a single economic development agency as a non-departmental public body. I recently proposed that Invest Northern Ireland should come into effect from 1 April 2002. The Bill transfers the existing powers in the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 and the Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 to Invest Northern Ireland, thereby allowing it to exercise broadly the functions in the current remit of the IDB, LEDU, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, the business support division of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the business support activities of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB).

The Bill paves the way for a new and vibrant economic development agency, and that is the desire of all Members of the House and of the wider business community. I place on record my thanks and appreciation to the staff, and the respective boards, of the existing organisations that have made such a significant contribution to the economic well-being of Northern Ireland.

In establishing Invest Northern Ireland, the Bill will enable that body to respond quickly, efficiently and effectively to the demands of an intensely competitive global marketplace, with the emphasis being on getting the job done, not on bureaucracy.

We are all aware that if we are to make the most of our opportunities, we have to modernise, innovate and seek new and better ways to do the job. The establishment of Invest Northern Ireland will enable us to realise our vision for a new and better Northern Ireland economy.

In conclusion, I thank Members for their interest in and contributions to the various stages of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for their diligent scrutiny of the Bill and for enabling officials and me to give evidence to them. I am also indebted to the officers and members of the Committee for their constructive contributions throughout the passage of the legislation.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I welcome the Bill. The establishment of Invest Northern Ireland is urgently needed for many reasons, but mainly because it is essential in order to refocus our economic development efforts quickly at the beginning of the twenty-first century. I urge the Minister to get things moving as rapidly as possible.

It is essential that, in doing so, full advantage be taken of the greater flexibility of the arm’s-length structure of the new agency. In this day and age, the agency must have a hard business nose rather than a bureaucratic one. I compliment those in the existing agencies who did a very useful job in times past. However, in today’s world in which things move so rapidly —I think particularly of developments in the past ten years in information and communications technology — we need to be as tough as everybody else in the marketplace.

I draw the Minister’s attention to schedule 1, paragraph 2 of the Bill, which deals with the membership of the new agency. We shall always need to have the best possible brains, skills and expertise, not only a spread of knowledge. We were behind the pack before September 11. We needed to make a great deal of progress then. In the slowdown that has occurred in the aftermath of that day, we may be able to catch up. I urge the Minister to ensure that we have the best possible brains on the board of Invest Northern Ireland in the future.

In the same vein, I refer the Minister to schedule 1, paragraph 11. My concern is that someone with a major contribution to make might be excluded on the fairly thin grounds of conflict of interest. I am keen for members of the board to have an interest and, if necessary, a conflict of interest that can be honestly and openly declared. To have the best people on board, it will be difficult to get anyone with insight and knowledge who does not have a conflict of interest to some degree. I strongly endorse the Bill and urge the Minister to move with it as quickly as possible.

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

Everybody in the House will welcome the Bill. We owe thanks to the Minister and his Department, and to everyone else concerned with its passage. For far too long, we have had too many economic development and inward investment agencies in Northern Ireland. Bringing all of them together to form a one-stop shop is unique.

As someone who comes from the north-west of the Province, I am slightly worried about the final make-up of the new board and the spread of its representation across Northern Ireland. People from the north-west are also slightly worried. They hope that not every decision that the new board may get involved in will be centred around Belfast and the Greater Belfast area. When the new board is up and running, and dealing with economic development, inward investment and job creation in Northern Ireland, I would like to see a mechanism in place in my city of Londonderry, which is the second largest city in Northern Ireland, whereby local people could make local decisions on economic development and inward investment. I do not wish to see a situation, as has happened in the past, in which businesses and industries come to a local area, but, on occasion, because they do not fit neatly into a small box in and around Belfast, people do not run with them. I remind the Minister that this is an opportunity to look at the rest of the Province — how job creation can best be generated, and how economic development and inward investment in the rest of the Province can best be created, thus ensuring that the rest of the Province is not left out.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In general, I welcome the Bill. There was a recognition that there had to be a new "one-stop shop". In that context, the new agency is to be welcomed, and the hope is that it will be much more efficient. I also hope that the mistakes of the past will not be replicated, particularly with regard to the accountability and transparency of the new agency, the targeting of investment in disadvantaged areas and the taking seriously of New TSN requirements.

I have raised one concern on previous occasions about appointments to the board. Any appointments need to be made through open competition, and the new board needs to be seen to be open and transparent. It is imperative that regional offices be opened as quickly as possible. The Minister has been looking at that. Those regional offices should be fully functioning as quickly as possible, so that areas such as Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone — disadvantaged areas that have not been targeted previously — can be targeted for investment. Go raibh maith agat.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Before I put the question, does the Minister wish to respond?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission I would like to respond. First, Dr McDonnell has made those points on several occasions throughout the passage of the legislation. It is my hope that we can provide the flexibility that we both understand is required. The organisation has to remain accountable to the Assembly, to the Minister and to the people of Northern Ireland. He will know, as a member of the Committee, that that accountability is not affected or inhibited in any way by the legislation. I believe that the organisation will be more accountable than any of its predecessors due to our current structures. However, at the same time, we wanted to create an organisation that did not have to continuously look over its shoulder, and that could develop some thoughts of its own. It has parameters within which it must operate; that is generally accepted. The Member’s point concerning membership and any potential conflicts of interest is a serious one. There is a very difficult balance to strike, because we have already run into such conflicts with members of other boards. It involves a very fine line.

Equally, it is true to say that people who have hands-on experience of business and industry will, inevitably, have some conflict. That happens on the existing boards, and, as I have said, it has caused us some difficulty.

I accept that people who have got their hands dirty and who have hands-on experience need to be involved, and from time to time that poses a risk. That risk may not be apparent when individuals are appointed, but their businesses could develop in certain directions to the point where those companies would be asking INI for assistance, just as certain companies currently ask the IDB for assistance. Therefore, there should be a degree of tolerance in the House. While we must do everything to ensure that decisions are taken properly, openly and transparently, we do not want to close ourselves off from the knowledge and expertise available to us.

If we were to interpret literally the comments from the Member for South Belfast, Dr McDonnell we could argue that no business people should be on the board at all. Clearly such a position could not be supported. I agree with much of what the Member has said on the matter, but other Members have expressed concerns and views on other matters and other boards, and I must get the balance right. If we get the procedures in the organisation right, that might help with any conflicts. We will pay a good deal of attention to that area.

I assure the Member for Foyle, Mr Hay, that the needs of the north-west are currently in my mind, and the Member can take precedence from me. So far, out of the eight members on the board, he has managed to get only the Chairperson and one other. That is not a bad start, and I hope that there will be room for some of the rest of us when the final appointments are made.

However, taking seriously what the Member has said, I know that the regional office issue is of concern to him. The Member knows that several initiatives do focus on the north-west. I am confident that the board will have sufficient representation from that part of the country. I am satisfied that the case will not go by default.

I advise the Member for Upper Bann, Dr O’Hagan, that accountability and transparency will be built into the corporate plan and the operating plan of the organisation. The Member will also be aware that the IDB exceeded targets last year for bringing investment into New TSN areas. We set a target of 75% of visits to New TSN areas, and that was exceeded. We tried to get a target 75% of investment into those same areas, and that was also exceeded. The thrust of that is entrenched in the thinking of the Department with regard to the establishment of the board.

There may be some confusion between the appointments to the board and senior appointments at official level. However, I can think of few other processes that are more open than the current one for appointments to the board. We had a competition last summer, resulting in 156 applications. The competition was widely advertised, and we had a positive response. However, as I reported to the House last year, regrettably we did not receive a sufficient number of applications from women. Out of 156 applications, only 13 were from women. I decided to appoint a shadow board of eight members, when in fact we hoped to have somewhere in the region of 15 members on the board. This was a two-stage process. Because the House had not passed the legislation, we could not assume that the House would accept our recommendation for a 15-person board. We took what was regarded as the minimum number for a shadow board in order to form the organisation. We concluded that it was not possible to complete the appointments to the board on the basis of the applications that we had received, because, although they were substantial, and some excellent people had applied, there was a substantial deficiency in applications from women.

A fortnight ago, therefore, we advertised another appeal for views and applications. We also engaged consultants to assist us to encourage women to apply. I am happy that, so far, 50% of the requests for information packs have been from women. If those requests for packs translate into applications, even at the same rate as those resulting from the last advertisement, an increase in applications by women can be expected. A senior female official is dealing with women’s telephone enquiries about the application, and callers have related the concerns that made them feel unable to apply the first time.

We will learn from that information, and we will pass it on to the appointments body for future use. Applications are open until 31 January 2002, so there is still plenty of time for people to request an information pack and to apply. Previous applicants have been re-entered automatically into the competition. Men are not excluded from applying; half of the applications are from men.

Only seven further appointments are to be made, and the board must be balanced according to gender, community background and skills. I might need to exercise my discretion to ensure that a balance exists. Although the scope of this competition is limited, we intend to offer staggered-term appointments so that the entire membership of the board will not be due for reappointment at the same time, because that would result in a loss of continuity. Initially, the appointments will be for two-, three- and up to five-year periods, as provided for in the legislation. We intend to ensure, through the restructuring branch, that a board is in place before the end of March, so that the organisation will be ready to begin at the beginning of April.

Mr Hay mentioned the need for regional offices; I have already given a commitment that the organisation will have a regional dimension. I discussed the matter with the chairman and the new chief executive last week, and they are seized of the urgency and importance of having such a dimension. They are fully committed to ensuring that that element will be provided.

I have avoided indicating the precise location of those offices, because I did not want to get into that argument. The board will put forward its own views about their location. The operation will not be entirely Belfast-focused, and it is recognised that the entire Province is making, and must continue to make, a contribution to our economy. The relevant agencies must, therefore, be organised in a way that maximises that contribution.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Industrial Development Bill (NIA Bill 18/00) do now pass.

Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 28 February 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 1/01).

The Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill had its Second Stage reading on 4 December 2001 and was referred to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on 12 December 2001. That was just before the Christmas recess, and the Committee was unable to begin scrutinising it before 9 January 2002.

The Bill will allow trusts to provide a range of services to carers, and it will include a new statutory right to a carer’s assessment. The Committee wishes to give adequate time for the scrutiny of this important Bill, yet it is facing a heavy workload in the coming weeks, which includes a major cancer inquiry report and many departmental regulations. I am therefore seeking an extension of the deadline to 28 February 2002 to allow sufficient time for the Committee to consider the Bill and report on its findings. I ask Members for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 28 February 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 1/01).

Criminal Justice Reform

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Justice Reform (02/01/R), established by resolution on 19 November 2001, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I must declare an interest in this matter — I am a practising member of the Northern Ireland Bar.

Following the resolution of the Assembly on 19 November 2001, the Ad Hoc Committee was established to consider the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan. The Committee first met on 26 November, and I was elected its Chairperson. It is therefore my responsibility to present the Committee’s report to the Assembly for endorsement.

For the benefit of Members, I will give a brief overview of the background to our proposals and the work that the Committee has done. Arising from the Belfast Agreement, the Government established the Criminal Justice Review Group to formulate proposals for future criminal justice arrangements. The terms of reference for that review set out several key areas for consideration. They included appointments to the judiciary and safeguards for protecting its independence; the organisation and supervision of the prosecution process; lay participation in the criminal justice system; mechanisms for addressing law reform; the scope for structured co-operation between the criminal justice agencies on both parts of the island; and the structure and organisation of criminal justice functions that might be devolved to the Assembly.

The review body reported in March 2000, and it was subject to extensive consultation at that stage. The draft Bill, which the Government have published, is the main delivery mechanism for the review’s recommendations. It does not contain all the recommendations — some of them are in the implementation plan.

The Ad Hoc Committee held its first meeting on 26 November 2001 to resolve procedural matters and consider how it should fulfil its remit. At that meeting, the Committee agreed that the timescale for reporting was unworkable. By leave of the Assembly, I am presenting that report today instead of four weeks ago, which was a totally unrealistic deadline.

During its proceedings, the Committee heard evidence from several bodies and received written submissions from others. Those who attended included the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Office, and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. I want to place on record the Committee’s appreciation of those organisations, without which its report could not have been produced.

The Government set out their response to the review recommendations in the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which is being laid before the Westminster Parliament now. That is the main delivery mechanism. The draft Bill has six parts. In line with the review’s recommendations, Part I of the draft Bill makes provision for making appointments to the judiciary and safeguarding its continuing independence. The principal feature here is the establishment of a judicial appointments commission that will make or recommend appointments to specified judicial offices. Those offices are set out in schedule 1 of the draft Bill. The Lord Chief Justice will chair the commission. It will consist of a further 12 members, who will be appointed by the First Minster and the Deputy First Minister. The draft Bill provides for the commission to come into force after devolution.

Procedures for removing persons from judicial office have also been provided for, including the most senior positions — those of Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal. Other features of the draft Bill include amendments to the criteria for judicial offices. It requires that new appointees take a new judicial oath. Lay magistrates will be replaced by Justices of the Peace.

Part II involves law officers and the public prosecution service. Provision is made for the functions of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to be exercised by a locally appointed person, and for the functions of that office that are excepted under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to be exercised by the Solicitor- General under the guise of the new post of advocate general for Northern Ireland. Part II also establishes the public prosecution service as the single, independent, prosecuting authority in Northern Ireland. It will be the responsibility of the prosecution service to undertake all prosecutions for both indictable and summary offences committed in Northern Ireland. Those were previously the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police Service. Fixed penalty motoring offences will remain the responsibility of the police.

Provision is also made for the establishment of a chief inspector of criminal justice, who, under the terms of the draft Bill, is given a broad remit. The chief inspector must carry out the inspection of many bodies, including the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the public prosecution service, the Compensation Agency, and several others involved in criminal justice.

A law commission will also be created under this Part of the draft Bill. The commission will have a remit to review the criminal and civil law of Northern Ireland — including procedure and practice — with a view to making recommendations to Government for reform, codification, simplification and consideration of legislation. It will consist of a chairperson and four other commissioners, all of whom will be appointed by the Secretary of State.

The draft Bill makes several provisions in relation to youth justice. It provides for a range of new orders that will be available to the courts, and for a system of youth conferencing. The draft Bill also extends the ambit of the youth justice system to include 17-year-olds.

The final two sections make further provisions across several key areas, notably arrangements for the display of the royal arms at courthouses, and the rights of victims of crime to information about the discharge and temporary release of prisoners.

The Committee considered those issues and made 17 recommendations covering several themes of the draft Bill and implementation plan. The first of those recommendations is in relation to the consultation period. The Northern Ireland Office originally provided a period of only four weeks for a response to consultation on these proposals. Although that period was extended, the Northern Ireland Office’s attitude towards consultation was clearly at odds with the relevant code of practice. The Committee recommends that the Northern Ireland Office should observe and comply with that guidance in future.

The second recommendation involves the independence of the legal profession. There are several references in the draft Bill to safeguarding the continuing independence of the judiciary and other elements of the criminal justice system. In its evidence to the Committee, the Law Society suggested that it would be appropriate for a similar safeguard to be extended to the legal profession. The Committee considered and accepted that point. The Committee’s recommendation reflects that view.

Recommendations 3 and 4 involve supervision of the implementation plan. The Committee was concerned at the lack of a clear timescale for the overall process. Many witnesses echoed that during evidence sessions. To ensure that the right focus is maintained in developing the proposals, the Committee recommends that the Secretary of State should consider appointing a commissioner to oversee the implementation plan and the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill as it moves into practical application.

Additionally, the Committee suggests that the House might play a role by establishing a Standing Committee to ensure that the Assembly has an appropriate level of input in the future development and refinement of a large number of the proposals. In conjunction with others, the Assembly will be advancing many of those proposals.

The Committee recommends clearly that the Assembly should consider the establishment of a Standing Committee at the earliest opportunity. It is a particularly important issue, and I strongly urge the Assembly to seriously consider enacting that recommendation at the earliest possible opportunity.

Recommendation 5 involves human rights and guiding principles. Much of the Criminal Justice Review Group’s work was on human rights issues, on which the group made several recommendations. The Committee and others considered the Government’s response to those recommendations, which was felt to be somewhat lacking. The draft Bill contains no references to human rights standards at all, and the Committee recommends that the Secretary of State should consider rectifying that apparent shortcoming.

Recommendation 6 concerns the devolution of justice matters — an area that obviously inspired a significant amount of debate in the Committee. Although the Committee agreed that it would have been inappropriate for its report to draw any binding conclusion on the matter, it was recognised that it should be resolved in a timely manner. It was therefore considered that the proposed Standing Committee should have reference to this and should consider the matter further. Again, that impacts on the overall importance of the recommendation that a Standing Committee be set up at an early stage.

Recommendations 7 and 8 concern the office of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, which will be a key post following the devolution of justice matters. It is important that the Assembly’s Standing Orders have the appropriate provision to ensure that that person will be properly accountable to the Assembly. As before, the Committee agreed that it would be inappropriate to set in stone the limits of the Attorney-General’s participation in proceedings. However, the Committee highlighted what it considered to be important areas that will need to be thrashed out. The Committee recommends that that work be taken forward by the Committee on Procedures. I am sure that the Committee on Procedures will give the matter its full consideration and be able to present its recommendations to the Assembly in time for devolution of justice matters, which may well take place at some time in the next 18 months.

The Committee also looked at the possible expansion of the Attorney-General’s role. The Criminal Justice Review Group recommended a number of areas for which the Attorney-General could reasonably assume responsibility. Again, that should be taken forward following devolution of justice matters, and the Committee’s recommendation reflects that fact.

Recommendations 9 and 10 relate to the public prosecution service. The Committee devoted quite a bit of time to considering the proposed new public prosecution service. A number of poignant concerns were expressed. This is not the first time that the Government have sought to bring the elements of prosecution together in a central body. In Great Britain, that goal gave rise to the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service. Those Members who have read the conclusions of Sir Iain Glidewell’s review of that particular body will understand that it was not a simple process by any means.

A key element in that process was the issue of resources. The Committee’s recommendation seeks an assurance from Government that proper resources will be made available to create a public prosecution service in Northern Ireland. The Committee also considered the issues surrounding disclosure of reasons for not bringing prosecutions. While the Committee notes that there are sometimes clear and legitimate reasons why it is not always possible to provide reasons for not bringing a prosecution, the Committee recommends that greater transparency should be a key feature of the decision-making process.

Recommendation 11 involves the role of the Probation Board. In their review, the Government suggested that the Probation Board should be established as a Next Steps agency. Although the final decision has been left to the Assembly and the Executive, the board is vigorously opposed to such a move. With the House’s indulgence, I will quote from the evidence given to the Committee by the chief executive of the Probation Board:

"We are trusted as a neutral body which goes impartially about its job and has no political or sectional interests. Communities are more willing and ready to work with us than with central Government. In other Next Steps agencies, such as employment ones, we do not see the same level of community involvement other than at an advisory level, and that is not close enough for delivering the service that we want to deliver, which involves working with communities."

The Committee considered that point, along with the Government’s proposals, and is not persuaded of the benefits of the Probation Board’s becoming a Next Steps agency. The board should continue to operate as a board, and the Committee’s recommendation is that it should remain independent and impartial.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Recommendation 12 relates to openness and transparency. The judicial appointments commission gave the Committee some concerns. In particular, its level of judicial representation led some members of the Committee to consider that the lay element might not be effective. The Committee explored the possibility of introducing a political element but could not agree the precise outworking of the proposal. Instead, the Committee has suggested that the Secretary of State explore that matter further.

Conclusions were reached on the power of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to convene a tribunal to remove the Attorney-General. The Committee considered that it would be appropriate for such a power to be afforded also to the Assembly, acting with a significant majority, in this case a two-thirds majority. The Committee’s recommendation reflects that position.

Recommendations 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 concern provisions on restorative justice. It was the clear opinion of the Committee that, although that area could complement the criminal justice system, the framework provided for in the Bill’s implementation plan is much too ambiguous. Much work remains to be done in that area, and the Committee’s recommends that the suggested standing committee of the House play an additional proactive role, taking a thematic approach to the area of restorative justice and making a positive contribution to the development and outworking of the practicalities of the proposals.

I commend the report to the Assembly and urge all Members to lend it their support. It is an important issue, and the proposals will have a long-lasting impact on our system of delivering justice. It is important that appropriate steps be taken for their delivery.

The Committee could not reach consensus on several proposals. To reflect the view of the Assembly, and particularly the views of the parties, submissions were received from each party and are appended to the report.

That was my brief as Chairperson, but with Members’ indulgence I will put on my party hat to speak on several issues.

First, I refer to the issue of symbols, especially the flag and the royal crest. The original review recommendation was that the royal crest should be removed from courtroom interiors. As an Ulster Unionist and, more generally, as someone who believes in the connection between this jurisdiction and the rest of the United Kingdom, I am extremely unhappy — to put it mildly —with that recommendation. It goes far beyond the Belfast Agreement, which enshrined the principles of mutual respect and recognition for different identities. The recommendation — effectively to tear out the royal crest from courtrooms — is in many ways a cultural vandalism of the Unionist identity which is so important to many people and to the majority in this jurisdiction. The Government should give serious consideration to the reversal of that proposal and to effecting that by amending section 62 of the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.

There seems to be no reason why the practice of flying the Union flag above courthouses should be different to that for other public buildings.

It would seem appropriate that the review’s recommendation that the flag should continue to fly in line with those proposals and with Government policy should be applied. The Union flag should continue to fly above all courthouses in this jurisdiction on set flag days. I refer Members to Mr Justice Kerr’s comments, when dealing with the issue in the High Court. His comments are quoted in the Ulster Unionist Party’s submission. If Members consider that quotation carefully they will see that Mr Justice Kerr struck a sensible balance, which should be applied more widely.

It is appropriate that the criminal justice inspectorate will cover almost every criminal justice agency in Northern Ireland, from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the Forensic Science Agency. The one glaring exception is the Police Ombudsman’s office. There would seem to be a strong argument in favour of including that in the list of bodies that will be subject to inspection by the criminal justice inspectorate. The Police Ombudsman’s office has nothing to fear; its operational independence will in no way be affected. It is unreasonable to accept that every other criminal justice organisation will be subject to independent and rigorous scrutiny from an outside body, while, for some reason, the Police Ombudsman’s office is left out of the loop. I strongly urge the Government to consider amending the legislation to include the Police Ombudsman’s office.

Members will know that some of the biggest complaints from constituents relate to criminal justice matters, although, technically, such matters are Westminster’s responsibility. However, it is patently obvious from constituents’ comments, from reading newspapers and watching television that criminal justice issues — especially the deleterious affect they have on the lifestyle of people in this jurisdiction — are extremely important. It is vital that the House take urgent action to ensure that the transition of those responsibilities to the Assembly can be smooth. It would seem to be an opportunity for the House to demonstrate its maturity and to take responsibility for an area that is so important to the day-to-day lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

There are many areas in which we could try to make a difference. In many cases, Government put forward legislation for England and Wales, and neglect to introduce such provisions in Northern Ireland. Constituents complain to me often about problems with juveniles, noisy children and fireworks exploded by gangs of youths who seem to roam at will. When challenged about that, police officers say that there is nothing that they can do because human rights legislation limits their power to restrict the free movement of those youths. Unless the youths have committed an offence, there is no power available to police officers to challenge them and prevent the harassment that is obviously taking place.

The Government introduced the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in England and Wales and brought forward a scheme of juvenile restriction orders that allowed for limited curfews to be introduced in some areas where juveniles posed a difficulty. After the devolution of justice functions, the House could introduce such measures to this jurisdiction in a speedy and effective way that could make so much difference to the lives of our people. It is essential that the House take on that responsibility at an early stage. I commend the Committee’s recommendations and my comments as a party representative.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

Like others, I was apprehensive about my appointment to the Ad Hoc Committee because of the potential for disagreement among the parties about the implementation plan for the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the criminal justice review. Therefore, I was encouraged by the constructive attitude of my Colleagues.

The report is a worthy first step towards outlining the Assembly’s views and attitudes. It was drawn up on two understandings: first, as the Chairperson of the Committee mentioned, we were conscious that several points in the plan would need further discussion and debate, within parties and in the Assembly, before we assume responsibility in 2003. Secondly, there was a need to monitor the draft Bill and the implementation plan carefully. The latter may require further refinement. The Assembly may need to consider other possible amendments.

The report contains a note of the Committee’s concern about the limited period given to produce a report on such a lengthy consultation. We were glad that the extension of the deadline recognised that.

We must make it clear to Westminster and the NIO that the Northern Ireland Assembly must be allowed to play its proper consultative role in the drafting of any legislation on reserved matters, especially when — as in this case — that legislation will directly affect everyone in Northern Ireland. Sometimes I wonder how much of the Committee’s considerable work on its report, and the views therein, will even be looked at. That situation must change and due recognition should be given to our agreed reports. I hope, therefore, that Members will agree with the first recommendation.

Recommendation 3 reflects the Committee’s opinion that, given the need to maintain the necessary momentum to drive forward the implementation of criminal justice reform, it would be advisable to appoint an oversight commissioner, similar to Patten. Separate resources should be allocated to the post, without touching the resources that were allocated for the plan.

I endorse recommendation 4, because the new criminal justice system will have far-reaching implications for everyone in Northern Ireland. Again, the Assembly must be consulted and allowed to comment on related justice issues, pending the devolution of responsibility for the matter. As the report states, we have a clear duty to be responsive to community concerns and to encourage confidence in the justice system. It should be clear to everyone that the system must be delivered effectively, efficiently, and with full equity. A Standing Committee could be the answer. In that way, the Assembly would be fully online with the Bill by 2003, and it would be able to take over responsibility for criminal justice with confidence.

Recommendation 6 had to be worded to allow further debate on the precise remit and procedures of the department of justice. The appointment and duties of an Attorney-General is another matter to which further thought must be given. It is hoped that the recommendations pertaining to that will be approved.

While declaring an interest as a member of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, I concur with the Committee Chairperson’s remarks. I hope that the recommendation to retain the current status of the Probation Board, instead of establishing a Next Steps agency, will be approved. If we change that status, projects must change also.

Under the section heading ‘New Approaches’, it was agreed that it is vital to acknowledge the inclusion of youth and the youth conferencing system. It is also important to ascertain the appropriate role of the Probation Board. We have a wealth of experience in compiling young people’s suitability reports in advance of decisions. Again, I hope that those recommendations will be approved.

Restorative justice has great potential. The system has been hampered by misconceptions and incorrect information. It can work effectively in the criminal justice system. That is why the report recommends that further research be done. Pilot programmes have been carried out in several areas, but the system should be considered on a larger scale. The results of the research could help to correct the current problems of perception. Criminal justice should be transparent to all, it must appear to be beneficial to all and it must be able to uphold the human rights of all. I hope that my party leader will speak about other matters in the report later.

I thank the Committee Chairperson and my fellow Committee members for making the proceedings interesting and largely consensual. In particular, I thank the Committee Clerk and his team for their exemplary work under great pressure — it bodes well for the future of the House. I hope that the Assembly will approve the report.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

One of the most remarkable aspects of the report is that the Committee reached considerable consensus on the criminal justice review and the implementation plan, and I pay tribute to the Chairperson, Mr Dalton, for his work in bringing about that consensus. The degree of consensus that has been reached serves as a model for Assembly Members — before the Committee began its deliberations, many people said that it would be impossible for us to reach a consensus. However, we did, and everyone involved deserves congratulation. I also thank the Committee officials for their exemplary work. In a limited time, they worked well, produced a lot of material that was helpful to us and gave us considerable guidance.

There are several pertinent issues in relation to the criminal justice review. I shall deal with one in particular — the judicial appointments commission. It is an important innovation because there has been a serious lack of transparency in the appointment of judges at all levels. Indeed, the entire appointments’ system has been shrouded in secrecy, and that must be considered unsatisfactory by anybody who desires openness in Government. Therefore, the establishment of a judicial appointments commission is to be welcomed, but although the SDLP welcomes that, it does not believe that it goes far enough. However, it is a good step forward, and it is progress, given the present opaque system.

The SDLP’s submission says that the judicial appointments commission should not be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. It should have an independent chairperson, or at least a lay chairperson, rather than a judicial figure. We also believe that there should be greater lay membership on the commission, or, at the very least, equality between the judicial or lawyer members and the lay members. The SDLP would prefer to see more lay members than judicial members because the danger in the system that we are reconstructing is that the judiciary will have too much influence, power and control in the appointment of judges. As politicians, we in the SDLP believe that that is too much power to give to that body.

One must welcome the establishment of the commission. However, we can constructively criticise the Government’s proposals and hope that those criticisms will be taken on board. We want a judiciary that fully reflects or represents the community. That should be the basic criterion upon which the judicial appointments system should work, and that point should be firmly written into the legislation.

The issue of symbols has been raised, and that is important to many of us in the political arena. In a personal capacity, the Chairperson has quite rightly expressed concern about symbols being destroyed.

We in the SDLP believe that there are three ways to approach the problem of symbolism. In no order of preference they are: parity of symbolism, which means having symbolism representative of the Irish Nationalist political tradition and the British Unionist political tradition; complete neutrality, which the present proposals prefer for courtrooms, is worth considering, and it is something that the SDLP believes has the potential to create a unified approach in the community; there could be new and agreed symbolism, which, again, the SDLP says is worth exploring.

The SDLP does not prefer any one approach above the others. We ask political parties to look at the proposals and decide which is best in relation to symbolism. The agreement has created a new political dispensation in which parity of esteem is regarded as a fundamental principle — parity of esteem between the two major political traditions in this society. Therefore, one has to have an approach that meets the principle of parity of esteem. The Government’s proposals on flying the flag over courthouses, for example, is wrong because again we are dealing with one symbol representative of one political tradition. The continuance of symbolism on the exterior of buildings is wrong.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Would the Member agree that the sight of stonemasons chiselling marble plaques off the inside of courtrooms — plaques that have been in place for many years and that are part of our architectural heritage — is something that no party would wish to see?

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

The SDLP is not the Taliban — we do not go in for the demolition of pieces of historic architecture. However, in relation to the overall issue of symbolism, one has to take on board the three methods by which we believe the whole problem of symbolism can be approached and resolved amicably in our divided political community. I would like Mr McFarland and his party to consider that point because progress can be made here. The basic ingredients for reaching consensus across the political divide are in the context of those three approaches. We are not in the business of wrecking, and where there is something of architectural merit we are certainly not going to insist on its destruction. However, as the Chairperson of the Committee said, symbolism is important. We have to try and reach consensus on that particularly sensitive and difficult issue. Perhaps at some stage our society can be mature enough to reach agreement on that.

The criminal justice review is renewing, not destroying, our judicial institutions, and it is renewing our judicial system. It modernises our criminal justice system and brings in best practice from all over the world, and that must be welcomed. It is a positive and constructive development.

The separation of the prosecution service from the office of Attorney-General is important, and the creation of an independent prosecution service is of great importance to this society. The proposals in the criminal justice review do not go far enough, but at least we are going in the right direction.

The Probation Board should not become a Next Steps agency as proposed by the Government. The board is opposed to that; it believes that its independence would be diluted, and I am glad that the Committee agreed to support the Probation Board on that point.

As far as restorative justice is concerned, the Committee reached a consensus. That is important, because here is an innovative area to which we all can contribute. That is very important, especially in the context of dealing with juvenile crime. We need new approaches. The orthodox approach to dealing with juvenile crime has not worked. Therefore, we need something new, and this is one way to do it. I agree with the criticisms that were made in Committee. The sections on restorative justice are not precise enough, they are vague and muddled. It is important that the Government clarify that.

As far as the Standing Committee is concerned, the Committee agreed to put that matter to the Assembly. There was agreement, not that a Committee actually be set up, but that the Assembly consider setting one up. The SDLP is sympathetic to that, but it remains to be seen what that Committee would do, what its terms of reference would be and so forth, until a final decision is made by our party.

Finally, let me reiterate that this is a good report from a hard-working Assembly Committee. I welcome it on behalf of the SDLP, and I look forward to further progress being made on criminal justice.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I join with the other Members who have paid tribute to the Committee Clerk and the other Assistant Clerks of the Committee who were faced, along with the Committee members, with a substantial number of documents and approaches from individuals and groups who wished to make presentations, all of which had to be dealt with in a very limited time. At the outset, that period was universally regarded as being outrageous, and we are glad that it was extended to some degree. I am not entirely content with the time that we were given, but at least it was an improvement on the previous position, which was totally and utterly unacceptable.

There have been some comments in the debate about the degree of unanimity in the Committee’s approach to the issue, and, of course, there was some degree of consensus. However, I caution against reading too much into that, because of the practical viewpoint that one could look at the issues either in the Assembly or out there in the real world. The issues that are likely to cause real division are ones that we did not grapple with in the initial stages. It is somewhat premature to praise consensus when the really difficult issues are yet to come before us.

I am not one to lambaste consensus; where it is possible, I favour it. However, I make a cautionary note on the issue. I need to talk about several matters, many of which, including community restorative justice and the Probation Board, I could elaborate on for some time. I shall deal with those matters later. My initial point relates to the future of the prosecution service: I hope that there is consensus in the House and in the community that any prosecution service, if it is to be successful, must be adequately staffed and resourced. The Committee touched on the matter, and I imagine that that requirement will receive widespread support.

I shall move on to the hoary chestnuts, such as symbols and the royal declaration. Mr Dalton made comments that were based on his political party affiliation rather than as Committee Chairperson. He said that the removal of symbols was not provided for in the Belfast Agreement, and that the matter was beyond its remit. Issues such as the criminal justice review, which go to the heart of society, are being built on the Belfast Agreement. We are told that the criminal justice review must gain the confidence of all parts of the community, yet the underlying premise of the review is an agreement in which there is not much confidence.

The criminal justice review and the Assembly, and all legislation that flows from it, are built on the premise that they require the confidence of all parts of the community, yet the womb from which they have come does not have the confidence of all sections of the community. Neither the Chairperson, nor anyone, needs be surprised that the report causes deep concern in the Unionist community, because it has come from the womb of something that is entirely objectionable. There are deep reservations and animosities toward the Belfast Agreement in the Unionist community.

The issue of removing symbols arose several times during Committee evidence sessions, including the meeting with the Northern Ireland Court Service on 4 December. I asked Mr Lavery of the Northern Ireland Court Service the following question:

"Whatever the political developments within Nationalism in Scotland, they have not yet led to the removal — simple or otherwise — of the current symbols of justice."

He replied:

"The Scottish court system has its own distinctive characteristics, but they have existed for longer. As far as the principal thrust of your question is concerned, there has been no change in symbols."

When the nettle is finally grasped, we shall have to analyse the fact that a cold house exists in Northern Ireland. When, four weeks ago, the Secretary of State said that he wanted to avoid the creation of a cold house, he used the wrong tense. It is not a possibility; it is a fact, and one that must be rectified. A cold house exists for the Unionist community. Despite the emergence of Nationalism in court systems in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland, and although the political manifestations of Nationalism have fluctuated and changed from year to year, there has been no demand for the removal of the royal emblems there.

That should alone have sufficient weight to warn against proceeding towards the removal of symbols from existing courts.

The royal declaration is a related issue. The declaration is seldom used in today’s courts, and yet it appears that change is being contemplated simply to placate political opinion within a section of the Nationalist community. What is the purpose? It is to turn the heat further down in the cold house that exists for the Unionist community.

Community restorative justice has been mentioned, and the issue came up several times in the evidence given by various parties. We need to be clear on the matter. From speaking to many people in the Probation Service and to the lay people involved, I get the impression that restorative justice per se will be supported. They want to pursue it and take best practice from other countries to try to implement it in Northern Ireland.

An issue that does not have widespread support, however, is that of "community" restorative justice. That issue has been utilised by one political party — IRA/Sinn Féin — and it is prevalent in a particular section of our community. It has all sorts of resonances throughout the community, and people are deeply unhappy and discontented at the possibility of some form of community restorative justice coming into the field of our consideration.

There is genuine consensus on the matter of the Probation Board. When the board gave evidence, it said that it did not want to become a Next Steps agency. It did not want to be removed from its present position, and there will be strong support for that view. My party is not in favour of a change of status for the reasons outlined.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. On behalf of my party, I echo the thanks expressed to the Committee Clerk and his team, Library and Research Services and the legal advisers to the Assembly for their assistance. The Ad Hoc Committee had a difficult task in an impossibly short time frame, but it succeeded in performing its task, and I am happy to endorse the report on that basis. It will remain a matter of conjecture whether, had the Committee been given more time to explore individual and party views, some of the areas of common ground — though I do not want to overstate that either — might have unravelled. Nonetheless, heads of agreement were identified, and that should be helpful in processing the legislation and in the development of the implementation plan.

While recognising that the need for change has been highlighted, my party has a considerable number of concerns.

Change must be welcomed. Nonetheless, this must be seen as work in progress, and we must take a focused approach to addressing the outstanding issues. Some of the more contentious ones have already been referred to.

The broad areas of concern are the prosecution service, the judiciary and issues of human rights and equality. Parties will bring their own analyses to bear, and I hope that their sum total will allow us to proceed. The outcome will be a much more representative, transparent and accountable criminal justice system. Despite party differences that is certainly a common goal.

The fact that the review group, with some outside contributions, essentially consisted of the people who had previous responsibility for criminal justice meant that its remit was seriously damaged from the beginning. Though it is possible to welcome aspects of the report, the problems that remain could well propel us into the sort of acrimonious debate that we had over policing.

People have quite properly argued for proper resourcing of the prosecution service. We can agree to that. However, the question of transparency was effectively ducked by the review group and the NIO in their response, and this is reflected in the draft legislation and the implementation plan. In essence, we have little more than a simple name change. Serious issues arise from decisions by the prosecution service not to prosecute in circumstances that go to the heart of confidence in the justice system. The NIO indicated that it had accepted a recommendation from its own review group of greater transparency and more explanation of decisions not to prosecute, yet it is now being seen to be doing precisely the opposite. Is this not an example of total arrogance? Does it not care? Does it think that people will not read this documentation, and even if they do, will the NIO simply steamroller ahead?

Clear problems of accountability and transparency arise from that attitude. The Finucane case alone shows the type of issues that can subvert the creation of an independent criminal justice system which has integrity and is able to serve the entire community.

People generally welcomed the introduction of a judicial appointments commission. However, concerns have been raised, with a degree of unanimity, that the Lord Chief Justice will chair that body and have the power to appoint five of the 11 positions. One can reasonably anticipate a corporate approach to the appointments process. There is a real possibility of little or no change and another lost opportunity.

The fact that human rights training will be a voluntary rather than a statutory requirement for the judiciary begs questions about the commitment of the NIO to the Good Friday Agreement. I hope that in its approach to the legislation the British Government will take a different view and reflect in the legislation the expectations and commitments that arose from the Good Friday Agreement.

In conjunction with other parties, Sinn Féin will be lobbying and campaigning, and will hope to influence MPs’ deliberations on the Bill. These are crucial issues, especially given the experience of alienation and the manner in which policing and criminal justice has been subverted to a counter-insurgency project that gave rise to a catalogue of scandals over the years.

Reference has been made to emblems and symbols. Sinn Féin has serious concerns about the approach that has been taken. The Good Friday Agreement provides clear direction on the matter — and we agreed that. Notwithstanding the DUP’s arguments about whether everyone agreed with it, three out of four voters agreed with it. While it is healthy practice in democratic discussion and decision-making for people to have a contrary view, when a decision is made by such an overwhelming majority we are entitled to see all parties accept that decision if we are going to institutionalise the process of conflict resolution. If people constantly undermine it, challenge it, deride it and deny it the legitimacy that it is entitled to, they will contribute only to undermining people’s confidence in politics as a means of resolving the conflict and the division in our society.

The issue of a neutral environment in the court system is critical. The royal crest adds nothing to the administration or the experience of justice. Almost half of the community who live in the North are alienated from that promotion of one aspect of political opinion in the Six Counties, and we have to take account of that. It is not beyond us to create a neutral environment. We can achieve it without removing anyone’s rights, and we can do it in a manner that reflects the rights of everyone.

The issues of the Royal Courts of Justice, the Crown Court, Queen’s Counsel and the use of the British royal crest need to be addressed. They need to be taken out of the criminal justice system, which is meant to be in common ownership. It is meant to be a shared experience for everyone in the community whether you are Republican, Nationalist, Unionist or however you describe yourself. We need to be prepared to face the issue and to develop systems that will allow everyone to become part of the criminal justice process and to give equal allegiance, support and authority to it.

The fact that the draft Bill and the implementation plan failed to make recommendations about membership of exclusive or oath-bound organisations also needs to be addressed, because the criminal justice system, as it has evolved over the years, is subject to the same distortions and the same under-representation as other structures of government or the legal system. We should seize the opportunity to do something effective, constructive and positive about that.

Members also referred to the restorative justice system. Sinn Féin’s position on that is very clear. Restorative justice is a progressive development recognised and practiced in many societies across the globe. It is in our ability to create that synergy between policing, justice and the legal systems in which there could be an institutionalised role for restorative justice, though not in the manner in which it has developed at present. Restorative justice is at least a positive development in respect of punishment beatings and informal justice systems, but it is not by any means the end game. Insofar as restorative justice deals with the reality that we have failed thus far to find unanimity on policing and justice, there is clearly a role for it.

It is our function to remove the conditions whereby informal responses emerge and to put in place agreed responses, which could, should and will incorporate restorative justice as an institutionalised response to antisocial behaviour in our society in a humane, peaceful and non-violent way. We should continue to study that subject and to approach it with a positive perspective.

I draw attention to the absence of proposals for co-operation on an all-island basis. The review group took time to make its report, and the NIO took an even longer period to study it, only to find that there were no structured proposals for co-operation on an all-island basis. This was omitted despite being specifically included in the Good Friday Agreement as part of the review group’s remit.

Joint studies completed almost four years after the agreement indicate considerable resistance to the process of change and harmonisation on this island. That is to be regretted, and it is an issue that my party will return to strongly. Go raibh maith agat.

Peter Weir (Independent, North Down)

At the start of the debate I declared that I had two interests, and I notice that others who spoke did not. I am a non-practising member of the Bar Council, and I am a member of the Council of Legal Education. This should be borne in mind as I make my remarks.

I welcome the report. It has been said that there are a number of aspects that everyone in the Chamber can agree with. The reference to support for longer consultation is important. There is also opposition to making the Probation Board for Northern Ireland a Next Steps agency. The House can unite behind a wide range of the issues contained in the recommendations.

However, the real value of the report is in the submissions of the various parties and organisations, because, as has been indicated, there is a range of issues in the criminal justice proposals on which it would have been difficult, indeed impossible, for parties to reach agreement. Several of those issues have already been mentioned.

There is also a range of issues on which it is difficult for the report to comment fully at this stage because the key test will be in how they are operated in practice. I welcome the recommendations on youth conferencing that indicate that legal representation must be made available to young people, and on the role of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.

The proposer of the motion, although he was not speaking in his role as Chairperson of the Committee, indicated that the key test of youth conferencing will be the extent to which it reduces youth crime. That is what people on the streets will be looking for. It would be wrong of us to draw conclusions before the system has been put in place.

I agree with the comments regarding the chief inspector of criminal justice. It is a mistake not to include the Police Ombudsman’s role. I hope that the chief inspector of criminal justice will perform the duties in a way that commands greater public confidence and support than the Police Ombudsman has been receiving recently.

If there is to be a new prosecution service, it is important that it does not fall into the traps that the Crown Prosecution Service has encountered in England and Wales. It must be adequately resourced.

It is important that I place on record some of my concerns about the criminal justice review. These must be taken on board by the Government when they come to consider closely the level of implementation. It is right that the report recommends a strong, early consultative role for the Assembly, and I welcome the idea of a Standing Committee. It should be up and running as soon as possible. At this stage I urge a note of caution in the early devolution of criminal justice matters, whether to a department of justice or to the ever-expanding activities of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

It would be farcical to devolve powers to an Executive that contains a party whose commitment to justice is reflected in the kangaroo courts of the punishment beating squads.

The focus of the report is wrong on inclusiveness in the legal profession. In particular, it has indicated support for the simplification of the dress code of members of the Bar by the removal of the wig and gown. In the grand scheme of things that may be a relatively minor point, but it does stray into the civil remit and would be opposed strongly by the Bar Council for a range of reasons.

As well as missing the target of inclusiveness, the deteriorating level of funding available for legal trainees has not been examined. Bursaries for trainee solicitors and barristers at the Institute of Professional Legal Studies have decreased from 75% some 10 years ago to less than 33% today. As a society we pride ourselves that we get more people from working-class backgrounds into third-level education than any other part of the United Kingdom. If a barrier is then erected that eventually will limit the number of people entering the legal profession, that is the key test of inclusiveness; not changing the dress code in court.

I welcome recommendations 15 to 17, where a note of caution is sounded on restorative justice. As indicated by a Member who spoke previously, restorative justice has had a bad name in Northern Ireland. Gregory Campbell noted the difference between the concept of restorative justice and its practical implementation. The report recommends the greater use of pilot schemes and studies into restorative justice before any action is taken. Restorative justice should be court-controlled, and certain sectors of the community should not be given a free hand — that would be disastrous for justice in Northern Ireland.

I raise a concern about the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession. It is welcome that the report highlights the importance of the legal profession’s independence. Any follow-through as to what that means in practice is sadly lacking. Here I diverge from Alban Maginness, who indicated that he wanted greater lay involvement in the judicial appointments commission. Among the Unionist community, concerns were raised during the period of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that judicial appointments were susceptible to pressure and influence from the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Whatever the truth of that perception, it existed. In moving away from that subtle pressure to a more open and transparent pressure by the appointment of a large percentage of lay people, there is a danger of perpetuating a political pattern. If growing cronyism is to be reinforced, with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister having responsibility for almost half of the appointees to a judicial appointments commission, or even through representation of political parties, the independence of the judiciary will be threatened.

One Member said earlier that his key concern was to see a judiciary that was reflective of society, a viewpoint with which I disagree. It is not that I do not want a judiciary that is reflective of society, but the key test of any judiciary must be that people are appointed on merit.

Leaving appointments largely in the hands of the judiciary and the two legal professions provides greater opportunity for ensuring that the key test is merit, rather than some form of political balance or political correctness.

Finally, I want to talk about the erosion of Britishness that is contained in several aspects of the report, which have already been mentioned. Mr Maginness gave us three options. He seems to have studiously ignored the fourth, which is that the courts acknowledge that we are part of the United Kingdom. On issues such as the oath of allegiance to the Queen, the flying of flags and the continuance of the display of royal arms in courtrooms, we must acknowledge that we are part of the United Kingdom.

It seems that the solution that has been offered — whereby royal arms are left on existing buildings, but no new buildings will have them — is an indication, not of our Britishness, but that we are moving into some sort of neutral state with a gesture to the past from the Government. The Secretary of State was concerned that "a cold house for Unionists" would be created; to allow these recommendations to go through would create arctic conditions for Unionists.

The report does not contain the obvious decline in Britishness that was associated with the Patten report. It is more subtle in its proposals. However, moving from a situation in which every symbol of Britishness is dropped to a situation in which our Britishness suffers death by a thousand cuts is not acceptable. The House must send a clear message that the acceptance of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom should pervade our society. The retention of what is already there is important. Parity of symbolism is not something that the House should accept. In moving forward from the report and whatever criminal justice measures the Secretary of State and Parliament consider implementing, it is important that we address those concerns to ensure that we have a criminal justice system that delivers for the people, rather than dealing another hammer blow to the Britishness of this country.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

As we will have ministerial Question Time at 2.30 pm, it would be inappropriate to call another Member to speak. We will resume this debate at 4.00 pm after Question Time, and we will suspend the sitting until 2.30.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that a private notice question was tabled and was scheduled for approximately 4.00 pm. Can you confirm that?

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

I believe that that is the case. Thank you.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 2.27 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Private Notice Question: North Belfast

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This morning, at the commencement of business, a Member asked me about recognising the terrible events in north Belfast in the past week and the murder of postman Mr Daniel McColgan. I advised the House that discussions were under way on the best way to recognise those matters — not merely as a reflex action, but in a considered way.

There are a number of procedures through which the House could properly address such a matter with urgency. An emergency motion is not a possibility, as Members know from our procedures. However, one possibility is a private notice question, which is, in effect, an emergency question. It is possible, if a question is put down, in this case to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, for the Speaker to accept that question to be answered on that day.

However, in the normal course of events, there is one disadvantage with that procedure. Normally, it is only the Member who puts the question down who has the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. On occasion, the Chairperson of the relevant Committee may also be permitted to do so. However, in discussions with the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, there was clearly a sense that, as this was an occasion of such gravity, we should depart from the normal conventions and give the Member who put down the question, and other Members from the North Belfast constituency, the opportunity to put a supplementary question to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I trust that the grieving family, friends and colleagues of Mr McColgan will understand that in doing that, the Assembly has moved away from normal procedures and conventions because of its wish, not only to recognise the matter — and not only to do so in silence — but to say something and to recognise what has happened.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what initiatives it is taking to address the terrible situation in North Belfast, which has resulted in pupils of Holy Cross Primary School and other school children suffering sectarian harassment, intimidation and serious threats to their safety.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I would like to express my horror and disgust at the return of sectarian violence to the streets of Belfast, and in particular, at the murder of Daniel McColgan in Rathcoole. I speak on behalf of the Deputy First Minister and, I am sure, the entire Assembly. Such sectarian attacks have no place in a civilised society, and we condemn those responsible. In the past few days we have seen widespread street disturbances. Much of the violence has been focused on the security forces. Attacks on school property have spread across the area, and threats have been made against teachers and other school workers. Such threats against people who serve the community are totally reprehensible.

All children have the right to go to school, free from the threat of violence and intimidation. No grievance justifies the denial of that right, and no cause can be advanced by it.

Security and policing are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office and the police. We, like the rest of society, want to do everything that we can to assist. The Executive remain committed to doing all that they can to resolve the situation. Members will recall that a series of measures were announced in November and December, including a North Belfast Community Action Project; improvements to housing; traffic calming measures; educational measures to address the immediate needs of schools in the area; and steps to rebuild community relationships and support vital youth services. We are determined to advance those measures as quickly as possible. Members — especially those from North Belfast — will be aware of the work that our officials are doing on behalf of the Executive to ensure that those measures are introduced urgently. Members will also know that the Minister of Education met representatives from a wide range of educational interests this morning. In addition, the Deputy First Minister and I met a delegation from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU). We understand the concerns that were raised by those organisations on behalf of their members.

The key to tackling the underlying division is dialogue. We are conscious of the sensitivity and delicacy of the situation. However, one basic truth is that everyone must advance together, if another cycle of hatred and violence is to be avoided. We are prepared to offer any assistance necessary to support a process of dialogue, but ultimately it is up to local community interests to grasp the opportunity.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I send my condolences to Daniel McColgan’s family. I thank the First Minister for his answer. I am aware of the North Belfast Community Action Group and its six-month remit. We have met with that group. David Trimble acknowledged that the local MLAs were doing their best to deal with the situation.

The problem is too immediate to be dealt with by that group’s remit. There is a Loyalist commission, that was given some fanfare a while ago, which involves the UDA, paramilitary groups, church leaders and members of the UVF.

Have the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister been involved in talks with them? Do we know what their intentions are? There is now a threat to all Catholic workers in north Belfast, and people are worried about what will happen in the immediate future. What pressure can be applied to them? It is not down to the British Government alone to apply pressure. There is little confidence in what they have done, after 300 bomb and gun attacks on Catholics. There is a worry about what we are doing, and about what people of influence in the Unionist community are doing, to try to prevent those attacks on our people. Has anyone spoken to the Loyalist commission? Do we have actions that would "out" them, or force them to speak publicly on the matter and to withdraw the threats against Catholics in that area?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I join Mr Kelly in extending sincere condolences to the McColgan family and to all his colleagues in the postal service. Mr Kelly is aware, as are the other Members for North Belfast, of the work that officials from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have carried out, and of how that relates to the work of other Departments. Security and policing are not the responsibility of the devolved Administration. However, I have no hesitation in expressing my support for effective policing action against the threats and attacks, and the organisations that are responsible for them. I hope that everyone in the House shares that view.

It is important to recognise that the most effective way in which Members can bring pressure to bear on the situation is by speaking with one voice. It is important that we try to do so on this occasion, despite the fact that there will be differing interpretations of the problem and that people will focus on different aspects of it. We must make it clear that we reject those who are behind the attacks and threats. Such attacks should not be seen as having been made on one section of the community, but rather as an affront to the whole community. I hope that the political representatives in the Chamber will make that clear.

I have had no direct engagement with the Loyalist commission. The First Minister and I issued statements at the weekend, not only condemning the murder, but calling specifically for the lifting of the threats against teachers, other education employees and postal workers. I am sure that this afternoon’s exchange will prove that we speak not only for ourselves, but for the entire body politic in the Chamber.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I am sure that Members for North Belfast are grateful that a ruling has been made to allow other Members to ask the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister supplementary questions. I wish to reiterate what I know to be the view of all right- thinking people in north Belfast and further afield: the callous, brutal and unjustifiable murder of Danny McColgan is not only a terrible tragedy for that young man’s family, it serves to raise real fears and tensions in both sides of the community in north Belfast and beyond. Nothing can justify such a murderous attack.

I am sure that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will agree that the threats that have been issued and the attacks that have been carried out on vital workers in a range of services are deplorable. Those who issue such threats are not doing so on behalf of the majority; almost everyone in society abhors such activity.

Furthermore, will the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister accept, unlike Mr Gerry Kelly who tabled the question, and who only referred to Holy Cross Girls’ Primary School, that the Assembly is already on record as saying that all school children, Protestant and Roman Catholic, must be protected as they go to and from school, and while they are in school. Can we make it absolutely clear — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Mr G Kelly has a point of order. I believe I know what the point of order is, but I shall allow him to make it.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The question did refer to all school children, even though Holy Cross was mentioned.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It was the case that it included more than the school children of Holy Cross — it included other children.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Only one school was mentioned. The Assembly is already on record as saying in a previous debate that all school children, Protestant and Catholic, must have proper protection on the way to and from school, and while in school, and that goes for staff as well. Today there has been a bomb threat against the Boys’ Model School from an organisation using a recognised code word. Likewise, we have seen children from the Protestant community threatened and their rights abused.

Therefore, I ask the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to ensure, in its talks with the security forces and the Northern Ireland Office, that there is equality of security for everybody in north Belfast — adults and children alike — and that a number of issues raised by Members from that area about CCTV and proper resources for policing in the flashpoint and interface areas are endorsed strongly by them. Wearing my ministerial hat, I also express my support for the work going on through the community action project.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank Mr Doods for his question and, indeed, for his general comments condemning the murder and deploring the threats made to all schools. As the wording of the question suggests, we are discussing the issue in the context of school children in north Belfast generally, and are aware that it is not only one school or segment of the community that faces threats and attacks — unfortunately, they happen in general. One of the depressing aspects of last week’s events was how serious trouble quickly developed from very small beginnings — very small incidents. The speed with which riots developed and threats were extended is disturbing.

We also note that threats to emergency services, especially the Ambulance Service, were in existence before last week’s events, and the threats to other public servants have simply reinforced the matter. We do have a degree of contact with the security forces. Mr Dodds will have noted the comments made by Assistant Chief Constable McQuillan today, in the course of an interview on the situation, and we hope that his confidence about the ability to deal with it is well founded. Like him, we are glad that there has been a relatively quiet weekend, and we hope that that will hold true as we go into the week.

Resources for policing are a matter for the police. CCTV has been mentioned, and I understand that the police are looking for the best location. The presence of CCTV in other circumstances, and in other places, has made a significant contribution. Of course, this is an operational matter for the police, but if it comes within our purview, we will do all we can to assist.

Mention has been made of the Loyalist commission. Members will have seen the full text of a statement issued by the commission in the ‘News Letter’ this morning and will welcome the express call in that statement for calm and an end to street confrontation. I am sure that we would all like to see that.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

We are in danger of adopting an almost tit-for-tat attitude towards the violence. All violence should be condemned completely, and this is clearly not a one-sided issue. As Mr Dodds has said, there are ongoing attacks on the Protestant community, and it is important that people have a proper perspective on the problems. MLAs should give whatever help and assistance they can in that area.

Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister tell the House how both communities have reacted to their recent initiative, and can they give Members some indication of progress on the various issues that were raised by both communities?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

First, I join with Mr Cobain in underscoring the point that if we are condemning violence, we all have to condemn all of the violence, all of the threats and all of the sectarianism — whoever the victims or the perpetrators may be, whatever names the perpetrators work under and whatever the code words are that they use. We all must be clear on that.

Regarding the community reaction to the range of measures that was shared with all the community interests in recent months, there was a broad welcome for the package of proposals and the work that was to be done. That was not because it was a fully fledged package in itself, but because it set out the various issues that needed to be explored, and the mechanisms and means that would give, not only Government, but the communities the capacity to do that. There was a broad welcome, not so much for the content of the package, but for the context that it appeared to be part of — seeing an end to the protest, allowing a school to get back to business and allowing families to try to restore some sense to their lives. It also allows the communities to address the different problems that affect them.

People have shown an eagerness to work well with the community action project to make progress at various levels. We wish, in particular, to encourage dialogue at community level, and to support any efforts to establish a community forum.

Mr Cobain raised some specific measures towards the end of his questions, including the road ramps for the Ardoyne Road and Hesketh Road areas. The first ramps were installed last Monday. However, work was temporarily suspended on Wednesday. Contractors have been asked to recommence work as soon as possible. Obviously, the design has been completed, and the statutory processes have been gone through.

Regarding the Alliance Avenue intersection, work is generally on track, but there are issues concerning liaison and brokerage with the local community interests that need to be addressed. Relevant communications are continuing in that regard. The Department for Regional Development and its Roads Service are handling the work in that area.

Other related measures on traffic calming are also on track, with design work under way and with the appropriate consultation to follow. The work on the community action challenge is continuing, and I note the Member’s, and the Minister’s, specific support for that work. All of us need to understand and appreciate the role that the community action project has. Some sections of the media misunderstood the role and remit of the project. In an area as delicate and complex as this, it is important to appreciate fully the specific roles that people are undertaking.

On other issues, Members will be aware of the range of education support measures that were announced by the Minister of Education following the Executive meeting before Christmas to help schools and youth services across north Belfast. There have also been several follow-through issues on the social services side, with some involving other services as well.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I welcome the united condemnation by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the sectarian murder of Daniel McColgan, and their absolute rejection of threats to anyone, especially teachers and school children in north Belfast. That example is important for the whole community and particularly for the suffering family of Daniel McColgan. It is a good example of one voice speaking for the community. Long may that continue.

I also welcome the meeting that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have had with representatives from the ICTU. What progress, if any, was made with the trade union movement on using an opportunity to express publicly the united opposition of the trade union movement to threats on public sector workers? Is it a matter of urgency for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to set up a cross-community forum to create a genuine and sustained dialogue between the two communities that could lead to a permanent solution to the problems of sectarianism that have bedevilled north Belfast for so many generations?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member has raised a couple of issues, including the meeting that we had with the ICTU. That meeting was notable in that its representatives were joined by the national general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, who had come over for the occasion. It is a mark of the seriousness with which the Communication Workers Union regards the weekend’s appalling murder that he has come here.

The ICTU is planning its own measures; it will hold a two-minute silence tomorrow at the time of the funeral and it also plans rallies on Saturday. The Member will understand my caution because we could not be seen to be supporting or calling for what amounts to strike action on Friday. People will want to take whatever measures they can to show their support for what is happening.

The Member also mentioned dialogue in north Belfast. Dialogue is important and we have encouraged that where we can. There are two aspects to that, and it is sometimes difficult to keep those two aspects separate in one’s mind. First, there is the question of the community representatives from Ardoyne, upper Ardoyne, and the Glenbryn and Hesketh area whom we met in November. We encouraged them to work toward the establishment of a joint community forum in their area. Our senior liaison officer, who is mostly based in the Crumlin Road area, has been in regular discussion with both communities on this issue. The communities are in contact, and discussions are going ahead.

Some informal meetings have taken place, but it must be left to local people to develop the forum. Last week, we made it clear that we are ready to offer assistance and to facilitate development. We also offered to support mediation if that is the appropriate way forward. Our basic stance is to encourage the communities to develop. We hope that that will move forward appropriately.

In addition to that community forum action, there is development under the aegis of the North Belfast Community Action Project that deals with the development of a strategy for community and social issues across north Belfast. There have been discussions with elected and community representatives about the development of that strategy. Through the work of the project, elected and community representatives will contribute to the development of a plan and a community forum.

It would be nice if those forums were up and running now. People have not been slow in developing them, and progress has been made since November. It is unfortunate that violence broke out last week, but the development of the forums will go ahead; I look forward to their establishment.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.

I send my condolences to young Daniel’s family, the postal workers with whom he worked, and his colleagues in the Communication Workers Union. This young man was killed early on Saturday morning for no other reason than that he was a Catholic. He attended Hazelwood Integrated Primary School and Hazelwood Integrated College in north Belfast. That brings it home to us that a young man, who spent his life in integrated education, mixing with Protestants and those from other religions, was cut down in his prime at the age of 20. Integrated education did not help him.

I thank the Executive and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for the measures that have been taken, and for what has happened so far.

Over the weekend there was much talk of threats against teachers, and about whether threats were made. We need to value teachers, irrespective of their religion or the type of school in which they work. They teach today’s children, who are tomorrow’s adults; some of those children will one day become leaders and will sit in this Chamber.

Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister believe that the initiative led by Rev Dunlop is focused on the right issues? Do they believe that the methodology used lends itself to drawing up wish lists for community development? Would it not be better to focus on relationships between the two traditions in north Belfast, working on a micro level now rather than on a macro level in six months' time?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for his questions and, in particular, for his earlier remarks about how brutal and futile the murder at the weekend was. That view is shared by all of us in the Chamber.

The role of the community action project is to deal with the issues that were expressed by a range of interested parties during the contact work by the First Minister, our officials and me. We want to make progress in that regard. As Billy Hutchinson pointed out, some issues do not reflect only the separate and diverse community needs, they raise the need to develop dialogue and better community relations. We want to do that; we therefore support the development of community forums as a means of providing that dialogue at all levels to deal with all the issues.

The community action project will not simply be a vehicle for drawing up a wish list. It is an effort to ensure that communities feel that they are being empowered and enabled to deal with the issues that affect, concern and frustrate them. It is hoped that they will have a real and meaningful sense that the Government will be good partners and supporters in that regard. It is not only important that people try to achieve mutual respect and trust, people in north Belfast need a sense of assurance that all the diverse authorities, be they devolved or otherwise, have a real sense of people’s anxieties, fears and hurts. That applies to all sections of the community in north Belfast.

The community action project is just one contribution. It is not the sole contribution or response to the problems that exist, just as it cannot fall only to the devolved Administration to respond to the problems.

Fraser Agnew (UUAP, Belfast North)

I join in the condemnation of the brutal murder at the weekend. It took place inside the boundaries of Newtownabbey Borough Council, an area that I have represented and know very well. It was cowardly, stupid and idiotic. From a purely Loyalist point of view it was self-defeating. There are no words that be can be used to adequately condemn the senseless killing of this young man.

It is ironic that on a gable wall in the Republican Bawnmore estate adjacent to the Longlands area, there is a slogan that says "White City prepare for another death". That type of sinister slogan does nothing but create and add to the tension that exists in the area. At this time the people in the White City area of Belfast are on the edge. They are tense and worried, because they are constantly under attack. As I have said in the past, it is a city under siege.

Tomorrow’s funeral will go past their front doors. That has thrown up security worries. What happens if some Republican activists latch on to this funeral? What happens if, as they have done in the past, they use schoolchildren for their own political ends? Is there going to be further trouble in the White City? Are the people of the White City going to be afforded the protection that they need? One of the difficulties we have had in north Belfast — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I normally take points of order. On a previous occasion there was a clear point of clarification that was necessary.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take your point of order. However, I suggest to the House that it continue in the composed fashion that it has entertained up until now.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will take that as read. Other people were given a chance to ask questions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Member has not used that opportunity.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I trust I have made it clear what I think is the wish of the House, and that is to continue in the composed way in which this difficult and sensitive matter has been addressed up until now.

Fraser Agnew (UUAP, Belfast North)

I was simply going on to say that although I welcome many of the well-meaning and positive projects that are in place in north Belfast, I believe that one of the difficulties is that the infrastructure cannot be put in place overnight. In many respects, we need a quick fix that can restore the confidence lost by the community in north Belfast.

For example, the Police Service does not like static patrols in north Belfast. However, a static patrol can give confidence to the people living in some of those areas. I wonder whether the Executive and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could take that on board. Infrastructure cannot be put in place overnight, but is there some sort of quick fix available to ensure that something could happen in the short term?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

In his comments, Mr Agnew dwelt on the tension that undoubtedly exists in many parts of north Belfast. There is a very real concern, shared across the House, that the violence should end and that we should not find ourselves in a spiral of tit-for-tat violence. There is no doubt about the tension or the serious reasons for it. One can only appeal to people to be calm, to restrain from using violence whatever the circumstances and, indeed, not to be on the streets in the evening unless it is absolutely necessary. Where possible, there is a need for parents to keep children who might otherwise get involved in violence at home. The past week has demonstrated how even comparatively small incidents can quickly develop into large-scale violence.

Mr Agnew spoke of a quick fix to create confidence. I wish that it were possible. If there were anything that we could do quickly to produce that result, it would be done. Since November, the Administration have brought forward measures to try to inject confidence into the community by showing that we are aware of the problems — several of which are of long standing — that they have our sympathetic concern and active involvement in the matter and that we have done what we can to create confidence. One ray of encouragement from last week’s event is that there has not been a resumption of the protest at the Holy Cross Girls’ School in the Hesketh area. There was concern and fear that there was violence in the neighbourhood, but the protest that had been operating there until November did not resume. We are glad of that, and we are glad that folk there have exercised restraint.

I should repeat what I said in an interview last week, and it should have been said earlier today: we appreciate the work of so many community workers in north Belfast. We appreciate what the area’s MLAs have done to encourage restraint and to deliver confidence to their communities and supporters. We want to encourage that good work.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before we return to the normal business of the Order Paper, I ask the House, having in this exceptional way expressed in words its concern and feelings about the events of the last week, to stand for a minute in reflection on these and all the matters that have been spoken about and, particularly, in condolence with the family of Mr Daniel McColgan.

Members observed one minute’s silence.

Criminal Justice Reform

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The review on criminal justice was part of the Good Friday Agreement. At the time I said that policing and criminal justice should be discussed together, because I do not always think that the citizens of Northern Ireland realise that if we do not get the criminal justice system right, there is no point in concentrating on policing alone. I am concerned that, to date, there has not been the same public debate on criminal justice as there has been on policing — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I want to consider the appointments, training, transparency and accountability of the judiciary. Representation and the symbolic nature of emblems have been discussed, as has the implementation of the recommendations; however, a matter that has received little attention so far is witnesses and victims and the services provided for them in the courts.

I welcome the criminal justice review’s recommendations on judicial appointments. Indeed, they are long overdue in Northern Ireland. I have also looked at the Northern Ireland Court Service’s screening policies, and I am concerned that some of the recommendations seem to be taken more seriously than others. Needless to say, the law profession is more concerned that both barristers and solicitors should be considered for future appointments.

However, the numbers of people from ethnic minorities and women in senior judicial positions have not been dealt with in the debate so far. The Northern Ireland Court Service’s screening policies on the issue of equity highlight the issues of religion and ethnic minorities, but they do not pay the same attention to disability or gender. I am concerned that they say that these recommendations will positively contribute to fairer participation in future but that no impact assessment is required on the eligibility criteria or equity monitoring, and yet on the issues of the oath of allegiance and symbols in courts, they call for a full impact assessment.

If we are looking at the criminal justice review in the round, it would have been useful if the Committee had had the opportunity, because this publication has been on our desks for some time, and the policies have been screened by the Northern Ireland Court Service to see whether there will be a change in the future.

My concern comes from those who have been before the courts in the past. Concern is expressed outside Northern Ireland. If we are to broaden eligibility and introduce some element so that the composition of the judiciary truly reflects the composition of society, that should be based not just on religion, which has been the focus of the debate to date, but on gender.

If anyone has looked at the papers in the last week, they will note the concern that has been expressed in some of the comments that have been made by the judiciary, not only recently, but in the past, where rape and sex abuse cases have been in front of the courts. That is why I am concerned about the Judicial Studies Board, although it makes a recommendation that the induction training be mandatory, and the criminal justice review suggests that the induction training should be mandatory. However, the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill does not require this. I am strongly in favour of training, because I do not believe, as the criminal justice review does, that the judiciary should just talk to the judiciary. That has been a problem in the past, and it has been the same in the medical profession. They ought to broaden that out in training.

I had an opportunity to participate in judicial studies training in relation to my research into domestic violence. It was important that a full day that I spent with other agencies from the community had a serious input to how the judiciary dealt with domestic violence thereafter. I hope that it also had a serious outcome. The Judicial Studies Board’s make-up does not extend to academic input, although the criminal justice review suggested that it might. I fear that it may not, and then an opportunity would be missed.

With regard to appointments and training, if we in Northern Ireland do not open up the judiciary, move it out, make it representative of the community and make it more understanding of the problems that are faced in our society, then we truly have missed an opportunity. If it is said of the police, then equally it should have been said about the judiciary. As I have said, the judiciary have gotten off lightly in the public debate on this subject.

The judicial appointments commissioner in Northern Ireland has been appointed. It will be interesting to see Mr John Simpson’s future work. I welcome the Commission’s intention to extend its eligibility, as a major criticism has been how closed the judiciary has been in the past; a criticism that came from inside and outside Northern Ireland.

Future transparency has been a major issue, and I have had difficulty in understanding the decisions made by the Department of Public Prosecutions. I have on occasions written to the DPP — and herein lies the issue of independence — after I received requests from victims for information on why the DPP decided not to prosecute. I have been alarmed at its conclusions on those occasions.

In turn, the DPP has reviewed its decisions not to prosecute. In future, that procedure to write on behalf of constituents should not be left simply to Assembly Members whose constituents are concerned that there have been no prosecutions. Little information is published, and it is difficult for anyone to understand at the end of the year which cases have been prosecuted. I have often had to request statistics from the DPP asking whether the charges had been downgraded. Of course, the DPP denies the existence of such a word. It has had to trace the statistics manually in order to follow through on prosecutions from start to finish. There are real concerns, and the situation has not increased victims’ confidence. If the criminal justice system is to make itself more understandable, accountable and transparent, it must have victims’ confidence.

It is to be welcomed that reports will be published and that there will be a code of practice, which at present is simply downloaded from the Crown Prosecution Service. I am not aware whether the Department of Public Prosecutions has had many codes of practice of its own. I hope that that will now change.

I would be concerned if, in future, the DPP claimed security as a reason for not prosecuting. We know that in the past that has not increased confidence. There may be a valid case for not publishing reasons, but if the DPP is to be as open and transparent as it now promises to be, that information should be available.

At the back of the report, where agencies’ evidence is detailed, there is a recommendation that the word "realm" in the judicial oath be replaced with the word "jurisdiction". The judiciary adopts many Latin terms and antiquated language, and we have the opportunity to change some of that.

The use of symbols is also mentioned and will be assessed for equity, and impact statements will be made. Enough has been said about that matter in the Assembly. The concerns voiced by many of the witnesses and victims have not been about what is hanging above them but rather the trauma they face each and every day that they attend court. As victims, they have had the courage to give evidence, and too often they have had to sit in the same room opposite offenders and perpetrators. They have also been told that, although they are victims, they are only as good as their witness evidence. That attitude in the courts must change. Modern facilities should be provided in which victims feel safe so that they can give their evidence in a way that works for them not against them. My concerns lie with the practicalities of facilitating victims.

The Committee paid some attention to the issue of the oversight commissioner. The appointee could be male or female; however, the language of the report implied that only a man may be appointed.

We must also look at the courts’ role in rehabilitation and reintegration as well as in prevention, and for that reason the issue of youth conferencing and children was stressed. The recommendation to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 would have been useful, and I am concerned that it was not taken up.

Issues relating to young people must be addressed. The Assembly has discussed the report from the Committee for Health, Social Service and Public Safety on secure residential accommodation for young people, especially those who come before the courts. Day after day, magistrates and judges tell that they are frustrated about how to deal with them.

There are some proposals about custody care orders. There was some concern that the word "custody" was used in front of the word "care". However, the matter must be fully debated. Given the lack of secure accommodation and resources to date, the report may end up as a group of mere recommendations, without serious resources being provided to deal with young people.

Restorative justice must be debated further. This should not be the last word on it. If we are to proceed with confidence, we must engage seriously in the debate on rehabilitation and reintegration. As we saw during the Christmas holiday, the juvenile justice system clearly is not working, when young people are absconding or being released on parole. The recidivism rate is so high that we must question the diversionary and other programmes that should be there to deal with the kind of behaviour that leads to a career in crime early in a young person’s life.

The Probation Service should remain independent. Anything else may lead to its being accused of colluding with the court system or being biased or one-sided. Throughout the troubles, the probation service was independent, and that enabled its staff to go into places and talk to offenders in a way that would have been enormously difficult if they had been associated with the judiciary or the Court Service. Together with the probation service we must build more partnerships with communities.

Although I am not a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, I am pleased that it was able to arrive at a consensus on the recommendations, because that is difficult to achieve across the parties. However, I am concerned that insufficient time was given to local community safety partnerships. These seem to be such a problem for policing, and if we do not take them up in relation to criminal justice and prosecution, it will be only a one-sided discussion.

If we are to have equality before the law, and if the judiciary is to be independent and impartial, we must increase the level of confidence in the criminal justice system enormously. It has been at an all-time low. I am glad to see that the Ad Hoc Committee has recommended that there should be a Standing Committee on criminal justice. If we are to look at all the issues — prevention, rehabilitation, reintegration and sentencing — we need such a committee. We should not leave it until we have a devolved Department, because no one knows when that will happen. The sooner the Assembly gets its hands on criminal justice, the better, because some matters and recommendations have been left for the judiciary to deal with. Any criminal justice review that suggests that the judiciary is best dealt with by the judiciary needs to take a serious look at itself.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I agree with the comments made by several Members on the contribution of the Committee Clerks. I also want to acknowledge the work that was done by the Committee members. As other Members have said, it is not insignificant that there was a level of agreement that might not otherwise have been reached, especially as the criminal justice review was a product of the Good Friday Agreement.

It is a reflection on the development of thinking across the parties in the Assembly that a degree of agreement was reached. Although I do not overstate the degree of agreement, neither do I underestimate it. People may travel different roads to reach the same conclusion. The important thing is that the same conclusion is reached: a representative, accountable, transparent police service or criminal justice service in Northern Ireland. Whatever path we may travel, the point that we have reached is significant for all of us.

Despite that, I do not travel in great confidence. The last justice matter that the Chamber discussed was a criminal injuries compensation reform. On that occasion, the Chamber achieved consensus on criminal injuries compensation proposals. Despite that consensus, no later than 19 December 2001, Mr Des Browne MP, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for Northern Ireland, wrote:

"I do not intend to defer implementing this important legislative reform pending a transfer of justice functions".

A short time after unanimity was achieved on the Floor of the Assembly, the British Government had dismissed it. It was not only that the British Government rejected the Assembly’s proposals for changes to criminal injuries compensation reform; they even rejected deferring those proposals pending transfer of the criminal justice function, which the Government stated in the criminal justice review response they intended to transfer within 18 months. That reflects the response from the British Government to past criminal justice changes in the North. Therefore, the Assembly cannot travel in any confidence that this British Government will behave any differently on this matter.

It is an example of Ministers in the North genuflecting to the needs of 10 and 11 Downing Street rather than a response to the politics of agreement — an advantage achieved on the Floor of the Assembly in that matter and in others. The Assembly will see whether, on this occasion, the British Government determine differently. If they do, there are several urgent matters referred to in the response by the Ad Hoc Committee and several other matters that arise from the criminal justice review.

The Ad Hoc Committee makes several strong assertions in its report on how the Government should amend the implementation plan and draft legislation. The first is overseeing the implementation plan. The Ad Hoc Committee notes the dearth of clear deadlines for the implementation plan and the lack of clear targets for the Criminal Justice Review Group’s recommendations. It says that the Government should give

"consideration to the appointment of a commissioner with a remit to oversee the implementation of the reform of the criminal justice system, having regard to the resources available to him."

The strength of those statements by the Ad Hoc Committee reflects a higher degree of consensus on overseeing the criminal justice changes than might ever have been conceived by any British Government while it referred the draft Bill and implementation plan to the Assembly.

Further consideration of those recommendations uncovers their range, complexity and their inter-agency nature. When the Assembly considers that in 18 months’ time it might be responsible for those recommendations, it seems that the need to have — objectively and particularly — an overseeing mechanism is strong and compelling.

In that regard, the British Government should recognise the level of consensus and respond appropriately.

The statements on human rights and guiding principles in the Ad Hoc Committee report also impressed me. Human rights issues and disputes have been at the core of conflict over the past 30 years. Despite that, the Committee had the understanding, on a consensus basis, to assert that the Secretary of State should consider revising the clauses of the draft Bill to include references to the accepted human rights standards that acknowledge that human rights are central to the criminal justice system.

The British Government say that they want to affirm policing and criminal justice changes in the North, however they come about. To do that, they should respond to the fact that this Chamber was able to conclude that human rights should be at the core of the new criminal justice system. I am surprised that the Chamber could achieve that level of understanding and consensus. If we are able to do that, it ill behoves the British Government to ignore it, given that it was achieved in spite of great difficulties.

In one way, however, I am not surprised that agreement was reached. As Ian Paisley Jnr and others will confirm, the Northern Ireland Policing Board is considering a code of ethics that mainstreams human rights standards into the policing service to protect both the citizen and the police officer. It goes way beyond the human rights standards and codes of ethics in virtually any other police service known to the board. If that level of agreement on codes of ethics and human rights standards can be achieved on the policing issue, and if agreement can be reached on future criminal justice structures, the British Government would be insulting the good work, good principles and high values of the Assembly if they did not respond by mainstreaming human rights, both in law and in the implementation plan.

I could list a wide range of areas where that could be done. If we are to achieve agreement we could perhaps borrow from the example of the Policing Board, where the draft code of ethics that is currently on the board’s agenda includes human rights safeguards and requirements in respect of defence lawyers, those who have been detained and those who have been charged. Those recommendations come from the changed management team in the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). If they are good enough for the Police Service — as they appear to be — those good standards should also apply to the criminal justice institutions.

That is not to say that we agree on all matters. Clearly, we do not. Duncan Shipley Dalton and Gregory Campbell — and I anticipate that Ian Paisley Jnr will do the same — disagree with our view and that of the Criminal Justice Review’s recommendations on the working environment. We are told that, because the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom has been confirmed in the referendum, we must accept everything that those Members interpret being British to mean, including the display of symbols, emblems and flags.

We differ because we interpret the principle of consent as consenting to the constitutional position as part of the UK, not accepting all expressions of what it is to be British in Northern Ireland. Those who do not accept that interpretation should perhaps consider the equal validity given to the principle of parity of esteem in the Good Friday Agreement.

The principle of parity of esteem is given equal validity when it comes to the issue of the display of flags, emblems and symbols. However, if Members do not agree with that argument then, with some caution, I refer them to page 174 of the report where the Human Rights Commission moves the display of flags, emblems and symbols beyond the issues of consent and parity of esteem.

The outline principles are, the Commission says, necessary to reflect the independence of the judiciary, of the courts and of due process. A wide range of international instruments is mentioned; from the UN Declaration of Human Rights to the UN International Covenants and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. All state that to be seen to be an independent judiciary and an independent court service, that court service must be independent. As a consequence, it should be free of symbols that might identify it as being less than neutral. So, from wherever they travel to reach it, I hope that Members come to the conclusion that good international standards and practice are consistent with the true interpretation of the Good Friday Agreement. In other words, without vandalising or interfering aggressively with emblems or symbols, court buildings, courtrooms and all to do with the precincts of a court should be free of symbols. I should like to think that the British Government will conclude as I have outlined.

My third point — and I have sympathy with what Monica McWilliams said — concerns the judiciary. One of the core values of our new political and policing orders, and of the future justice order, must be the accountability of those structures. That is a core value of the Good Friday Agreement, and it informs the practice of the various institutions set up under it. The judiciary is one of the most unaccountable institutions in this jurisdiction, in the South and in Britain. It is much more unaccountable than any police service or public- sector body of which I am aware on these islands. It is a body of people with unfettered power, immense resources and standing, whom few cross. The criminal justice review gives us the opportunity to begin to ensure that our judiciary is accountable in a way in which no other judiciary in these islands is, though all of them should be.

However, the British Government’s responses do not follow the recommendations of the review. Consistent with some of the Ad Hoc Committee’s statements, we must ensure that the draft law is changed so that the judiciary reflects the community and all judges are subjected to training in human rights. All appointments must be the responsibility of a commission for judicial appointments, which must not just advise on appointments but make them. The judicial and legal membership of the commission must not have undue influence, power or number. Consistent with some of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and with the review of the criminal justice system, we hope that the British Government will hear these arguments.

I have two final comments. The first takes account of the prosecution service, because although the main concerns about the administration of justice in the North have revolved around the activities of the Police Service, many people are concerned that it has been the further efforts of the judiciary at times, and the prosecution service at other times, that have created an environment in which those who are entrusted with upholding the law have broken it, occasionally abused human rights and not been held properly to account by those whose responsibility it is to ensure that they are. In the first instance, that means prosecution when appropriate and, secondly, conviction when the evidence leads, beyond a reasonable doubt, to that conclusion.

Although we may not have agreed on how to come to that situation, people are beginning to conclude that we have reached it. That was seen in the reaction to the collapse of the prosecution of the late William Stobie. Nonetheless, the proposals in the criminal justice review that are to some degree endorsed in the Ad Hoc Committee’s report mean that the proposals in the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the implementation plan do not lead to an accountable prosecution service. That is reflected in recommendation 10 of the Ad Hoc Committee’s report that states that

"greater transparency should be a feature of the decision-making process of the new Public Prosecution Service."

That does not mean that reasons should always be disclosed when cases do not result in a prosecution. It means that there should be a presumption that the reasons will be disclosed, even though in some circumstances with just cause they will not be disclosed, not least to protect the victims. The presumption should be disclosure, whereas, at the moment, it is non-disclosure. Given the hint that that reflects the Assembly’s consensus view, the British Government should amend the legislation.

With boring monotony, I will conclude as I have other speeches on justice and human rights. The SDLP is of the view that the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the draft implementation plan are closer to the criminal justice review than the original Mandelson Bill and the original implementation plan arising from Patten were. They are closer, but not close enough. If the British Government use the Ad Hoc Committee’s report as an example of where a higher degree of agreement is important to sustain confidence in the new institutions, the law and the plan should be changed. They should revisit some of the review’s recommendations because, if they do not, we will be left with the hollow apology of T E Lawrence that

"the old men came out again and took our victory to re-make the likeness of the former world they knew."

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I too wish to associate myself with the comments of several Members who congratulated the Committee staff, especially the Committee Clerk. I understand that he does not believe in Santa Claus because he was still emailing people about the report on Christmas Eve. He was certainly hard done by over the Christmas period. However, it probably saved him a bit of expense on his credit card. It is important that we pay tribute to the work of the staff because given the timescale available to us for this so-called consultation — and most of the people who gave evidence criticised the timescale — the work of the Committee Clerk and his team was exceptional.

Mr Attwood and several other Members mentioned the high level of agreement across the Chamber and, more importantly, in the Committee. Perhaps Mr Attwood was being self-effacing, because I noticed that he did not always attend Committee meetings — maybe that was his recipe for ensuring that there was that high level of agreement.

Nonetheless, we should be honest about the report. We should not get too carried away when discussing what the Committee agreed on — the Committee agreed to differ. It agreed to include members’ different political points of view as an addendum to the report, in order to get consensus on other areas where there was broad- brush agreement. Let us not get too carried away with self- congratulation. The champagne can be put back on ice because it is not required just yet.

Although the report was about agreeing to differ, there was some agreement. Everyone was frustrated by the lack of consultation time that the Northern Ireland Office Ministers allowed the Committee. They were unforthcoming in allowing for consultation on this Bill and other matters. They have demeaned the word "consultation".

The Committee agreed that it could not recommend many elements of the draft Bill, especially those relating to the so-called restorative or community justice programmes, because they were too vague and poorly thought out. That is a positive negative point. However, it was important that the Committee agreed not to ratify restorative or community justice simply because the option was there. The Committee recognised the usefulness of establishing a consultative or standing committee to make a more protracted examination of criminal justice issues as they arise.

Anyone in the Assembly can see that the Bill has been poorly thought out, and that it is cluttered and vague. That is because there was such a lack of time, prior to the review of criminal justice, to allow the Committee to be properly consulted as the Bill was put together, and to help to develop it. The establishment of a Standing Committee might allow us to deal at length with the issue of criminal justice. Every Member has touched on issues that affect us all.

Aside from those broad-brush agreements, the Committee was united on few matters. However, it is important to note that, because of the draft Bill’s failures, the Committee report falls well short of endorsing it — I welcome that. That point should not be lost on the Northern Ireland Office. It should be a central consideration for anyone who wants to argue in support of the draft Bill in the House of Commons. Anyone who might wish to twist that fact by claiming that the Assembly endorsed the draft Bill should remember that the report makes it clear that no endorsement was given.

Various parties wanted to exercise political influence over the area of criminal justice and the appointment of senior judges. However, there was strong disagreement about who should have that influence. I can understand why the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP would be relaxed about political control over senior appointments at the moment. However, that approach applies in the short term only, because after the next election those parties may not be in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They should think long and hard about whether the control of justice by them, as politicians, is in the long-term interests of Northern Ireland. They must think about whether the criminal justice system should be handed to politicians, especially if one of the positions in that Office happened to be filled by Sinn Féin/IRA. It is important that people reflect on that and recognise exactly what they are doing.

The politicisation of the judiciary must be rejected at all costs. Witnesses put that view to the Committee, time and time again. The Law Society of Northern Ireland came before the Committee to talk about the politicisation of the legal profession. It said:

"We are making this point because we see that there is a potential risk. We are not in a position to say that the proposals answer our fears and concerns."

The Law Society further added that

"where a department of justice is being created and where the role of the Lord Chancellor is being removed — as seems to be contemplated from the constitutional arrangements that are part of these proposals — important questions must be asked as to who makes decisions about the legal profession. Under the present constitutional arrangement, solicitors are officers of the court. For that reason, when it comes to matters arising within the Law Society that require to be appealed, the supervisory function is not carried out by a politician. It is in the hands of the Lord Chief Justice; and we would want to be clear that this is going to be preserved, or indeed, enhanced and reinforced."

That is not my position; it is the position of the Law Society, the body that speaks for practitioners from a variety of backgrounds in Northern Ireland.

The Law Society took the same position in minutes of evidence from a Committee session on 29 November 2001:

"We need to ensure that the new constitutional arrangements do not impinge on the independence of the legal profession. It is a question of preserving the independence, rather than creating it."

If the Law Society is not good enough for some people, what about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission? When Prof Dickson gave evidence to the Committee on 29 November 2001 and was asked about the issue of politicisation, he said:

"There is always a danger that when a member of the Government has a large say in how an agency within the criminal justice system or the justice system itself — because the law commission here will have jurisdiction over civil as well as criminal matters — works, the doctrine of separation of powers is breached."

Prof Dickson did not make those comments lightly. He recognised the dangers contained in the Bill if it were to be implemented in its current form. The House should be aware of that. By endorsing the report, that awareness is flagged up, and anyone who wishes to quote from it and use the Assembly’s position on the report recognises that it is not an endorsement of the Bill as currently drafted. Surely that weight of evidence counts for something when one considers the background of the people who submitted that evidence?

The Secretary of State said that he did not want Northern Ireland to become a cold house for Protestants. The recommendations in the draft Bill and in the implementation report would make the courts a very frosty place for the Protestant community. There is a failure — and I fear that it was repeated today by Members on the opposite side of the House — to recognise that the removal of the Union flag, the attack on, removal and denigration of the oath, and the removal of the symbols of the Crown are offensive to the Protestant community. Of course they are. The failure to recognise that the suggestion is in itself gratuitously offensive shows how far we still have to go in Northern Ireland. I hope that parties will reflect on that. Nationalists in this place must ask themselves if they really want a Northern Ireland that is a cold place for the Protestant community. If they do, the ramifications are appalling.

Mr Attwood referred to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on the issue of flags and symbolism. When evidence from representatives of the Human Rights Commission is studied, it can be seen that the commission’s position is based on a false premise. It describes controversial symbols. The flag of the state, no matter who describes it as controversial, remains the flag of the state. It is unlike other controversial symbols that may represent one section or other of the community. The commission has done itself a gross disservice by describing the national emblem and symbols of the state as controversial items that can be easily dispensed with.

There is a lack of consistency from those people who wish to see the removal of the Union flag and the crest of the Crown. That inconsistency is amplified when those same people are silent on the recommendation that the Irish language be introduced into the courts. I would take criticisms much better from those people if they were prepared to argue that there should be no symbolism of any kind at all — at least that would be consistent.

However, to say absolutely nothing, and to support proposals calling for the elevation of the Irish language and Irish Nationalism in courts that have had a devaluation of Britishness, shows a great inconsistency on their part.

I am pleased that the new courthouse in Belfast is soon to be bedecked with the royal crest to identify it with this state, which is only right and proper. Although the issues of symbolism will draw most of the public attention, it is important that we do not ignore what is at the heart of the draft Bill — the creation of a single prosecution service. That procedure is, however, old, and it should not be inflicted on Northern Ireland. We heard much evidence to demonstrate that when it was inflicted on England and Wales it became an unmitigated disaster. Members should look at the evidence presented by the Glidewell report, to which the Committee referred.

In my party’s submission we indicated that we were extremely concerned that we were about to repeat the fundamental mistakes that were made in England and Wales in relation to the working of the Crown Prosecution Service. Do not take my word for it — take what Glidewell said in his report. He said that, overall, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinues prosecutions on an average of 12% more cases now than it ever did. The likelihood of getting successful prosecutions under the Crown Prosecution Service system actually goes down, which is not in anyone’s interest when we see the rising crime wave in Northern Ireland — increasing motor vehicle crime, and violent crime against the person. It is not in anyone’s interest to see a mechanism put in place that reduces the ability of the prosecution to get a successful result.

The Glidewell report states:

"The overall conclusion from this study of the available statistics is that in various respects there has not been the improvement in the effectiveness and efficiency of the prosecution process which was expected to result from the setting up of the CPS in 1986."

We would be very foolish if we did not learn from the experience of England and Wales. It is clear that, in the Bill, the resources are not placed at Northern Ireland’s disposal to ensure that we have a single prosecution service that will actually work. That would result in a Crown Prosecution Service that would be a disaster.

Mr Alban Maginness said that it would be a renewal of the prosecution service — I think that it would be a wrecking of the Crown Prosecution Service. He said that it would be a revival of the system — I believe that it would be a requiem for the system. It would be wrong to impose something on Northern Ireland that was tried and tested elsewhere and which proved to be an unmitigated disaster. I hope that others will recognise that these problems are real. If we go down the road of implementing major change by introducing a single prosecution service, and by implementing major change to the prosecution service as it currently stands, we stand to be indicted later on by a failure of that system to actually achieve results — results that bring about justice and integrity in the criminal justice system.

The report also made some other important recommendations that must not be ignored too hastily. Recommendation 11 supports the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, and my Colleague Mr Campbell has already indicated our party position on that. We are pleased to endorse the work of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and to endorse the recommendation that it should remain independent and impartial. It should not be replaced by what it describes as a Next Steps agency. I also believe that recommendations 15 to 17 on restorative justice indicate that the Committee had absolutely no satisfaction with the proposals on restorative justice, indicating that a great deal more work needs to be done by the Northern Ireland Office before a recommendation of moving to such a system could even be contemplated. That work on minor crime needs to be done over a long time.

Some Members have mentioned the issue of the transparency of decisions. We should tread carefully on that, because we could create a system where, willy-nilly, the reasons why prosecutions did not take place would be published.

I put on the record of the House the evidence that was supplied by Mr Kerr, a magistrate and a practitioner in the Criminal Bar Association, who said that there are compelling reasons for not always giving an explanation. A reason for not prosecuting might often appear to denigrate an injured party or victim, and that may be unnecessary and stressful for them.

An assessment of a witness might conclude that he or she is incapable of giving the necessary evidence, and it would not be in anyone’s interest to humiliate a person further by telling him or her that. Indeed, the Department of Public Prosecution’s (DPP) policy is that every case must be examined to see whether it falls into that category, and if it does not, reasons are given where possible. The Bar Council of Northern Ireland believes in openness where possible, and it approves of that course of action.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I will, but may I first make the point? I do not want the Member to misunderstand. In principle there should be as much openness and transparency as possible, but we should be aware of the dangers of creating a precedent or saying that all information must be made available, although that might be very dangerous.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The Member and the person who represents the Bar Council may not be aware that the DPP recently changed its policy of interviewing witnesses. Until then, decisions on whether to proceed with prosecutions were based on written evidence that was in front of it.

I am aware of one case in which a witness had cerebral palsy, and the assumption was made that she might not be a competent witness. It was only when I asked for the decision to be reviewed that the witness was interviewed and the discovery made that she was very competent. In turn they had to review the decision not to prosecute. That leads anyone to conclude that if the system were more transparent, people might not have as many concerns about constant final decisions not to prosecute. It is now policy for all witnesses to be interviewed before decisions are made on whether to prosecute.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for the intervention, which shows that when treading on sensitive ground, it is important to strike the proper balance. The comments from the Criminal Bar Association tried to strike that balance, and it is important that Members bear that in mind when arguing for changes.

All in all, a vote for the report is a vote for more consideration of the Bill and for giving the Assembly the right to drive that process of investigation. A positive vote tonight will indicate that the Assembly does not endorse the draft Bill and rejects significant chunks of it. However, it permits parties to agree to differ on those issues, and it is critical of the Northern Ireland Office’s handling of the matter.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I take the opportunity to thank the Committee members, including those who served as deputies or who made a contribution to the debate and to the Committee’s discussions. We worked reasonably well as a Committee. Although it is true to say that there is no complete consensus, we tried to achieve consensus on some of the broad-brush issues, and in our report we put forward to the House as positive a view as we could. I greatly thank the Committee’s support staff who, as other Members have said, worked extremely hard and were extremely helpful to me as Chairman and to the other members. I also thank the Assembly’s research and library services staff for providing a legal adviser who was an extraordinarily useful and valuable addition to the Committee and to me personally. I do not have enough time to cover everybody’s contribution. However, I will work back through some of the points raised.

I am a little confused about Mr Paisley Jnr’s point about the judicial appointments commission. The Committee broadly recognised that it did not want to overpoliticise the appointment of the judiciary, but there was an acknowledgment that in any democracy the appointment of members of the judiciary is necessarily a political act. Appointments are made by members of the political institutions in some form or other. Although, technically, it is the monarch who appoints senior judges, in reality this is done on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor or the Prime Minister. Therefore, in that sense it would not be such a shift to move that responsibility in Northern Ireland towards the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I am surprised by Mr Paisley Jnr’s comments about this matter when the DUP’s submission recommended that the judicial appointments commission could consider having members appointed using the d’Hondt formula. Perhaps he was saying not so much that he is opposed to any concept of political involvement in the appointments but rather that the political involvement should be widespread and reflect all aspects of the community.

The Committee was well aware of the point made about the Glidewell report. The issue was raised on several occasions by Mr Paisley Jnr and by other members of the Committee. It is of great concern. It is important that in introducing a public prosecutions service to Northern Ireland that service should be properly funded, organised, structured and be able to complete its work effectively. There are many lessons to be learnt from the Glidewell report and from the experiences of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Government have assured the Committee and myself on several occasions that those lessons have been learnt and will be applied. We will have to wait with some trepidation to see whether that is the case. I hope that the Government will take our concerns into account.

As regards the points made by Mr Attwood, I cannot resist the urge to respond to the reference to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s point about what it describes as the partisan display in a courtroom. The human right it relies on is one of equality before the law, which is reflected. Equality before the law and independent, impartial tribunals support a human right that is reflected in many international standards and that is one that everyone would support.

I fail to understand how the Commission stretches that right by saying that to include display of national symbols in a courtroom would somehow undermine that equality and impartiality. If one were to apply that logic then almost every state that displays any form of national or state symbol in its courtroom would necessarily be breaching that human right. It does not surprise me that a body that has not managed to figure out its own remit cannot work out how to apply human rights standards. However, that is another point.

The Committee felt that many of the timetables being laid down and the targets being set by the Government were not clearly identified. There was a relatively ambiguous identification of exactly what the Government intended to do and when. We felt that an oversight commissioner would be an appropriate way to focus the Government’s mind on this. The Committee also felt that the Assembly could play a more active role in this through the formation of a Standing Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has suggested that the Assembly should consider setting up such a Committee at an early stage. I would go further and say that the Assembly should set up such a Committee. It would be a valuable Committee of the House and would offer us a great opportunity to scrutinise the work of Government in introducing this legislation.

Prof McWilliams raised a point about having a reflective judiciary. The Committee discussed the issue, however it was not something that we reflected in the report. It was recognised that the reflectiveness of the judiciary should involve more than just a Catholic/ Protestant perspective. There are also issues such as ethnic minorities and the appointment of women to the bench. Few women are appointed to the bench in Northern Ireland, and this does not reflect well on the legal profession considering how many extremely able female practitioners are involved. We would all welcome that.

There is an opportunity to expand appointment to the bench to those people who would not previously have been appointed. Academics who are legally qualified but have not practised for any length of time would be eligible, and in due course that would broaden those who are appointed.

The point raised by Prof McWilliams about victims was not something that came up in the Committee. It was recognised that there was a greater focus on the victim, especially in relation to the release of prisoners and information given to the victim, as well as information in relation to the public prosecution service.

Mr Paisley Jnr and Prof McWilliams raised the issue of transparency. The Committee accepted in principle that there should be an intent to be as transparent as possible in relation to whether prosecution decisions are made. We also took into account the evidence given by the Bar Council. We were concerned and did not want to create a situation where a victim who had already suffered and been humiliated would suffer further by being told that their evidence was not sufficient on which to base a prosecution. That could be detrimental to the well-being of that individual, when they have already had a difficult time. There is the need to have balance.

However, Prof McWilliams’s point that witnesses should be interviewed by a public prosecution service, and that there should be close involvement of any public prosecution service with the victim at all stages during prosecution, is important. That would come up for a Standing Committee and would need to be looked at in due course. I hope that the public prosecution service, rather than being a disaster, would be an opportunity for us to create a far more effective prosecution service in Northern Ireland. In some ways the original review did not go as far as I would have if I had been given a broad brush to paint with, but you travel the road as far as you can.

I am surprised to find myself agreeing with so many points raised by Peter Weir. I can agree with him on some occasions — whenever he is talking sense. On this occasion, most of his points were very valid. The Committee stressed that judicial appointments should be made purely on merit. It is essential that the merit principle is underwritten in the appointment of members of the judiciary, and that is also reflected in the Bill. The Committee agreed that that should remain a core principle of appointment.

Mr Campbell mentioned symbols. I have spoken about symbols, and I do not think that I can usefully add to what has been said. The Unionist representatives in the House have given good flight to our feelings on this matter. The Government, and Nationalist parties, need to consider very carefully what effect that will have on the Unionist community, and I hope that they will consider that. I would not go so far as to use the description of a "cold house". I do not feel that Northern Ireland has become a cold house, but I am concerned about the amount of oil left in the tank at this stage.

Alban Maginness made a point about the destruction of articles of architectural heritage. That was welcome and showed great maturity on his part, and I think the House will welcome it. No one would wish to see a Taliban-style destruction of the royal crests and symbols that are built into the very fabric of buildings in Northern Ireland. That did not happen in the Republic of Ireland when it entirely changed jurisdiction. I hope that we will not see that in Northern Ireland.

I urge Members to take into account the issues that we were able to reach agreement on, look at the overall importance of the report before the House and see fit to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Justice Reform (02/01/R), established by resolution on 19 November 2001, and agrees that it be submitted to the Secretary of State as a Report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Adjourned at 5.50 pm.