Northern Ireland Assembly, 23 November 2009

448 contributions from 66 members. The official report.

Matters of the Day

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The Speaker has received notice from representatives from a number of parties seeking leave to make a statement on a matter that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. I will call Mrs Arlene Foster to speak first on the subject. I will then call each of the other parties in order. There will be no opportunity for intervention, for questions or for a vote on the matter. I will not take any points of order until the item of business has been concluded. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I contacted the Speaker’s Office this morning about the incident that took place in Garrison in my constituency at the weekend. However, the Speaker wants Members to speak about all the incidents at the weekend, and I will do so.

The incident in Belfast was an attack on the very heart of democracy. It was an attack on the accountability body, the Policing Board, and it should be seen as such. Undoubtedly, those who planted the bomb wanted it to be seen as such. I utterly condemn that bomb attack, as I utterly condemn the attempt on the life of a young police recruit in Garrison, County Fermanagh, who has answered the call of duty to serve his community in Northern Ireland and who stands in stark contrast to those who sought to end his life on Saturday evening.

I congratulate the Police Service on its work in thwarting that attack. It has shown its service, dedication and commitment to the community that it serves in Northern Ireland, and it stands in stark contrast to those who had murder in their hearts at the weekend.

A strong and united message must come from the Assembly today. At the weekend, my party leader said that there can be no going back. Indeed, there can be no going back. We need to move forward into a confident Northern Ireland, a Northern Ireland that is normal and has confidence in moving forward. Strong political leadership from the House and, indeed, outside the House is needed. I trust that others will give that strong political leadership, as we will today.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I condemn the attacks that took place over the weekend in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and in Belfast. Those carrying out such attacks are doing so against the expressed wishes of the Irish people and are seeking to wreck the advances of the peace and political process.

The attack on the Policing Board was a reckless attack: a no-warning bomb in an area containing both social and private homes as well as office buildings and bars. It was a clear attack on the accountability mechanisms in the policing structures and on our community, which elects its representatives to the Policing Board in order to hold the PSNI to account at the highest levels.

The attack on a young officer in Garrison was equally reckless and futile. Let me make it clear: anyone with information about that should bring it forward. Today in the Chamber we need to provide more than ritual condemnation. We need to show our people the political leadership that is necessary to steer us through the remainder of the process.

On the one hand, there are the opponents of peace who carried out the attacks over the weekend and, on the other, there is the TUV. Both are united in their attempts to bring our community back to where it has clearly said it does not wish to go. Members have the opportunity today to show the leadership that is necessary to get the job done and to bring the powers on policing and justice to locally elected and accountable representatives here in the North. All the parties in the House agree that that is what needs to happen. The PSNI, the Police Federation, the Policing Board and the judiciary all agree that the transfer of policing and justice powers should happen, so we need to get the job done and make sure that it happens.

Some people may seek to turn today’s debate on such a very important issue into a squabbling session. To them I say that this is bigger than petty party politics, and the events of the weekend have shown us why. There is an obligation on all parties to complete the process. I reiterate our party’s position that those events must be condemned, and I call on all of us to play our part in showing the leadership required to move us all to where we need to be.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

Members will be aware that the Chief Constable and, in a recent report, the IMC indicated that the level of threat to our community had risen to the highest it has been for a long time. It is perfectly clear that there is a strain of republicanism that remains addicted to physical force. That was demonstrated at the weekend. It is only by the grace of God that we are not here this morning condemning a number of fatalities, which could easily have occurred as a result of either attack.

I do not believe that this morning is the correct time to get into the detail of the devolution of policing and justice, save to say that the challenge that has been thrown down to the whole community and this House in particular can only be addressed if the parties in the House discuss it, which we have not done. There is a need for that discussion to take place, and I hope that will happen.

When we were last challenged, with the murders that took place in February, this House was shown at its best. Today, I hope that we can give a similar united response to the challenge that has been made, not only to the House but to the democratic process. Those terrorists are trying to pursue their objectives by other means: physical force and murder. It was not very long ago that we were discussing an attack in my constituency in which a relative of a police officer was blown up in a car. When we also consider the attack in Armagh and the finding of a horizontal mortar, it is perfectly clear that people have a capability. We cannot sweep it under the carpet any more. It requires a united response from this House, and that response will be best achieved if there is proper discussion among the parties on the way ahead. Until that happens, the vacuum that the terrorists are exploiting at the moment will remain.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I join other Members in recording the Assembly’s total condemnation of the violence and attempted violence of the past weekend. As others have said, the serious bomb attempt at the Policing Board headquarters was aimed at the heart of the democratic ethos that is part of the new policing dispensation. In Garrison, County Fermanagh, a deadly attempt was made on a young police officer, which, thankfully, was thwarted.

The weekend’s attacks were not the first to be attempted by those who were involved. We know that they have been widening their threat, intimidation and rate of attack on people in every part of this region. They have attacked not only police officers but policing families and, indeed, the wider policing family. That has been shown through the threats not only to police officers but to many other people who play a positive role in policing and by the attack on the Policing Board headquarters.

The Assembly must send out a clear message to all who provide strong policing services that they have our total support as they face the challenge of those threats. We must also communicate that strong resolve to all members of policing families who feel vulnerable and under threat. We must take the threat from those groups seriously, and the challenge is to ensure that those groups take our resolve seriously not to be thwarted or to turn the clock back in any way.

We must send out a strong united message of condemnation and deepen our commitment to ensure that any future such efforts by those people will not only be met with the sort of statements that have been heard in the Chamber today but will be dealt with by statements from our own devolved justice Minister. That would allow us to show, in the fullest sense possible, that all of us, as democrats, are part of the policing family. The Police Service and its accountability arrangements are part of the democratic dispensation here.

We need to send out a clear message to those people that what they attempted to do at the weekend was defeated and that anything that they attempt to do over the coming months and years will not succeed either. Our resolve is much greater than their malice.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I associate myself with the words that have already been spoken by other Members today. Three incidents took place: the attempted murder of a police officer in Garrison; the attempted bombing of the Policing Board headquarters in Belfast; and the chaos that has been brought to Armagh this morning by a serious security incident there.

Reports on the radio in the past 24 hours resonated with media reports from the darkest days of the Troubles. It is difficult to find words that are adequate to condemn the actions of people who, in such a reckless fashion, would undertake not only to take the lives of specific individuals but to rob people of their peace of mind and communities of their freedom of thought and movement. That must be condemned by all Members.

An attack on a police officer is not only an attack on an individual and his or her family but an attack on the community that that individual serves. Police officers go out daily and provide a service to the community, and, when they are under attack, the community that they serve is also under attack. I pay tribute to the work of the Police Service not only in thwarting the Garrison attack but in the courageous work that it does daily, despite the level of threat that it is under. It is owed our utmost respect and support for its work.

The attack on the Policing Board headquarters is an attack on the community, but it is more than that: it is an attack on the progress that we as a community have made. It is also an attack on the democratic structures that have been put in place to ensure that the communities that we represent get the efficient and effective policing service to which they are entitled. No one has the right to rob people of that service, and it is despicable to take a bomb of that size into the middle of a busy city, into a residential area and into an area that contributes massively to our economy. It is reprehensible to be so destructive. I also condemn the serious threats that caused massive disruption and chaos in Armagh city.

Although news reports over the past 24 hours may have been reminiscent of bleak times in the past, the context in which we now speak is not the same, because we now have political institutions and a degree of progress that were not present then. The context has changed, and the fact that some people seem incapable of comprehending that is their loss.

It is important that we politicians move forward together with a strong, united voice to support the Police Service in its work, to support communities in the work that they do to support the police and to ensure that there is nowhere to hide for those who were involved in those attacks.

Dawn Purvis (PUP, Belfast East)

I join other Members in condemning the attacks. There is not a great deal more that I can add, other than to reiterate that all such attacks are on the structures of peace and democracy. I have some concerns, however, that raising these matters elevates those who carried out the attacks and their warped sense of their own importance, although that is not to play down their actions or the threat that they pose. Their ideology, like their methods, pre-dates the 1970s, and we are not going back there. We will do that by ensuring that the Assembly works and that political stability is the way forward for Northern Ireland. I praise the Police Service for its actions. Intelligence-led policing is the way to defeat those people, and, along with other Members, I call on the public to assist the police in pursuing them.

Executive Committee Business

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 23 November 2009.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 23 November 2009.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

The motion has been agreed, so today’s sitting may go beyond 7.00 pm, if required.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I remind Members that, under Standing Order 37(2), the Further Consideration Stage of a Bill is restricted to debate on any further amendments to the Bill that have been tabled. No amendments have been tabled, so there is no opportunity to discuss the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill today. Members will, of course, be able to have a full debate at Final Stage. The Further Consideration Stage of the Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments, which details the order for consideration. Two amendments have been grouped together for debate, as set out in my provisional grouping of amendments list. There will, therefore, be one debate. Amendment Nos 1 and 2 will be debated together and voted upon separately. Members should note that, as it is Further Consideration Stage, the Assembly will not debate the Bill’s clauses, schedule or general principles. Remarks should be confined to the text of the amendments alone.

Amendment Nos 1 and 2 deal with the creation of reporting obligations. They would require the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to report to the Assembly on a range of matters on the day of commencement of the Act.

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

I beg to move amendment No 1: After clause 2, insert the following new clause

“Duty of First Minister and deputy First Minister to report on certain matters

2A. The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make a report orally and in writing to the Assembly on the day of commencement of sections 1 and 2 of the Act, explaining the provisions of protocols and concordats on—

(a) national security;

(b) the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency;

(c) the independence of the Judiciary;

(d) the independence of the Public Prosecution Service

and the consequences of the provisions on the exercise of the functions that the Department of Justice is to exercise.”

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: After clause 2, insert the following new clause

“Duty of First Minister and deputy First Minister to report on co-operation on criminal justice

2B. The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make a report orally and in writing to the Assembly on the day of commencement of sections 1 and 2 of the Act, explaining the provisions of any arrangements entered into with the Government of Ireland concerning co-operation in criminal justice matters.” — [Mr Attwood.]

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

I thank the Bill Office, the Business Office and anyone else in the Building who enabled the amendments to be brought to the Floor of the Assembly. I invite other parties to consider supporting them for several reasons. The previous debate at Consideration Stage dealt with the who and when of devolution of justice. The amendments attempt to move discussion on the devolution of justice to a different place and level. They attempt to address the character and content of devolution of justice, if and when it arises.

Given the events of the past 24 hours and several days, it seems to the SDLP that it would be useful and timely to attempt to reframe part of the discussion of devolution of justice, without prejudice to any party’s view on any other matters that have already been discussed. It seems timely and appropriate for Members to apply their minds to a debate on what should or should not happen on the day of devolution and on the day of a justice Minister’s appointment.

The amendments seek to address those critical and relevant issues on which the Assembly should receive a report, orally and in writing, from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on the day of devolution. It is important that the Assembly sends a message to the wider community that the day of devolution is not about the creation of a Department or who may or may not hold the office of justice Minister. It is important that we send a broader message to the community about the character and content of devolution of justice. The amendments touch on some of that, although not exclusively or exhaustively.

Behind the amendments is confirmation that the SDLP, as a political party, has issues and concerns about a range of matters on which those amendments touch. That concern may be shared to a degree by other parties on the Floor of the Chamber. The SDLP’s main issue is to ensure that devolution, if and when it happens, will create maximum confidence, reduce any possible exposure and take forward justice issues in a way that best helps the Assembly and the wider community.

The Bill Office will be aware that my party tabled a third amendment that dealt with consequences for the programme of work that would arise from the appointment of a justice Minister and the establishment of a Department of justice. That amendment was ruled to be outside the Assembly’s legislative competence. It is, however, my understanding that, in any case, the Northern Ireland Act 2009 includes a requirement for the Assembly to debate any amendment to the Programme for Government that arises from the formation of a justice Department. That debate and any resolution therein will be subject to a cross-community vote. Therefore, I trust that there will be a future opportunity for the Assembly to discuss the wider issues around the devolution of justice, including the content of any Programme for Government.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Order. I remind the Member that he can address only amendment Nos 1 and 2.

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

I will now focus my attention on the amendment requiring the First Minister and deputy First Minister to come to the Floor of the Assembly to advise orally and in writing of any arrangements put in place in respect of a North/South justice agreement.

There is a justice agreement between the British and Irish Governments that deals with issues of justice co-operation. That agreement addresses issues not only between east and west but between North and South, and it arose from the Good Friday Agreement. It is operational as we speak.

The Assembly has been advised, rightly, through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, that on the day of devolution the British-Irish justice agreement will be amended to take into account the change in circumstances that will arise when justice and policing powers are transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The amendments will involve the elements of co-operation that are properly within the competence of the Executive on the one hand and the Government of Ireland on the other. There is no dispute about that and nor should there be. The British-Irish justice agreement deals with, among other things, advisory projects in respect of forensic science; public protection; registered offenders; support of victims; and youth justice. Given the nature and character of those areas of work, there are good reasons why, the day after the devolution of justice, there should be a justice co-operation agreement between the Executive and the Government of Ireland in relation to matters that fall within their competence and jurisdiction.

On the day of devolution, it will be important and healthy for the character and purpose of justice that the First Minister and deputy First Minister come to the Assembly and report on the terms of the agreement that will exist at that time, its impact on the lives of the people of this island and how public protection is enhanced because of that agreement. That will create certainty about the issues that have been taken forward between the British and Irish Governments since the Good Friday Agreement and the matters that need to be taken forward in the future between the Government in the North and the Government in Dublin.

The SDLP has a view about taking forward further areas of justice co-operation, including a proposal to create a justice sector within the North/South Ministerial Council. There will be adequate time, especially in the debate next week, for the Assembly to consider the potential of a proposal to create such a sector. However, I remind Members that, last week, Robin Newton, acting on behalf of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, gave an extensive report in respect of a meeting of the British-Irish Council that touched on a number of areas of justice and concerns about justice, and we feel that there are good grounds and evidence for the issue around a wider North/South dimension on justice to be taken forward in the fullness of time.

That is the height of the amendment in respect of a report from the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the justice co-operation agreement that may exist at the point of devolution. It is to confirm its nature and its consequences for the operations of the Northern Ireland Assembly and to deepen confidence that the respective Ministers and Administrations will attend to matters that are referred to.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member says that he wants a report on the changed circumstances that will arise on the day of the devolution of policing and justice. Does he accept that, on that day, nothing will have changed in national security relationships, or does he believe that that relationship has changed? If I read proposed new clause 2A properly, he may believe that that relationship has changed.

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

I thank the Member for his intervention, and I will address that matter when I talk about amendment No 1. If he is suggesting that, on the day of devolution, nothing will change in respect of North/South justice co-operation, I can confirm that that is the case. I may wish it were different, and the SDLP may have aspirations for something bigger and greater than that which exists at present, but on the day of devolution, as far as North/South justice co-operation is concerned, that which is within the current British-Irish Agreement and which falls to the respective jurisdictions in Dublin and Belfast is all that will be in place on that day. However, I hope that, shortly thereafter, we may have the opportunity to make proposals and expand areas of co-operation on justice to benefit citizens, North and South.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I do not understand where the Member stands on the matter. Will he confirm that, when he talks of national security, he means UK national security issues? He may be talking about something else.

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

Again, I thank the Member for his intervention. I reassure him that when I come to discuss amendment No 1, which touches on issues of national security as opposed to justice issues on the island of Ireland governed by a North/South justice agreement, I will attend to all those matters. If it is helpful to the Member, I will take further interventions at that time.

I turn to amendment No 1, which covers an area of broad interest to the SDLP and, I trust, to Committee members. It calls on the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to provide a report, orally and in writing, on a number of matters that will have relevance at the point of devolution of justice and thereafter. Four areas are named in the amendment, which are to be governed by concordats and protocols that are being prepared by the British Government in consultation with the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I will explain why it is important that, in each case, those matters are brought to the Assembly’s attention by way of a report.

I wish to provide a little background. On 23 September 2008, the Assembly endorsed a motion to refer certain matters to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and, in doing so, placed on that Committee a requirement to have:

“consideration of any other matter relating to the devolution of policing and justice matters.” — [Official Report, Bound Volume 33, p144, col 2].

In January 2009, the Assembly accepted that Committee’s first report on the arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice matters, and the Committee then considered 12 further areas, three of which touch on the protocols and concordats referred to in the amendment. On many occasions during the course of its work, the Committee has been in contact with the British Government in respect of those concordats and protocols. Over and above the wider relevance and significance of those concordats and protocols, that is one reason why the SDLP has decided to table this amendment. There has never been any dissent in the Committee from the idea that those matters should be raised with the British Government. The Committee has made many attempts to extract those protocols and concordats from the British Government, but, to date, it has not been successful.

We have a situation in which it has been agreed that there will be a number of concordats and protocols governing relevant matters such as the independence of the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary, the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and issues of national security, to which Mr Paisley Jnr referred.

The British Government said that documents are being prepared on those matters and that those should be shared with the Assembly and Executive Review Committee as well as the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Members of that Committee know that a series of letters have been sent to the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State since February requesting sight of those documents, and that, to date, the Committee has not had the benefit of seeing those documents, never mind considering them.

That is despite the Secretary of State saying on a number of occasions that the various documents will be shared with Assembly and Executive Review Committee within weeks. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Secretary of State. Yet, as we approach the end of November, none of the documents has come across —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although some of us on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee may be familiar with that issue, is it in order for the Member to try to introduce a debate on his failure to get documents from the Secretary of State, given that the Committee has not yet agreed to that issue being debated in the House? The Member is now moving away, quite dramatically, from the amendments, and he is using this debate as an opportunity to have a completely separate debate on matters that he has failed to achieve a resolution to in Committee. That is wrong, and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, should rule the Member to be out of order.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I remind the Member that he should be addressing amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. One of the issues of concern is that Mr Attwood is raising matters that are part of an ongoing deliberation in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Those are matters for that Committee, and the Member should not be selectively quoting from a deliberation that has not yet concluded.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Those are matters for the Committee to address. We are here to discuss the amendments.

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

I shall certainly comply with that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. However, given that we are debating a piece of primary legislation, it is entirely appropriate to have certainty about matters relating to that, regardless of what the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is discussing in its deliberations. I will come to the reasons why it is important to create such certainty shortly.

Given that there is a level of uncertainty on matters arising from the Committee’s deliberations, which, for the fullest part, are held in public, are reported by Hansard and by the media, and which members of the public and representatives of the British and Irish Governments attend, I think that it is entirely appropriate and consistent with the nature of this debate to refer to, if not rely on, those matters.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Order. I accept that it is in order for the Member to paint a background to an issue that is relevant to the debate.

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

I appreciate that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude my remarks on those matters, so that my colleagues on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee do not have further cause to be anxious.

The fact is that seven, eight or nine months after the Committee began asking for those documents, which it did further to a mandate that was given to it by an Assembly resolution, it is still not in a position to comment on them.

It is entirely appropriate to air that on the Floor of the Assembly. It is because of that background and of the wider need to create political certainty that —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am interested in debating the amendments as they appear on the Marshalled List. The content of the amendments is clear, and in debating them, we will discuss issues of national security, the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the independence of the judiciary, the independence of the Public Prosecution Service, and what will happen on the day that the powers are devolved.

It would be wrong, and be an abuse of our privileges in the House, to debate issues that we are discussing in Committee in confidence. If we do have such a debate, we may as well scrap the Committee. Trying to have such a debate today will do the members of the Committee and the Member no justice whatsoever.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I urge you to turn the Member back to speaking about amendment Nos 1 and 2, which are specific and clear. Those are what we have come to debate.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I have continually asked Mr Attwood to stay on the subject.

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

I have complied consistently with the Deputy Speaker’s rulings. I will not pursue the matter, because, for various reasons, at least one Member is unhappy about me doing so. It is entirely appropriate when the Committee —

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your indulgence. The Member has questioned the ruling that you made just a moment ago. You said that you have repeatedly reminded the Member to stick to the item of business. However, he says that he has been doing that, so he is contradicting you.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

That is for me to decide. I have not picked up what you have.

Once again, I remind Mr Attwood that, although he can paint the background to amendment Nos 1 and 2, he must stay on the subject.

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

Thank you for that ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will comply with that ruling, because I have outlined the background for those Members who were not fully aware of it.

I will address the four issues that amendment No 1 would make the First Minister and the deputy First Minister report on to the Assembly at the point of devolution. As Members can see, amendment No 1 calls for an explanation of concordats and protocols that are being prepared on national security, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the independence of the Public Prosecution Service and the independence of the judiciary.

The matters that are subject to the preparation of concordats and protocols are areas of interface between the devolved and non-devolved aspects of the devolution of justice and between the Assembly and the criminal justice institutions in the North. Therefore, the fact that those concordats are being prepared indicates that they are deemed to be of significance over and above or in parallel to all the other areas of policing and justice that will arise. Those matters are the subject of particular attention and of particular concordats and protocols. For the SDLP, that is a good reason to bring those matters to the Floor at the point of devolution in the form of a report.

In addition to creating certainty on how the matters will be handled, reporting to the Assembly will create confidence, because the protocols address important issues about the character of policing and justice when the powers are devolved. The independence of the Public Prosecution Service and of the judiciary is a fundamental principle. Given that the independence of those bodies is of such importance, and that reporting on the issue can contribute to the creation of certainty and confidence, it should be brought to the Floor of the Assembly for consideration.

I will deal briefly with the four specific areas, starting with the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Recent comments in the media have suggested that one or other members of a political party want to cross the line of the independence of the Police Service, the operational responsibility of the Chief Constable or the operational responsibility of SOCA. In those circum­stances — when people have gone close to a line that is best not crossed — it is important that, when devolution comes, clear lines of demarcation are laid down and understood about the work and role of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. We trust that, although we have not had sight of it yet, that will be the content of the concordat on the Serious Organised Crime Agency, along with any other relevant aspect of its operations in the North after the devolution of justice.

Last week, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee issued a report that looked, in a preliminary way, at the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It is important that we have sight of that protocol to determine whether it is fit for purpose and rigorous enough in the event of the devolution of justice. As an indicator of that, the House of Commons Committee’s report recommended:

“the establishment of some form of police authority for SOCA.”

That gives rise to issues around the accountability of SOCA. Given that SOCA will, in the event of the devolution of justice and policing, be part of the non-devolved side, we want to know the issues of accountability for SOCA and, if appropriate, its responsibility to liaise with a justice Minister and a justice Committee in the future.

Issues of serious and organised crime are of grave concern to the people of Northern Ireland, not only because of ongoing criminality but because of criminal assets from the past. SOCA has a significant role in the North, which has been apparent in recent days. We should have sight of the protocol, and the First Minister and deputy First Minister should give their view on it to the Assembly at the point of devolution, in order to recognise the importance of the agency and to create certainty and confidence in its work in the North. If gaps need to be filled in and issues of concern need to be worked further, consistent with the House of Commons Select Committee’s report last week, those matters should be attended to.

However, first base is to gain knowledge of the document. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister should come to the Floor of the Assembly to give the Assembly and the wider public insight into the work of SOCA in the North and to create confidence in it.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I am not aware of whether there is a document on the SOCA relationship. The Member thinks that there is; he has yet to prove that. In the past, the Member, who is also a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, has sat with me on a panel and met SOCA to discuss important matters. There is a level of accountability that falls within the standards that even the Member accepts are sovereign matters for the United Kingdom Government. Is the Member suggesting that, as well as the Policing Board and the special accountability mechanism that it has with SOCA, we need another board to hold SOCA to account?

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

The Member is absolutely correct. SOCA has at times, including recently, provided briefings to the Policing Board in confidence. As I understand — and as I am sure that Mr Paisley Jnr understands — the relationship between SOCA and the Policing Board may deepen in the future. However, that is not the only place where SOCA has a responsibility to share relevant information with political representatives and other representatives in the North.

The mere fact that the British Government have agreed that there is a need for a concordat and a protocol governing the work of SOCA in the event of the devolution of justice powers is proof that they recognise the need for a relationship between SOCA and the justice Minister. Indeed, in correspondence to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee — without breaching the confidence of that correspondence — the Secretary of State has indicated the terms under which information might be shared with the justice Minister. He has gone even further by saying that it might be for the justice Minister to decide whether any such information is to be shared with the justice Committee.

I disagree with the Member if he is saying that SOCA or some other agency is neither obliged nor required to share information with the justice Minister or even the justice Committee, and I am not alone in that. The Secretary of State has accepted that principle, which suggests that there are good grounds for so doing.

The Member’s final point concerned SOCA’s overall accountability. Again, I refer to what the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee said. Based on the experience of the past 18 months, during which SOCA’s role was broadened, its having taken over the responsibilities of the Assets Recovery Agency here and in Britain, the Home Affairs Committee concluded that the accountability of SOCA is something that should be looked into. It did not go into any great detail but merely established the principle of some form of accountability for the overall work of SOCA, which, it described, would take the form of a police authority.

I tend to agree with that. I will not push that point today, but I am pushing the point that although SOCA has a relationship with the Policing Board and the PSNI, it must also have a relationship with the justice Minister. That is the purpose of amendment No 1, which deals with the content of a proposed protocol’s being drafted by the British Government about what the relationship will be and what will be shared, and how and when it will be shared, with the future justice Minister. All of that is sensible and forms the minimum requirements for democracy to work effectively in the North.

I will now speak about the issues surrounding the independence of the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary. At this stage, we have not had the benefit of seeing what those protocols and concordats might entail. I understand that they may be modelled on similar protocols and concordats that exist for the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales, but we do not know that for certain, because we have not had sight of the documents to date.

I do not deny that there is a need to assert the independence of the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary. The prosecution decisions that the Public Prosecution Service makes and the penalties that the judiciary imposes after prosecution are based on important principles. As I said earlier, there have been indications that one or two Members see a blurring of the lines around some of those issues. The SDLP does not, and just as we accept the operational responsibility of the Chief Constable on policing matters, we accept that it is the responsibility of the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary to make prosecution decisions and impose sentences. Nobody should doubt any of that.

It is important to see those documents in order to confirm the precise nature of what is being proposed for the protocols that govern the independence of the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary. It is important to ensure that those protocols do not create an imbalance between the appropriate input of a legislature and others into the work of the Public Prosecution Service and the business of the judiciary.

I will give two brief examples of that. The SDLP believes that it is not inconsistent with the independence of the judiciary for Northern Ireland to have, as is the case in England, a sentencing guidelines council, whereby appropriately qualified people examine sentencing guidelines and give their views. The SDLP is anxious to ensure that, consistent with a protocol — as outlined in amendment No 1 — for the independence of the judiciary, any future wish of the Assembly to have appropriate input into the thinking of the judiciary by way of, for example, an appropriately established and representative sentencing guidelines council is not foreclosed or frustrated.

Without rehearsing any particular public prosecutions, we are all aware of some high-profile instances, even a pattern of instances, where issues have been raised about how the Public Prosecution Service has reached decisions on prosecutions and on the withdrawal or reduction of charges.

We are anxious to ensure that, consistent with a protocol governing the independence of the service, which we have yet to see, the Assembly, the Minister or the Committee are not foreclosed from having appropriate input into the governance and management of the Public Prosecution Service and on relevant issues of public concern. Amendment No 1 would help to ensure that. It would enable the Assembly to know the principles behind the independence of the prosecution service and to consider how it would progress a prosecution policy or strategy. We do not believe that the amendment is a threat to anybody. It is a mechanism to protect the public good and to fulfil our political obligation with respect to the public interest.

The fourth element of amendment No 1 relates to the protocol governing national security. I anticipate some interventions from colleagues on the other side of the Chamber. Members are fully aware of the issues that the SDLP has raised around national security being handed to MI5 and the relevant safeguards and protections. As with the other concordats and protocols, it is important that we know what that protocol will say, how it will be managed, how it will operate and what the appropriate role for a justice Minister will be.

Whatever our view on MI5 and national security, there have been recent cases in the North where the role of MI5 has raised concern. For example, senior police officers from the RUC have said that strategic intelligence direction in the years of the conflict was set by Whitehall and MI5, not by the RUC. We do not know the truth of that, but it indicates that MI5’s historical influence in the North and the question of whether it set overall strategic intelligence requirements need to be considered.

The recent prosecution of an individual in north Belfast, who is alleged to have been involved in a number of murders, has brought to light details about payments made in respect of that individual that, although approved by the police, were issued by MI5. The ongoing House of Commons investigation into the Omagh bombing has highlighted questions around how intelligence was managed and shared at critical times. The recent conduct of MI5 in the North has given rise to public concern and debate. In the SDLP’s view, those concerns have proven to be substantial.

The way in which the interface between the justice Minister and the national security agency is managed will be critical.

Amendment No 1 does not suggest that the Assembly, the Committee, the Policing Board or a justice Minister can cross lines in respect of national security and the primacy of national security intelligence. Amendment No 1 says that the protocols and concordats, which I and others have yet to see, will, presumably, define and manage the relationship between the Security Service and a justice Minister as regards what will be shared, how it will be shared and when it will be shared. It is an attempt to create certainty around that relationship without prejudicing the SDLP’s concerns about how primacy for national security has passed to MI5 and about annex E of the St Andrews Agreement.

As I said at the commencement of my speech, the amendments are an attempt to reframe the debate on the devolution of justice and move it beyond where it has been in recent times. We would have liked the Assembly and the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to have explored and probed many other issues, and the amendments are of a minimum nature. In amendment No 1, we are, essentially, stating that it would be timely, appropriate, necessary and balanced for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to report on certain matters at the point of devolution of justice and policing, when a Minister is in place, given all the turbulence, toing and froing and difficulties that there have been in past, and more recent, negotiations regarding the nature and timing of the devolution of justice.

Amendment No 2 suggests that the First Minister and deputy First Minister should report on the nature of the arrangements that will be in place to continue the North/South justice agreement in respect of matters that fall under the competence of Dublin and Belfast. The First Minister and deputy First Minister should report on how the protocols and concordats, the preparation of which indicates their importance, will affect national security, SOCA and the independence of the judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member argues that he wants those statements to be made at the point of devolution of policing and justice, but the amendments refer to the commencement of the Act. The Act in itself will not bring about the devolution of policing and justice. It will simply create the Department of justice and put in place the necessary measures for the appointment of a Minister of justice. What guarantee is there that the concordats will be in place on the commencement of the Act and that we will get the reports that the Member seeks?

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

I anticipated that someone would raise that matter sooner or later. The wording of the amendments could have been a little bit more precise, but they have, nonetheless, been deemed competent by the relevant authorities. We are quite clear that there should be a report to the Assembly at the time that a Minister is appointed and a Department is created, which sections 1 and 2 of the Act will legislate for.

The protocols and concordats have long been ready. In the run-up to May 2008, officials advised the relevant Assembly Committee that the British Government would be in a position to devolve justice and policing by May 2008. I suggest to the Member that if, in the run-up to May 2008, British Government officials were saying that the British Government were ready for the devolution of justice and policing, it follows that they would also have been in a position to confirm the nature of the various protocols and concordats at that time. It is regrettable that, 18 months later, the Assembly and its relevant Committee is still not aware of the nature of those protocols and concordats. It is quite clear that matters on the British side are all but concluded if, indeed, not concluded already.

That is my final point. The Committee has had discussions about all those matters, but we have not been able to move the issue over the line. I trust that the Committee will conclude and attend to the matters in question, subject to the British Government’s input to and participation in sharing them. Independent of that, however, the issues have their own relevance, authority and standing. At the point of the creation of the Ministry and the appointment of the Minister, it seems entirely appropriate and reasonable, but not threatening, to ask all Members and parties to endorse the provisions that amendment Nos 1 and 2 propose. Therefore, amendment Nos 1 and 2 should be endorsed.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the Further Consideration Stage debate of the Department of Justice Bill. This is an important issue, and, therefore, I welcome this Stage. I intend to keep my remarks brief, owing to the fact that the Bill has been debated previously at great length. I am satisfied with its current content. However, I state my opposition to both amendments.

Amendment No 1 notes the duty on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to report on certain matters both orally and in writing. The amendment is uncalled for and most unnecessary, because it would double the mechanisms that are in place already in the form of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and the Executive. Mr Attwood and his colleagues will know that Westminster and the Executive have agreed that a number of documents need agreement in areas such as the Public Prosecution Service, the independence of the judiciary, and the interface between the devolved policing responsibilities and national security. That process has commenced already, and the Assembly and Executive Review Committee has been involved in requesting that information from the Secretary of State.

Ultimately, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee will be best placed to consider and judge the implications that the provisions of protocols and concordats will have on all those areas. I oppose the amendment simply because the proposed mechanism exists already in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee for Assembly scrutiny and for the preparation of those documents. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has requested the relevant information already.

Likewise, I oppose amendment No 2. It covers an issue that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee considered previously. In fact, a report that was published in March 2008 recommended that the Northern Ireland Office and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister should take forward work to ensure that the current agreements will remain in place at the point of devolution and that they should be reviewed by the Department and the Statutory Committee.

Members will be aware that there are a number of agreements dealing with crime between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána. For example, such an agreement was demonstrated at the weekend following the attempt on the life of the officer in Fermanagh.

Additionally, I welcome east-west arrangements between the jurisdictions in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, particularly those that deal with the exchange of information about sex offenders. That is a very important agreement.

I accept that the agreement on criminal justice co-operation between the Northern Ireland Office and the Irish Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will ultimately need to be amended. However, it is clear that those relationships will remain unaffected in the interim. Indeed, the approach to cross-border criminal justice co-operation will very much be an issue for the new justice Minister when devolution occurs.

In conclusion, the Members who tabled the amendments will know that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have been, and continue to be, very vocal. In fact, they attended the Assembly and Executive Review Committee twice to answer questions, and they briefed the House in detail more than once. This issue will not be, and has not been, a closed book, and Members well know that. I believe that both the First Minister and deputy First Minister have no problem with reporting on certain matters. Therefore, both amendments are unnecessary because the mechanisms that they propose to introduce are in place already.

There has been a great deal of scrutiny of this process already, and, should devolution happen, there will be much more at every stage. Furthermore, the Minister’s appointment will be discussed on the Floor of the House, and the Minister will be answerable to the House. I support the Bill and oppose amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I oppose both amendments, and I commend the Bill as tabled. I do not intend to engage in the sham debate that the Member’s amendments have triggered, because, no later than a week ago, we had a lengthy debate on the matter, and I am not sure how much we were illuminated by it. That time could have been usefully spent doing many other things. However, individuals and parties felt that it was more important to grandstand and score political points in order, perhaps, to make themselves more relevant than they would otherwise be. I say that advisedly, because —

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Not at the moment. Given that Standing Orders have been suspended, the Member will have plenty of hours in which to make her points.

The Bill has been subjected to substantial and ongoing debate on the airwaves, in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and, not least, in the Chamber. Although the matters that are referred to in the amendments are important in their own right, it is interesting that the proposer has acknowledged a number of them. In the Member’s terminology, he trusts that the appropriate concordats will be arrived at and tabled. In fact, he understands that a lot of that process is already well under way. For example, referring to amendment No 2, he said that he has no doubt and has been assured that provisions will be made to ensure that there will be no gap between the current situation and what will be in place when powers are transferred.

The Member accepts, and he has been given assurances in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and elsewhere, that provisions will be in place at the appropriate time. Nevertheless, just to make sure, next week there will be a further debate on the justice sector. That is fine; however, to make extra sure that there is yet another opportunity to raise the subject, the Member’s colleague Mr Durkan has tabled question 12 for oral answer this afternoon. We have had and will have plenty of opportunities in the House and elsewhere to raise those issues.

To some extent, every matter in the amendments is important. Commentators have made great play of operational independence, and we have said repeatedly that the devolution of policing and justice powers into the hands of locally elected representatives will be underpinned by two important pillars: on the one hand, accountability, and how that is defined and, on the other, the appropriate operational independence of every aspect of the criminal justice system, whether in respect of the PSNI, the judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service. The transfer of powers will be underpinned by these very necessary components: accountability and necessary and appropriate operational independence.

Of course, from time to time, we will all disagree about one or two issues and definitions. For example, the Member’s party colleagues on the Policing Board argued that the deployment of Tasers is not an operational issue. I share that view, and Sinn Féin made the same argument. Nevertheless, there was public debate within the Policing Board. Some members disputed whether their deployment was a policy issue and others said that it was an operational decision for the Chief Constable. Those of us, including the SDLP, who argued that the deployment of Tasers was a policy matter, and a very important one at that, lost the argument, so their deployment is now an operationally independent decision for the PSNI. Of course, the PSNI’s role in the matter will, appropriately, be held to account by the Policing Board, and I expect it to do that robustly. We know that a number of weapons and Tasers have been fired, and such incidents will be dealt with in due course by the Policing Board working within its statutory remit.

The Bill is enabling legislation, and none of the amendments that were proposed today will accelerate the discussions that are under way among both Governments, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, OFMDFM, the DUP, Sinn Féin and others. None of the amendments is necessary to provide the enabling legislation. The amendments do not impact on that one iota nor will they accelerate the ongoing discussions and deliberations, which may or may not be regrettable. The Member who proposed the amendments acknowledged that a range discussions about the matters that are referred to in both amendments are under way already and that they will all be in place. Therefore, I fail to see why the amendments are needed, when the Member who proposed them said that he understands that those things will happen but wants to know the precise detail.

At least one of the examples that the Member referred to when talking about amendment No 2 is flawed. The Member said that we need to have discussion or some clarity on a sentencing framework. The Members who want to see the transfer of powers and, I suspect, a lot of people in the community, want to debate the type of sentencing framework that is considered appropriate for repeat offenders or particular types of crime. However, we do not want those matters to be dealt with by way of a joint statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, both of whom I respect highly. We want to have such debates in the context of the transfer of powers having been delivered to a Department that is held by a Minister who will be held to account by a justice Committee. It is appropriate that that is where considered and informed debates will be had on all important wider criminal justice issues. Therefore, for someone to argue that we need all this to happen but then to say that we want a tablet of stone to be handed down by the First Minister and deputy First Minister is fundamentally flawed. That is one reason why we will reject that particular amendment.

The Member who proposed the amendments started off by saying that he wanted to paint a particular backdrop, and he went the long way round the houses to do so, making a number of totally disconnected political observations and platform pieces away from the particular amendments and repeating and rehearsing some of the arguments that he made elsewhere and continues to try to bring into this debate. Today, we want to focus on the processing and progress of the legislation, which will be a very important piece of enabling legislation. The amendments add absolutely nothing to it. Most of the matters referred to by the Member are for wider political debate in the longer term; they are certainly beyond the establishment of the Department, which is the point at which more considered and informed debate can be had.

About an hour ago, various Members commented on the weekend’s events. For Sinn Féin and me, that is the important backdrop, which is why I do not intend to grace this debate any further. The important backdrop is that the Member’s party colleague, outgoing leader Mark Durkan, made the point in his commentary that we want to see, sooner rather than later, “our own justice Minister” in place so that we can send a clear message to the rejectionists. The real and only important backdrop this afternoon is the fact that Members addressed the issues of the weekend, and those issues are on two fronts.

First, a number of people in the TUV and, unfortunately, in other parties are rejectionists. I have heard some of them referred to as cavemen. Certainly, those people are rejectionist and want the institutions to collapse around our feet.

On the other hand, there are people who are almost the mirror image. They want the institutions, which people voted for in big numbers, to collapse around us, and they want to bring us back to a position, to which, as my colleague Michelle Gildernew said, people do not want to return. The Member who proposed the amendments said that it is important to send out a message about having a justice Minister in place. However, he and his party leader have come here and, in gilded words, at every opportunity —

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

Order: you are well off the subject.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I am taking a certain similar latitude —

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

I have given you a lot of latitude.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I am concluding. Thank you for your guidance and direction, Mr Deputy Speaker. The tabling of the amendments, when joined with the comments that the SDLP leader made less than a hour ago, show that the SDLP is telling the people that it is not serious about delivering on what it says that it wants to see delivered: a justice Bill, and a Department of justice that will be in the hands of locally elected people. The SDLP’s behaviour in this matter is nothing short of disgraceful; it is completely and utterly against any notion of the provision of political leadership.

Yet again, the public will hear an attempt by a party to introduce spurious arguments to make itself sound relevant or concerned about some of these matters. It is disgraceful that there is a likelihood that, once again, we will be treated to hearing people say that we need to get the job done and that we need to send out a clear message. However, what do they want to do here? They want to twiddle their thumbs, and they want everyone else to do likewise. To do so against a backdrop of rejectionism is shameful. The SDLP simply wants to have another six or seven-hour debate.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I declare an interest as a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. I pay tribute to Alex Attwood, who has managed to get on his soapbox, again. I hope that today’s debate will not be another 12-hour marathon, because I think that we did fairly well when the Bill received its Consideration Stage. I will attempt to keep my contribution short.

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is, as colleagues said, still discussing these matters. Therefore, to use a cockney expression, it is somewhat previous to be discussing them here. However, it is an opportunity for parties to set out their position on the issues. These are important issues. There are a number of protocols and memorandums of understanding between various agencies and the Policing Board. I think that the Policing Board works fairly well; I was on it for five years, and it seems to be working for my colleagues who are on it now. Some form of interaction between a future justice Minister, the justice Committee and such agencies is needed. It is understood that those are ready and have been available for some time: it is a pity that they have not been shared with the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, because the issue would probably be progressed if they were made available to the Committee. Hopefully, they will be shared in due course.

It is worth recalling that national security sits with our national Parliament at Westminster. It is a national issue; it will not come here, but there can be some links. I know that the SDLP and Sinn Féin want to get their hands on it, but they will not, because it is a national issue. SOCA has been left in the same area. However, that organisation is slightly different, because part of its remit relates to organised crime, which affects Northern Ireland, and part of it relates to the legacy of terrorism, which does not. SOCA is a more hybrid animal than the Security Service. However, there needs to be some links between them.

Last week, I was particularly dismayed by the reaction to SOCA’s legitimate actions in south Armagh. It is worrying when members of Sinn Féin are straight out of the traps to say how dreadful and appalling it is that the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which we tasked with dealing with such issues, does its job. The immediate reaction of Sinn Féin was wailing and gnashing of teeth about SOCA interfering with someone who, I think, was a senior member of the Provisional IRA. That does not bode well for the future; the only saving grace is that security remains a national issue, which prevents Sinn Féin from getting its hands on it.

The independence of the judiciary and the PPS are also key issues, and we politicians must not be allowed to interfere with the operational remit of the judiciary or with the Public Prosecution Service. However, it is perfectly valid for the Assembly, the future justice Minister and the Committee to be interested in broad justice policy, because such policy will eventually pass through the House.

It is also legitimate for the Assembly to be interested in those areas, because when policing and justice powers are eventually devolved, justice will be paid for from the Budget that is voted for in the House. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate for us to have an interest in how that money will be spent and how justice will be administered.

Such administration will, however, require protocols. The policing protocols are in place at the moment, but protocols dealing with the links between the justice agencies and the Assembly are also required. The nature of those protocols has still not been decided by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and if policing and justice powers are to be devolved in any reasonable time, someone at some stage in the DUP and Sinn Féin — the parties that are leading on the issue — must turn their mind to those issues.

I will talk briefly about amendment No 2. It is a fact, as has been said already during today’s debate, that the Agreement on Co-operation on Criminal Justice Matters between Britain and Ireland is to be renewed and will remain in place. It is also a fact that policing agreements between the Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are, and will remain, in place. The SDLP is terribly keen for justice powers to be put into a cross-border body, but, because the current system works perfectly well, the Ulster Unionist Party does not believe that that is necessary. It will not support any extension of “North/Southery”.

I said that I would keep my contribution short, and I will. The Ulster Unionist Party is minded to support amendment No 1, because it might be quite useful for things to be explained in more detail when policing and justice powers are devolved. However, it will not support amendment No 2.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Like others, the Alliance Party is somewhat confused and bewildered as to why another detailed debate is taking place on the Department of Justice Bill; neither is the party sure how the debate will advance the devolution of policing and justice powers. At best, the debate will be neutral to the process, but it could further undermine the process by creating more barriers and issues and by elevating them to an unnecessary degree of controversy.

At its heart, this debate is about the battle in nationalism. It is also an attempt by the SDLP to tell Sinn Féin that it has come up short in delivering an ideal approach to the devolution of policing and justice and that certain issues have not been resolved to its satisfaction.

Such issues include how quickly the devolution of policing and justice occurs. We must deal with the practicalities of compromise and of trying to find agreement between parties, and in doing so we must also recognise the political and legal environment in which we operate. We are a regional Assembly and part of a wider national framework, and it is perfectly logical that responsibility for criminal justice and enforcement issues is handled at different tiers of Government. That is the situation elsewhere in the world.

The SDLP’s amendments raise important practicalities, and I agree with Alex Maskey in that respect. They are issues where understandings have to be reached. However, I make the point that other Members have made: a process has already been established for airing the issues through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and, in due course, there will have to be procedures for trying to agree on the contents of those documents.

Indeed, I suggest that there will be a range of ways in which final conclusions will be drawn, given that each of the protocols that have been suggested by the SDLP is of a different nature and involves different criminal justice agencies. It will also require agreements to be found between different levels of government, whether that is between the Assembly and our national Government or between the Assembly and other Northern Ireland institutions. We are talking about a range of different types of agreements, the timing of which is still to be determined.

The list set out in amendment No 1 is far from being inclusive of all the issues of that nature that need to be discussed. I am not sure about the logic of pulling out four of those issues at the expense of others. For example, there is the clear issue, to which Mr McFarland referred, about the way in which a statutory justice Committee of the Assembly would relate to the Policing Board and how questions relating to operational issues of the criminal justice agencies, most notably the Police Service, will be handled in the Assembly. Those, in themselves, are important issues.

The amendments do not alter the actual facts relating to those documents one bit. They simply call for a statement to be made in writing and orally by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on the commencement of the Act, and I stress that it says “the Act”. During his comments, Mr Attwood referred to that happening at the point of the devolution of policing and justice, but he corrected himself to clarify that it was at the point of commencement of the Act. Although I appreciate his party’s desire to see that happen as early as possible, we need to be aware of some of the pitfalls.

First, the timing of the commencement of the Act may not be entirely within our hands. We hope to have the Final Stage next week and, hopefully, that debate will be as brief as this one. However, the commencement of the Act and Royal Assent are out of our hands. It is likely that commencement might happen outside the sittings of the Assembly. It may happen during recess, and that would create a needless issue of timing where no sense of urgency would be required whatsoever. We could find ourselves creating a legal hoop to jump through, such as a formal obligation on the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to do something that would not be necessary.

Secondly, although I appreciate Mr Attwood’s point that the documents may be finished, I stress that it is more important that we look at those documents as drafts. Nothing is ever finished until it is formally finished, agreed and set in stone. Although the principles as to how different agencies and different tiers of government should relate to one another may be clear, there may be scope for revision of the subtle details right up to the point at which they are finally agreed, in particular details that relate to matters of national security and organised crime. As we are well aware, circumstances can change dramatically. It is important that we give ourselves that flexibility and respect the fact that there may be the need for some flexibility.

It is important to put what we are talking about into context and to de-dramatise its importance. There are, essentially, two levels where decisions on policy and operations are to be taken. First, there is the issue of the powers and responsibilities that are to be devolved to the Assembly, and that has been dealt with already through the recommendations of the first report of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and, subsequently, through Westminster legislation. That is a closed debate. Although individual Members may not be completely happy with the exact outworking of that, it is not a debate that we want to reopen.

The second issue relates to the policies and programme that would be pursued by any Minister, Department and, indeed, the Executive with the support of the Assembly. That is the detail that flows at the point of devolution, preferably through an addendum to the Programme for Government, and the decisions will happen afterwards. Some of the issues that have been outlined in the amendments would, perhaps, be better addressed in that context, particularly some of the policy matters that have been mentioned, such as the establishment of a sentencing guidelines council, which is a model that has been tested elsewhere in these islands. It is at that point that those kinds of decisions can be made.

I will make a couple of points about the issues regarding operational independence. We in the Assembly need to be very careful about throwing brickbats on that issue at one another. There has been a lot of abuse relating to that from all quarters. Notably, Mr McFarland raised the issue of comments about SOCA that were made by a Sinn Féin Member. I concur with the importance of respecting the operational independence of all the agencies that we are talking about, but that works both ways. It is important that Members from the Ulster Unionist Party and other parties reflect on comments that they have made in the past. In particular, given that it was an Ulster Unionist Party Member who raised the issue, members of that party have made comments criticising the police on operational grounds for engaging in particular raids on people’s homes when it did not suit their political agenda. They have also made comments in respect of the way in which particular parades have been policed or not policed in their eyes. If we are to talk about operational independence, let us respect that and do it consistently, rather than pointing the finger at one party while ignoring the massive inconsistencies of one’s own position.

We on these Benches do not intend to prolong today’s debate for too long. We respect that the matter is a work in progress. Although a lot of work may have been done already, it is important that that work continues. It is also important to respect the fact that there is a Committee in place. I say that as a member of a party that, ironically, does not have any representation on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, but it is a process that has worked until this stage, and we wish it well in its further important deliberations. We would like to see speedy conclusions from the Committee in the weeks to come.

It is important that we move ahead with the practical issues of addressing the devolution of policing and justice. It is not because people out there are demanding that it is dealt with as a number one issue, but because, quite frankly, the issue is poisoning the atmosphere in this Chamber and between parties, and the sooner we address that issue, along with the other issues that are causing political deadlock, the better it will be for the credibility of this institution and for the people of Northern Ireland.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. I declare an interest as the Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I am not speaking as Chairperson of the Committee today.

In relation to amendment No 1, it has always been, in my view, the intention of the Government to agree protocols and memoranda of understanding in advance of devolution. Those documents refer to judicial independence and the independence of the prosecution service and have been in the public domain for some time; since the report of the Transitional Assembly, in fact. As Members are aware, issues of national security will and should remain with the UK Government and will not be a devolved matter. I am not aware that there is, as yet, a document on SOCA.

Mr Attwood has been talking about boards to look after SOCA, and the other day he was proposing a board similar to the Policing Board to look after the Public Prosecution Service. All of a sudden he is proposing two boards. The Policing Board costs around £8 million a year. I do not know where the money will come from for the boards that Mr Attwood and the SDLP are proposing in relation to justice. It is just not possible; it cannot be possible, and, instead of us calling for unnecessary quangos to be appointed to deal with those issues, that sort of money should, first and foremost, be spent on front line policing.

As the First Minister has said on a number of occasions, it should be the will of all parties in the Assembly that decisions on prosecutions and the role of the judiciary should always remain free from political interference. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is awaiting draft documents from the Secretary of State on those matters, and it is, ultimately, his decision when to provide the documents. The Secretary of State, during his oral evidence to the Committee, said that he would share the protocols and memoranda with the Committee in due course. That is a matter of public record. Since then, he has said a number of times that he will do that. I am sure that the Committee will have the chance to scrutinise those documents, and it will then send its views to the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

I oppose amendment No 1, because it would, effectively, create a situation where the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and OFMDFM would be duplicated. The First and deputy First Minister have indicated clearly the process, and the Assembly and Executive Review Committee will play its role. As other Members said, there is no need for unnecessary duplication.

With reference to amendment No 2, Members will be aware that co-operation agreements already exist between the gardaí and the PSNI. As someone who served in the Police Service for 30 years, I know that there have always been agreements and co-operation between the gardaí and the RUC and now between the gardaí and the PSNI. Thankfully, co-operation takes place with European police services and with police services worldwide. As the demands of policing change, those protocols change; the process is always evolving. Such co-operation has been demonstrated in many areas in the past, and, thankfully, the devolution of policing and justice to Northern Ireland, when it eventually happens, will not change that.

There are also agreements between the gardaí and the PSNI as a result of the agreements by the devolved Assemblies of the United Kingdom on issues to do with sex offenders. I have no doubt that those agreements will continue. I understand that any such agreements would not be affected by devolution or by the amendments. Formal agreement between the Secretary of State and the Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform already takes place on criminal justice co-operation matters, and that arrangement has existed for years.

Much debate has taken place in the House and other places about the amendments. Unlike other Members, I do not intend to dwell on the amendments for too long, because they are totally unnecessary. Let us get on with enacting the Bill. The DUP opposes amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board and an unrepentant republican member at that. I oppose both amendments. The events of the weekend strengthen the determination of everyone to ensure that the political process, through which this debate is taking place, is strengthened and defended.

Although the process is not perfect and, at times, has difficulties, against the backdrop of the debate it is incumbent on all Members to unite in order to ensure that politics work and that we make a very good contribution to try to set aside old differences in an ongoing process to build peace, stability, justice and equality on this island.

The Further Consideration Stage of the Bill today and the consequences of the two amendments before us, show that the process is moving ahead, even though there are difficulties along the way, and that we are on our way to delivering policing and justice into the hands of locally elected politicians. That is what the vast majority of people out there want, and soon.

Key stages in the transfer process have already been implemented. Those include the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s report, and legislation passing through the Executive to the Assembly. The SDLP has been party to all that, so I do not believe that the amendments are truly about scrutiny. Nor are they about enhancing North/South co-operation. Sinn Féin approaches all the challenges that face us with a can-do attitude, as do other parties in trying to ensure that we are all depicted as problem solvers. By contrast, the amendments show the SDLP’s continuing doom-and-gloom politics.

It is not necessary to rehearse everything that Members have said about amendment No 1, other than to say that I agree with some of it. The SDLP’s latest attempt to hijack the Bill, in the shape of amendment No 1, is yet another pointless intervention. As I have said in previous debates, there is ample opportunity for the Assembly to scrutinise all aspects of the transfer of policing and justice. The resolution requesting transfer powers will be debated and will require cross-community support. The determination of the ministerial offices will be brought to the Chamber, and the new justice Minister will be elected by the Assembly with cross-community support.

Amendment No 1 refers to provisions of protocols and concordats. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the appropriate arena in which to scrutinise those documents, and we have heard from the Chairperson of that Committee. The SDLP and others are well aware that the mechanism for that is in place. The SDLP is equally aware that earlier drafts of the document about judicial independence and the independence of the Public Prosecution Service are already in the public domain, and the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is actively pursuing the other documents to which amendment No 1 refers.

The SDLP and other Committee members will have an opportunity to examine and scrutinise those documents when they are received. Unfortunately, the SDLP seems determined to ignore political reality, about which we heard a lot in last week’s debate, and would rather table redundant amendments than become truly involved in the process and give the sort of leadership that the people expect from all political parties across the Chamber and especially from their leaders, even if they are soon to be made redundant.

With regard to amendment No 2, all of us recognise the importance of North/South co-operation in policing. Indeed, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, of which I am a member, was updated recently on the latest measures to intensify co-operation on child protection. As a Policing Board member, I am very aware of the arrangements between the PSNI and the gardaí, which result in intense co-operation on a range of issues — for example, the pursuit of drug dealers. I am confident that the current arrangements between the Irish Justice Department and the NIO will, no doubt, be considered by an Assembly justice Minister and a scrutiny Committee when transfer happens.

Therefore, the reports sought and proposed in the amendments will, as I understand, be available before transfer, which has been, I believe, mentioned earlier, given that I doubt the commencement Order would take effect immediately on the day that it is made.

I understand that the proposer of the amendment said that the wording of the amendments could, perhaps, have been sharper and more precise. That said, the Assembly must deal with the amendments that are before it. It would be somewhat premature to endorse them, and I urge the House not to do so.

The matters of concern that the SDLP has raised in its amendments were dealt with by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee in March 2008, when it recommended that OFMDFM and NIO should work to ensure that the current arrangements remain and that those arrangements should be reviewed by the Minister of justice and the statutory Committee following transfer. That was over a year and a half ago.

Therefore, the requirement for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to report orally and in writing to the Assembly on the day of the commencement of the Act is not only an unrealistic time frame, as was mentioned earlier, but would predetermine the work of the new justice Minister. Examining the effectiveness of existing arrangements and identifying new avenues for North/South co-operation will be important aspects of the justice Minister’s work under the scrutiny of the Assembly, the Executive and the Committee that is established. Any attempt to predetermine that work on the day of commencement would be an unnecessary exercise. The current arrangements and practices are welcome and need to be expanded and built upon.

I look forward to the day when there is one policing and justice system on the island of Ireland. If it were left to the SDLP, that day would never come. Thankfully, the people of Ireland do not have to depend on the SDLP to negotiate that outcome. However, I will not dwell on that too much.

There is no prospect of the transfer of policing and justice adversely impacting on the arrangements that are in place; in fact, it is likely only to build on them. A locally accountable Department can build a system that is best suited to the needs of local people, whom it will be established to serve. Therefore, amendment No 2, in common with amendment No 1, is redundant.

No matter how much the SDLP tries to frustrate the process, the transfer of policing and justice powers away from London and into the hands of locally elected politicians is what people want. People demand a justice system that delivers. All Members know many people who are absolutely disgusted and fed up with the revolving-door justice system, which allows criminals back onto the streets just hours after they have been arrested.

The process is moving ahead, despite events at the weekend and the doom and gloom merchants both inside and outside the Chamber. Most Members in the Chamber have given society hope. We have raised people’s confidence in the Assembly’s ability to govern, lead and play a constructive and meaningful role in building the justice system and the society that they want.

Let us give leadership, look forward and work over the heads of those who seek to frustrate the progress of change. Let us reject those redundant amendments.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Here we are again: debating the Department of Justice Bill. It reminds me of ‘Groundhog Day’, in which Bill Murray’s character wakes up to the alarm going off and the same music playing day after day.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

It is good music.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I agree; I do not mind listening to it. I used to listen to it fairly regularly. However, I do not want to hear it at 6.00 am every day.

It is vital that we state clearly that the amendments are unnecessary. Although we accept the democratic process and the need for views to be expressed, we wonder why, exactly, amendment Nos 1 and 2 are before the House.

The Bill is intended to set up a Department of justice to ensure that, when the Assembly makes a decision to appoint a Minister and set up a Department, that will take place without undue and avoidable delay. The amendments do not embrace or enhance the Bill in any respect. They do not tighten security. They do not provide any new controls. They simply address issues that have already been addressed and, I must say, waste the Assembly’s time and resources in the process. I oppose amendment Nos 1 and 2 entirely. Due to their nature, they have been grouped. I will, therefore, address them together.

The proposals would mean that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, acting jointly, would be required to report, orally and in writing, to the Assembly on the day of the commencement of sections 1 and 2 of the Act, explaining the provisions of protocols and concordats and effectively publishing those documents. The day of commencement will be the operational date for relevant provisions, as specified in the com­mencement Order by OFMDFM.

The first issue is that the amendment, if successful, would limit the timing of the commencement to the day of an Assembly sitting; either that or it would put the taxpayer to additional expense by necessitating the calling of a special sitting. That would not be an issue if the amendments were to bring about something beneficial to the whole of the Province and justify the expense, but that is not the case. They do not provide any extra report or mechanism for release of information pertinent to the Assembly which is not already in place. It has been known for several years that the UK Government intend to conclude concordats, protocols and memoranda of understanding with OFMDFM, on behalf of the Executive, in advance of devolution. Early drafts of the documents on judicial independence and the independence of the Public Prosecution Service have been in the public domain since the report of the Transitional Assembly in 2008. Therefore, the procedure is already in place for those who take the time to find it.

Other Members have mentioned national security. Once again, I emphasise that that is not and never can be a devolved matter. We rely on the Secretary of State to provide us with the information needed for the Province on such issues.

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has been seeking from the Secretary of State drafts of protocols and concordats. Although those have not yet been provided, I understand that that they are on their way. I have every confidence in the ability of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to secure the information needed and to process that within the current procedural controls in a report submitted to the Assembly and subsequently debated. Therefore, I see no need for further legislation.

The second amendment is familiar to members of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. They have already debated it, and the proposal was voted on, bringing the issue to a democratic conclusion. A report was made in March 2008 recommending that the Northern Ireland Office and OFMDFM should ensure that current agreements remain in place at the point of devolution and that those agreements should be reviewed by the Department of justice and the statutory Committee after devolution.

Let me be clear: there are already in place agreements to ensure that cross-border co-operation on matters such as sex offenders and co-operation between the PSNI and the Garda Síochána carry on through the transition and the establishment of the new justice Department, when it is decided that the time is right for that to take place. Anything said to the contrary is scaremongering. There will be no free-for-all allowing sex offenders to get across the border without the gardaí informing the PSNI and vice versa. Things will remain as per the status quo and with the protocol in place.

There is agreement between the Northern Ireland Office and the Irish Justice Department that agreements should remain in place until the justice Minister begins a review of them. They are working out a way to ensure that this continues until the Minister of justice is in place and able to carry out his review. That review will be an intrinsic and vital part of the role of the Department of justice and the justice Committee, and I do not believe that the Assembly needs to undertake it now. It will be brought before the justice Committee and debated across this Floor at each stage, through the mechanisms already in place. That process offers sufficient security, and there is no need to implement a costly and unnecessary review. The Northern Ireland Office will conclude its discussions with the Irish Justice Department and enable the justice Minister and the Committee to do their jobs and ensure that all concerns and questions are addressed.

The report proposed in the amendment, at this pre-devolution stage, would effectively be a historical document, or else it would pre-empt the new Minister’s consideration of how to approach cross-border criminal justice co-operation. Neither would justify the expense.

It seems clear that the amendments do nothing to aid or protect. They are unhelpful and create division. As Stephen Farry mentioned, it is time to move on and to get the work done that we were elected to do. I agree with that. In a democracy, we must ensure that all voices are heard, and that is why it is important that those who have other ideas and opinions are heard on the Floor of the Chamber.

We heard those voices today: we heard from the SDLP, and perhaps we will also hear from other parties. However, what the SDLP seeks is unnecessary, and its amendments are unhelpful. I reject amendment Nos 1 and 2 and support the Bill as it stands.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I support amendment Nos 1 and 2.

I remind Members that, in a legislature, it is entirely legitimate and, indeed, proper for Members and parties to ensure that there is due scrutiny and consideration of its legislative process. If issues are being discussed and channelled in various forums such as Committees and in exchanges and conversations between Committees and others, that does not delegitimise the right and propriety of legislation’s addressing the issues.

I totally reject the suggestion that anyone is trying to delay or frustrate anything by tabling the amendments. Martina Anderson and others suggested that the amendments frustrate the Bill. The amendments will ensure that, when justice and policing powers are devolved — no party wants those powers devolved more quickly than the SDLP — we will know that we have properly concluded all the business and that there are firm, clear and secure understandings in place. That is what the amendments are about.

Many Members have spoken outside the Chamber about the need to ensure that there is public confidence before the devolution of justice and policing can take place, and they have placed great emphasis on that. However, some of us want the public to have confidence in the House so that, when devolution takes place, the public will know that we, as a legislature and as a Chamber of accountability, will conduct due and proper oversight of those matters.

A good way to show that would be for the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in response to the debate, to tell us that they intend to make a statement to the Assembly on the points that are outlined in amendment Nos 1 and 2 on the day of the commencement of the Act or on the first day of devolution. If that were to be the case, these are probing amendments.

It is important for public confidence that there be that act of transparency and accountability in the Chamber at the start of devolution. A good starting standard would be for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to set out for the record the types of concordats and protocols that we know are being prepared and are subject to discussions, and which the Assembly and Executive Review Committee have been seeking.

We all assume and hope that those protocols and concordats will be fully in place. However, it would be appropriate for those to be stated in the House as a matter of record. All that we are asking for is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister report orally and in writing to the Assembly, as they already do for meetings of the British-Irish Council and the North/South Ministerial Council. That is not a huge ask, given that the First Minister and deputy First Minister already make many statements orally and in writing to the House.

It is not big ask to require the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make a statement to the Assembly on the commencement of the two key sections of the Act or on the first day of devolution that covers the points that are set out in amendment Nos 1 and 2. That does not create a barrier. How can Members accuse the SDLP of trying to raise difficult and contentious issues when they then say that those issues are relatively straightforward and will be taken care of anyway? Members cannot have it both ways; they cannot say that the SDLP is raising difficult and divisive issues to try to create barriers while saying that the amendments do not mean anything because the issues will be taken care of.

The amendments place a burden on us, as a legislature, to ensure that the issues are taken care of and that we do not simply rely on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee or members of the justice Committee or the justice Minister, whoever they might be.

We are attempting to ensure that we, as an Assembly, will be satisfied from day one that the concordats and protocols are in place. A statement that those are in place is important not just for the Assembly but for the wider public, if they are to know that the Assembly and the Executive have made the issue a matter of record in the Chamber, which is the appropriate arena.

It is also important that we, as individual MLAs and as an Assembly, honour, reflect and respect the terms of the protocols. For instance, amendment No 1 refers to protocols and concordats on the judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service. As public representatives, we all find ourselves dealing with situations in which people are aggrieved at very low sentences being passed for grievous crimes. We all find ourselves confronted by very concerned constituents and contending with members of the media who are asking questions on what will be done.

For the independence of both the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary, it is very important that the relevant protocols have been the subject of a clear statement in the House. If a statement has been made in the House, the conduct of everybody in the Chamber will be a matter of record, which will be important for any further statements that we make inside or outside the Chamber. Therefore, we are trying to establish an important discipline through our amendments. A statement in the House as we approach the commencement of the devolution of policing and justice powers, or on the day of commencement, would be good practice. I cannot see how any Member could seriously argue against that sort of provision.

Amendment No 1 also refers to protocols and concordats on national security and the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. We know that there will be a protocol and concordat on national security, so how are we being divisive or difficult by saying that they should be the subject of a report in the House? We are not saying that the protocols and concordats must be subject to a vote in the House but have simply asked for a report, both orally and in writing, that will, I imagine, be followed by a round of questions in the same way as ordinary ministerial statements are.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member’s colleague who tabled the motion received a letter in May this year from no less an authority than the Secretary of State, telling him:

“The intention is to share them with your Committee in parallel with the First and deputy First Ministers and nothing has changed in that regard.”

Therefore, the Member and his party are going to get sight of the protocols and concordats. I do not understand why the Member’s party tabled amendments for debate in the House to ask for a statement on the protocols and concordats when it heard from the horse’s mouth that it will see them. What is the point? Are SDLP Members putting us through this for any reason other than hearing their own voices?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The honourable Member is saying that we will receive the protocols and concordats. He said that they will be passed to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. We are simply saying that, as a matter of good form and practice, particularly as we start the very important business of devolving justice and policing powers, the protocols and concordats should be clearly stated in the House. There should be a point at which they are properly marked and stated in the Chamber. We cannot just rely on protocols and concordats going through individual Committees. Important as the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is, it is not a substitute for the Chamber.

If we were to follow the Member’s logic, there would never be any statements in the House from any Ministers. All Ministers have departmental Committees to which they can make statements on important issues or refer important matters.

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

However, it is well established and recognised that there are occasions when the Chamber is the appropriate place to make a significant statement as a matter of record and substance.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member spoke about centrality and the importance of debating issues in the Chamber. Does he not accept that the amendments that he and his colleagues have tabled would, if passed, result in there being no debate or decisions taken in the Chamber? Rather, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s work, which he denigrated, will result in a report on all the issues contained in both amendments, and the Chamber will debate and vote on that report. Therefore, using the Member’s barometer, that is of greater consequence and weight than the First Minister and deputy First Minister making an oral statement to the House.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I do not accept that point, because, as other critics of our amendment have pointed out, things can change, not least in areas of national security and serious organised crime. Things can change, and things will change. Even after the first concordats are in place, there will be subsequent changes, and we will have to decide what happens to those concordats in the future when there are changes to the scope of national security. One does not have to be a fan or watcher of programmes such as ‘Spooks’ to know that, in the past number of years, the concept of national security has widened in response to the development of serious threats, not only those of a terrorist nature but those involving an ever more sinister level of organised crime with increasing international dimensions.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will give way shortly. If things are to change in the future, we must determine the appropriate point to register those significant differences. We are talking about transparency and accountability. We want to create strong public confidence that the devolution of justice and policing is not about simply transferring powers from the NIO to a new Department of justice here and continuing to work as we have in the past. We must create a new, more accountable and more transparent character to the operation and conduct of those areas in the Assembly. That is why we have tabled the amendments.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member clarify that the SDLP’s approach to the Security Service is based on a wider range of empirical evidence than a TV programme?

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Of course it is. I said that one does not have to be a watcher or fan of that programme to know that the concept of national security has widened. If the Member does not believe that that concept has widened and been employed by government, he is not listening to his sister party the Liberal Democrats. I said that one does not have to watch ‘Spooks’ to know that that is the case.

National security is a term that has been employed in a number of recent Westminster Bills, some of which would have interfered directly or indirectly with the conduct of devolved justice arrangements. In the past two years, the Labour Government have made several attempts to make provisions, on the grounds of national security, for secret inquests in Northern Ireland that apply on the say-so of the Secretary of State. A Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, even in the event of the devolution of justice and policing, could have intervened and, at any stage, said that matters in front of an inquest would be dealt with in secret or could have stopped that inquest. That provision was made even while that Government said that they planned to devolve justice and policing. Some of us asked questions about that here and in the House of Commons. Of course, we were told that we were the only ones who raised those concerns.

Sadly, the Coroners and Justice Bill, which was going through the Westminster Parliament in recent weeks, makes provision for secret inquests. The powers in that Bill do not extend to Northern Ireland, so we are glad to claim that victory. However, the question arises: will a future British Government revert to the current position, which is that it could and should introduce such powers? That is why the SDLP has a serious interest, not just in the protocol that affects national security now, and how those matters are treated, but how that protocol may be treated and amended in future.

I assume that any devolved justice Minister, of whatever party, would not want, in a year or two’s time, having tried to pass the legislation three or four times in three or four different ways, to be in a situation in which a future British Government tries to do so again in Northern Ireland. The integrity of devolution would be affected if inquests carried out by the devolved Assembly, with a devolved justice Minister and a justice scrutiny Committee, were to be subject to the overriding editorial control of a non-devolved Secretary of State. There are real issues of principle and practice that we want to protect. I do not believe that all those issues will be nailed down in a protocol that deals with things as they are. The creation of a standard of accountability that will protect Ministers and that will ensure that any new protocols have, by a point of reference and record, to be disclosed in this Chamber, will be something that Ministers will be glad to rely on.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

If that is the Member’s intention, the SDLP amendment clearly fails. It asks for a statement to be made on the day of devolution. That is ex post facto: it deals with things that have happened up to that point. It does not deal at all with anything that might happen subsequent to the day of devolution. The Member should have tabled another amendment, because we are no longer debating the proposed new clause 2A; we are debating an amendment that does not exist. Mr Deputy Speaker, you should rule the Member’s comments out of order.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

My comments are not out of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Unlike many of the Members who have contributed to the debate, I am addressing the subjects of the amendment; I am not straying into wider party-political issues.

In seeking statements on the protocols, both amendments would create the point of principle and precedence that any subsequent changed protocols that might well come into being would similarly have to be a matter of stated record before the House. It is the SDLP’s belief that that is the logical implication when the precedent for a protocol is created at the start. In the wake of a statement to the House, a Minister could well be asked what would happen if the protocols changed and whether there would be a subsequent statement to the Assembly. I hope that the answer to such a question would be yes — [Interruption.]

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind Members —

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Mr Deputy Speaker, we are using the debate to say that we want certain things to be said in the protocols.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I remind Members that Mr Durkan has the Floor. Members should not speak from a sedentary position. If Members wish to make an intervention, they should ask the Member who is speaking to give way, and that Member will give way if he or she chooses.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member not accept that his amendment fails to do what he now tells us he wants it to do, and that the protocol must contain the mechanism for explaining future changes to protocols and arrangements that may or may not exist? If that is the case, the amendment fails to achieve what the Member intends. On that basis, he should withdraw the amendment and table a new one.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

That is a typically nonsensical argument from the Member. The point is that the SDLP has tabled the amendment in order to establish a principle. Other parties seem to be content that concordats or protocols do not have to come to the Chamber at all, and can be washed through a Committee, given to Ministers and left at that level.

We are saying that we want reports on such protocols and concordats to be available through a statement to the House as a matter of principle.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I had assumed that amendment No 1 was a probing amendment and that the Members would hopefully withdraw it when they heard what the likely course of action would be. However, we should be very clear that this SDLP amendment lays only one requirement, which is the requirement to report at the time of the commencement of the Bill. That would create a legal responsibility for a report to be made at that time and at that time only.

The message was clearly given earlier that the full protocols and concordats would be given to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which would then have the chance to examine them. I am not sure, but I suspect that those documents will be 20, 30 or 40 pages long; they will certainly be nothing that could be dealt with by a statement. The way to deal with them is for the Committee to produce a full report that could be presented to the Assembly, which could then have a full debate on it. Again, when any changes are to be made to the protocols and concordats, the same mechanisms could be used.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the First Minister for his intervention. I said that if, when Ministers are responding to the debate, they could say how certain matters will be reported for the benefit of the House, we would treat the amendments as probing. We want to be satisfied that these matters will be reported to the House properly.

Contrary to the allegation that other Members made, we have not said that we want the statement to be subject to a vote or anything else. We are not trying to trip people up or to set traps. We are trying to ensure that we, as a responsible legislature, have taken care of those issues properly and have been seen collectively to have done so as a matter of clear and transparent record. However, that is not to denigrate the important work that can and will be done by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee; it is recognition that it is important that certain issues be a matter of Chamber record.

The First Minister seems to be saying that changes to protocols and concordats in the future, for whatever reason they are made, would go to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee or that the justice Committee may have a view on them. Our party view is that, given the seriousness of the issues, it would be better if the precedent that our amendment would establish were followed. The UK Government will, undoubtedly, change their idea of what does or does not amount to national security, and the remit of the Serious Organised Crime Agency could also change and develop in the future.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am grateful to the Member for giving way again; he has been generous with his time. I think that he has missed the point. If he places in the legislation a legal duty on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make a statement on protocols and concordats on one occasion alone, he is not setting a precedent, he is saying that the occasion on which the statement is required to be made is special. I suspect that the Members have been negligent by not adding to the amendment a reference to a statement being made on any future changes to a protocol. If that is the case, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt, but far from setting a precedent, he is saying that this one-time only, special set of circumstances requires that a statement be made. That is not a precedent.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I will clarify for the First Minister that it would not have been competent, proper or acceptable for us to have suggested that all future changes would necessitate statements to the House. The First Minister says that the problem with our amendment is its one-off nature. However, the problem is the one-off nature of the Bill. That is what confines us and limits and tethers the focus of our amendment.

We are simply saying that, if accepted, the amendment would establish what I believe to be an important precedent. Such a precedent would be established if the First Minister and deputy First Minister would commit themselves to that principle.

Instead, there seems to be a suggestion that everything can be done via Committees and exchanges between Ministers. People may be content with that arrangement for now, given the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s experience and the attention that it has given the matter in the run-up to devolution. However, people may not be satisfied that that arrangement will work for any subsequent changes to those protocols or for any new protocols.

There must be a clear protocol for the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, not least because of the different views on, and attitudes to, that agency. Some of us have legitimate concerns about whether that agency would be as competent or active in matters in this region as the Assets Recovery Agency has been, notwithstanding the high-profile activity of the past year and more. Some of us have also argued the need for a strong North/South approach to the issue of criminal assets.

Notwithstanding the criticisms that we, and other parties, have expressed recently about the political-policing agendas of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, it is important that the public know where everyone stands on the interface between the Serious Organised Crime Agency, other policing agencies, the Assembly, the Department and the Minister in their Executive capacity. That would aid people’s understanding. It is not a difficult or unnecessary barrier; it is a basic standard that would set out clear public assurances in the interests of public confidence.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As Question Time is approaching, I ask the Member whether his speech will be finished before 2.30pm. If the Member wishes, I will recall him after Question Time.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I hope to conclude my remarks before Question Time.

Amendment No 2 relates to North/South matters. As Alex Attwood said when proposing the amendments, there is a criminal justice agreement between the British and Irish Governments. As things stand, that agreement will lapse on the day that policing and justice is devolved. Matters that are the subject of criminal justice co-operation will then have to be the subject of an agreement that makes proper reference to the Northern Ireland Minister of justice or the Executive. As Alex Attwood also said, advisory groups on criminal justice matters are covered by that agreement, including forensic science, public protection, registered offenders, support for victims and youth justice. We have also been told that there are arrangements for another project advisory group to be set up, namely criminal justice and social diversity.

The important point of the amendments is that they mean that we, as a legislature, are taking care to ensure that the important work that has been done is not lost. We must not work on the general assumption that everything will be OK and that everything will be taken care of. The amendments are a matter of due diligence. They provide the basic assurance that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister will make a statement to tell the House that everything is OK and that everything has been taken care of. That request should not be too big a barrier for anyone.

Alex Attwood referred to the fact that we advocate a justice sector for North/South matters, but amendment No 2 in itself will not create a justice sector. We want such a justice sector to be created, and, for all sorts of good reasons, we will pursue that at every opportunity. Amendment No 2 simply builds a standard of accountability into North/South matters, and key North/South understandings and agreements should be the subject of statements in the House. I am at a loss to understand why the UUP says that it cannot support amendment No 2. When we were negotiating the Good Friday Agreement, the UUP was insistent that any North/South agreements between Ministers, or anyone else, should be the subject of statements in the House and placed on the record to facilitate accountability. That is what we seek in amendment No 2.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

As Question Time begins at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House take its ease until that time. Mr Daithí McKay will be the first Member to speak on the resumption of the debate.

The debate stood suspended.

Office Of The First Minister And Deputy First Minister

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether equality, respect, diversity and tolerance are the key components of good relations. (AQO 406/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Executive are fully committed to a peaceful, fair and prosperous society in Northern Ireland with respect for the rule of law. We want to ensure that we make a real and positive difference to the lives of all our people. There can be no room for sectarianism, racism or any form of hate crime. Attacks or violence that are motivated by any of those are unacceptable and must be condemned.

Equality, respect, diversity and tolerance are some of the key components of good relations. The reasons for bad community relations are complex, and, therefore, the solution to the problem will also be complex. Bad community relations are not caused by any single issue; it is often a combination of differing factors. It is not only words of condemnation that are required but an identification of the causes of bad relations and actions to tackle the problem. That is why, in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM), we have allocated unprecedented levels of funding for good relations. We are working hard on a wide range of areas with partners such as local councils, the Community Relations Council and a range of others. Much has already been achieved, and we are committed to working towards building a shared and better future for all.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the First Minister for his words. Given that equality, respect, diversity and tolerance are key components of good relations, does the First Minister reject the idea that a visit by the Pope would have a detrimental effect on community relations? Furthermore, would he welcome a visit by the Pope to the North of Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am not quite sure how the question has been stretched to bring the pontiff into good relations in Northern Ireland. Many issues would have to be taken into account, not least those relating to security. Although I have no doubt that many people in Northern Ireland would welcome the Pope, the reality is that there would be considerable disruption. We would be fooling ourselves to believe otherwise. In any advice that we might give, we would have to take into account the overall consequences of such a visit.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Does the First Minister agree that an urgent resolution to the mechanisms that are required for resolving parading disputes is a key element in ensuring good community relations and the diminishing of tensions across our community?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Everybody recognises the difficulties that there have been around a small number of parades. There is a mood in the community that people who have been marching or protesting should make a real contribution towards trying to resolve those issues. The deputy First Minister and I are willing to play our part in attempting to have those matters resolved. It is a critical issue, particularly in the context of the potential devolution of policing and justice.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The First Minister was asked to give some definition of the key components of community relations. Does he agree that it would be much easier to do that job if the cohesion, sharing and integration strategy were published? Will he give a commitment that he and the deputy First Minister will expedite that urgently?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member has two documents that indicate how we could move forward. Officials in our Department have looked at the two documents and attempted to draw them together. The officials have produced a draft, which is now with our special advisers and will come to the deputy First Minister and me. When I see it, I hope that it will have been endorsed by the special advisers on both sides and that the deputy First Minister and I will be able to move forward

We have indicated to other parties in the Executive, and I say it more widely in the House, that if Members want to make suggestions about the content of the strategy, we are very happy to look at whatever we receive.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

In light of the First Minister’s replies, does he accept that provocative paramilitary actions at venues such as sports stadia by people who hold extreme views demonstrate a lack of tolerance, respect and diversity and that those stadia should automatically be disqualified from receiving any form of public funding?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is essential that we move to a situation in Northern Ireland in which people recognise that there are different traditions, but those traditions should not be embedded through attempts to coerce people by using violence or the threat of violence, and no Department should encourage those who are involved in such activity. At the same time, all Members have a responsibility to give leadership in this matter. I believe that the Executive have given it, and it is essential that people leave behind all the trappings of paramilitarism, which should not be celebrated in any set of circum­stances. Let us move forward into a new era in Northern Ireland in which paramilitarism is a thing of the past.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline work carried out by their Department in relation to empowering communities, with particular emphasis on experiences in areas such as north Belfast. (AQO 407/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I ask junior Minister Newton to respond to that question.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

Since 2003, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has provided just under £14 million to the North Belfast Community Action Unit for a community capacity-building programme in north Belfast. The purpose of the programme is to enable communities to build leadership and to better manage relations within and between neighbouring communities and to develop networks to enable people to better deal with issues that affect their lives.

In December 2008, an independent review of the programme identified a number of very effective practices and recommended that we build on those practices and make them available to other areas that are experiencing similar issues. Recently, junior Minister Kelly and I outlined a strategic direction for future funding of the programme, which will build on previous experience and will be delivered through the themes of leadership, citizenship and good relations. The new strategic programme will be operational in the new year.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the junior Minister for his reply. There has been much focus on resolving community relation problems in north Belfast, and rightly so. However, does the junior Minister agree that there are many deprived communities in other constituencies throughout the Province that could benefit from help and support from groups and projects that have a proven record of success in those areas?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I agree with the sentiments of the Member’s question. In my constituency, I have also had experience of those matters. In reply to a previous question, I think that I said that we had announced that funding for the community empowerment partnerships (CEPs) would end in 2008. However, in recognition of the fact that some problems remained in north Belfast, it was agreed that we would continue the good work in those areas with a new scheme for community empowerment.

Nevertheless, it is critical that we use the experience that has been gathered in the past number of years to take forward the work not only in north Belfast but in similar communities across Northern Ireland. In many ways, we are learning from the situation in north Belfast, and the good practice that we have seen there must be applied elsewhere. Therefore, we are examining ways in which we might maximise the sharing of that best practice with projects in other areas.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank junior Minister Newton for his answer and Jimmy Spratt for asking the question. The junior Minister said that funding will continue in the new year. Will that be after the present funding cycle ends?

Furthermore, given that north Belfast is a deprived area — as are most interface areas, wherever they lie — will its good practice experiences be applied from early next year? Regrettably, areas must go down to the wire — pardon the pun — before they receive any indication of whether they are to receive continued funding.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for her question. I very much understand the point made. I have said already that the new programme — we are talking about a new programme — will be based on what we have learned. That could be described as best practice and it will be drawn from the experience that has been gained over the past number of years of the programme.

I also said that there will be three core themes to the programme. It will be a thematic programme rather than a geographical one. The three core themes are citizenship, leadership and good relations. Officials from OFMDFM are working closely with the groups in this transition phase of the programme funding.

Current CEP funding will continue until the new programme is operational. We are hoping to finalise the new scheme over the next few weeks. If that happens, we are aiming to have the application and evaluation processes over the next number of months, with funding going out to successful projects by the start of the new financial year.

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

I want to push the point slightly further.

I agree with the comments made by colleagues from north and south Belfast. Will the junior Minister confirm whether it is the intention of OFMDFM to create a new programme that invites applications from not only north Belfast but relevant parts of the North? Therefore, no matter what the transition and the programme may be in north Belfast, will there be a wider programme for Northern Ireland? If so, when will applications be invited from other communities in Northern Ireland? Over and above Belfast, Coleraine and Derry have very similar issues to face.

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that there is a ministerial-led working group on north Belfast. In my previous two answers, I indicated strongly that we have learned a lot from the north Belfast experience. We have also learned a lot that we can apply to, for instance, the Coleraine experience. In identifying the thematic approach that I have spoken about, we need to look at other areas, as I indicated in my answer to Mr Spratt’s question. Other areas should benefit from the experience that we have gained in the very sharply focused work that has been done in the north of the city.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

Poverty and deprivation in north Belfast are growing. Despite all the money that has been spent, some of the most deprived wards in western Europe are in north Belfast. Therefore, we should not get carried away with the programmes that we are talking about.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member should ask a question.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

Building capacity and empowering communities is probably the most important element, outside financial support, in bringing communities out of deprivation and poverty. Will the junior Minister explain what benchmarking is in place to evaluate the programmes in north Belfast?

Robin Newton (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that a number of reports looked at the situation in north Belfast, made recommendations on good practice and benchmarked it. It is from those reports that the three thematic areas have been identified.

I agree with the Member that investing money in an area and walking away is not sufficient for the future. I want to see the continuation of funding, and we have said that that will happen. This time, funding will not be based on geographical areas but on taking up the three themes that I have talked about. Hopefully, having learned from the exercises and having seen best practice, we can take that experience into the three themes and bring benefit to the north Belfast area.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on monitoring of the Programme for Government framework. (AQO 408/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Programme for Government (PFG) promised that the Executive would monitor progress on the delivery of their key priorities. Our PFG reporting framework allocated clear delivery responsibilities to Ministers and Departments, and that allowed us to present to the Assembly and the public a delivery report showing the progress on performance at 31 March 2009.

As a result of that delivery report, we set up accountability meetings with ministerial colleagues to discuss progress in three areas: the promotion of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects; greenhouse gas emissions; and regeneration. We also completed a second delivery report showing the position at 30 June 2009. Additionally, we have commissioned a third delivery report detailing the half-year position at 30 September 2009. That half-year report will be made available to the Assembly when it has been considered by the Executive.

We are well under way to building a series of reports that will successively demonstrate our performance on the delivery of the promises in the Programme for Government. Each report is important in giving us a strategic overview on progress. However, the underlying process that generates the reports and engages Ministers and officials is one of proactive interventions that allow us not only to report performance, but to drive it.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his response. In light of the political maxim that, if it is not measured, it is not done, and the First Minister’s comments to the House today on monitoring performance, will he outline what actions will be taken if, for example, there is a failure to achieve targets? How will his Department encourage performance to ensure the delivery of the important targets that were set by the entire Executive?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member rightly draws attention to the fact that the targets are exacting. Any meaningful target must be one that is deemed to be just beyond reach, so that people will stretch to get there. The economic downturn has made meeting our targets all the more difficult. I do not want to give the impression that the process in which we are engaged is one that we can use to beat Ministers over the head if they have not met the necessary targets or are not on course to do so. The purpose of the process is to identify the targets that are on course, those on which we need to accelerate and those that seem to be vastly out of step with where they should be.

As meeting targets is a cross-cutting responsibility, the Executive will consider how they can assist any Minister who lags behind in meeting a target. Ministers may well be failing to meet targets because the economic circumstances have changed the environment in such a way that it is difficult, if not impossible, to do so. They may be failing because they need further resources to assist them, because they require support from another Department, or because they have not been considering a particular target as their greatest departmental priority. Regardless of the reason, the Executive will be on hand to encourage Departments to meet their targets.

It is the responsibility not only of the Executive to keep to the Programme for Government but of the Assembly, because it endorsed the Programme for Government.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his comments. However, does he agree that there are serious concerns about the monitoring of the Programme for Government? Some of its targets are so loosely written that it would be hard for anyone to say that they had not been achieved. We have heard targets described as having been achieved when it is clear that they have not. Last week, the Committee for Finance and Personnel received expert evidence that Committees in some legislatures, not only in this one, habitually do not obtain the hard evidence that would allow them to assess performance. Does the First Minister agree that his Department has not put in place a structure for the Assembly properly to assess the performance of the Executive?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If the Member feels so strongly about those matters, I am surprised that his party colleague has not raised any of them at meetings of the Executive. Perhaps he should speak to her and find out why those are important to him but not to her. Let us be very clear, Assembly Committees have very considerable powers, and no Committee should have difficulty in obtaining information. Committees have the power to call for papers and people, and if Committees are having difficulties, they must use the powers that they have to obtain the information that they require.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In his earlier answer, the First Minister referred to “meaningful” targets and outcomes. Does he agree that some of the targets that are being met are procedure- and process-driven, which often involves the setting up of meetings to arrange forums?

The targets that are the most difficult to achieve and the ones that are more “meaningful” are those that focus on outcomes. Does the First Minister agree that there is the potential in future Programme for Government rounds to have more outcome-driven rather than process-driven measures?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In the very early stages of examining the Programme for Government targets, I was much more driven by having clear outcomes and creating a programme that was identifiable of what we wanted to achieve during the time that we were to be in government. However, it must be recognised that some of the steps that have been taken have been much less precise. For example, issues such as good relations are difficult to measure and to create identifiable targets for. Therefore, we must have something less precise for those issues.

Nonetheless, we must meet all the aims and goals of the Programme for Government, and there must be some mechanism to allow us to gauge whether we are on course. We have made the best fist possible, and I have not received any suggestions from Committees or Members on changes that could better measure the progress that is being made. However, the Executive are willing to look at any better suggestions.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the steps being taken to speed up decision-making within their Department. (AQO 409/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister is jointly in the charge of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Therefore, statutory and other prerogative and Executive powers of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are exercised by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly.

In practice, that means that agreement must be reached on matters that require formal ministerial approval, and, contrary to what tends to be reported, the deputy First Minister and I do reach consensus on the vast majority of decisions that require our agreement. In 2009 alone we chaired 22 Executive meetings, at which around 165 papers were considered. We also answered in excess of 500 Assembly questions and responded to more than 800 other pieces of correspondence.

In the past few months, we have agreed the strategy for victims and survivors, which is due to be published; launched the consultations for the commissioner for older people and the new sustainable development strategy; strengthened legislation to address child poverty; brought the Department of Justice Bill to the Assembly; presented the proposed Order that would establish the Maze/Long Kesh development corporation; and issued the gender equality plan to the Committee for the Office of the First and deputy First Minister for consideration.

Rather than drawing attention to a handful of issues that remain under consideration, it is important that we focus on the many areas on which agreement has been made and move forward.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for his detailed answer. Will he outline the number of times that major decisions have been taken in his Department rather than those that involve simple internal housekeeping? Will he also indicate what system exists for resolution when the First Minister and the deputy First Minister do not see eye to eye?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Perish the thought.

If I was to go around the Chamber and ask Members to divide the decisions that the Department must take into those that are major decisions and those that are not, there would be dozens of different answers. We must treat all the decisions that come before us as important and vital, because they will be for someone.

I reported in an earlier debate that we have done considerably better at taking decisions than the previous SDLP/Ulster Unionist-led Administration, even though those parties had a longer time to make decisions. That shows that we have a process whereby decisions can be made. However, we must face the fact that, in a four-party mandatory coalition, it is inevitable that issues will arise when, for reasons of background, political ideology, or whatever, it will be hard for us to come to agreement. However, that does not stop us from continuing to try. If the processes lead to a situation where the deputy First Minister and I cannot agree, we will keep working at it.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the First Minister indicate how decision-making in the Executive could be better dealt with?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The question almost tempts me to go slightly beyond the wording that the Member has used.

What we are doing under the system, as it stands, is the only way that decision-making can be treated. Issues come forward for decision, and our officials and special advisers look at them and try to resolve them. In most cases, the issues will be resolved, and we will simply have a decision to agree to. However, where issues cannot be agreed at that level, they come to the deputy First Minister and me, and we attempt to use our offices to reach agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, it is simply a matter of us continuing to work to see whether we can agree the matter or, if not, agree to manage the disagreement.

Of course, the deputy First Minister and I might differ on whether one could change the system to ensure a better level of delivery. I am strongly of the view that the longer the life of the Assembly, the more stable it becomes and the more we should be able to rely on normalising the systems of government to ensure that decisions can be taken without doing away with the need for cross-community support for those decisions that are of significance.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

What steps are the First Minister and the deputy First Minister taking to resolve the impasse over the cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) strategy?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am not sure whether the Member was in the House when I answered that, tangentially, in reply to an earlier question.

The two documents that, one way or another, found their way into the public arena and gave the views of our two parties on the CSI issue have been pulled together by officials in the Department. The proposals are being considered by our special advisers and will come to the deputy First Minister and me in due course. I hope that that process will allow us to move forward.

Both the deputy First Minister and I agree that it is necessary that we make efforts to build up good relations in Northern Ireland. However, I point out that the absence of the strategy, just as there was the absence of a strategy when the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP were the lead parties, does not stop us working on the issue of good relations. A lot of money and effort have gone in at ground level to ensure that we build up better relations in our society.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister if they have had discussions with the UK Government regarding the new “earned citizenship” approach to immigration and whether account is being taken of different regional employment needs within the UK. (AQO 410/10)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The earned citizenship proposals are just one strand of the UK Government’s review and simplification of the immigration system.

We have written to the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration concerning the practical application of the proposals here. Officials will continue discussions through the UK Home Office’s earned citizenship strategic advisory group, and bilaterally. We will continue to work with the UK Border Agency and the Home Office to ensure that UK immigration policy shows a regional flexibility that can take full account of our needs and concerns. In particular, we will explore with Executive colleagues the desirability and practicality of a separate shortage occupation list for Northern Ireland, as already exists for Scotland, to take account of our regional employment needs.

Feedback received from businesses across Northern Ireland, particularly in areas such as Dungannon, indicates that we have a reliance on migrant labour in certain sectors. Therefore, it is important that those regional differentials are reflected in any UK-wide scheme.

Agriculture And Rural Development

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what discussions she has had with the Minister of Finance and Personnel regarding the valuation and realisation of finance in respect of the Crossnacreevy site. (AQO 420/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have not yet had any discussions with the current Minister of Finance and Personnel regarding the proposed disposal of the site at Crossnacreevy. A business case has concluded that it would not be cost-effective at present to vacate the Crossnacreevy site and dispose of it. I will be having a bilateral discussion with the Minister of Finance and Personnel tomorrow, and the issue is likely to be discussed then.

Fred Cobain (UUP, Belfast North)

Does the Minister agree that it was a foolish idea in the first place to sell that site?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not. Finding a solution to a huge problem as soon as we came into office was very difficult, and the Executive as a whole handled it very well. Obviously we can all learn from it, but we had to find a solution. I needed tanks built, and I needed money to do it. Obviously, realising an asset was something to be looked at to meet that need.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The original plan for the sale of Crossnacreevy was to fund the farm nutrient management scheme (FNMS), which has been funded anyway. Can the Minister give an assurance to farmers that there will be no cutback in other programmes of her Department, given the failure to realise the anticipated price for the Crossnacreevy site?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member has pointed out, the FNMS scheme has gone a long way toward completion. The Crossnacreevy relocation business case considered a number of options and concluded that, at present, the option that delivers best value for money for the location of the plant testing station work programme is the present site at Crossnacreevy. I am content that that is the case.

The business case showed that we would have to realise a sale price of around £14 million before the next best option would become the preferred option. Obviously, the plant testing work is very important, and we want that to continue. We also want to ensure that there is no diminution in other areas of work as a result of that.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I thank Mr Cobain for tabling the question, because the public have a right to know how a property worth £5 million could be valued at £200 million. Where does the Minister place the blame for that serious miscalculation and for the acceptance of it? Can she give the Assembly some indication of the financial consequences that followed, particularly within DARD, as a result of the £195 million mistake?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am not in a position to allocate blame, nor do I think I should. We approached the disposal issue carefully. We began with a valuation based on current use, then took advice from Land and Property Services, the Planning Service and a planning consultant about alternative use and potential value. An informal, provisional view suggested that, with appropriate planning permission, the Crossnacreevy site could yield up to £200 million. Obviously, there were a lot of factors that then had to be taken into consideration, notwithstanding the current economic downturn and the fact that development land is no longer as attractive as it was when Land and Property Services gave us the valuation.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the process of certification for persons who transport animals and whether this complies with European legislation. (AQO 421/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A person who wishes to transport vertebrate animals must comply with European Council regulation No 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations. From 5 January 2007, all those who wish to transfer animals on journeys of over 65 km in connection with an economic activity — that is, activities that involve financial gain — must obtain a transporter authorisation from my Department.

There are two types of authorisation: one for short journeys of up to eight hours and one for all other journeys of more than eight hours. Transporters need to apply for only one authorisation. In addition, those transporting equidae — horses, donkeys etc — cattle, sheep, goats or pigs on journeys of over eight hours must have the means of transport inspected and approved by my Department.

From 5 January 2008, drivers and attendants of equidae, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs or poultry must also obtain certificates of competence. My Department has designated several bodies to examine for and award those certificates, including An Teagasc in the South of Ireland, the Road Haulage Association, the National Proficiency Training Council and the British Driving Society, which operates here and in Britain. Full details, forms and guidance notes are available on the Department’s website.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

The question that I submitted is different to the one that appears on the Order Paper. My submitted question sought information on the provision for testing in Northern Ireland. I am thankful that the Minister addressed that as well.

Does the Minister have any plans to review the current provision in Northern Ireland, and is there provision in Northern Ireland for training prior to testing?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have not found any need to reassess the current provision, and several bodies have been designated to examine for and award the certificates. Training can be provided on request, and short-journey transporters are assessed by the National Proficiency Training Council, using an online assessment at the Greenmount, Loughry and Enniskillen campuses of the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE). Transporters who are not familiar with computers receive the necessary assistance, and an information pack covering the technical aspects of the legislation is provided. Training is not a prerequisite as such, and the assessment takes the form of a short multiple-choice theory test. As I said, training can be applied for when needed.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her detailed response. How many people who were apprehended transporting animals for distances of more than 65 km had not completed the competence courses that have been required since January 2008? How many prosecutions have been or are in the process of being brought against such individuals?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I do not have that information. I tried to find out how many hauliers had undertaken the training, but it was difficult to source that information. I have asked for further information and figures to create a better understanding of how many companies have completed the training.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

3. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how she intends to address poverty in rural areas, particularly amongst people on benefits. (AQO 422/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My Department is responsible for investing significant amounts of money in the rural economy each year to help to address rural poverty. In particular, one of DARD’s targets in the Programme for Government is to bring forward a £10 million package to address rural poverty and social exclusion by March 2011. That funding addresses rural fuel poverty, rural community development, rural childcare, rural transport and a rural challenge fund.

Last winter, I supported DSD’s warm homes scheme, thereby ensuring that up to 670 rural homes of benefit recipients received improvements to their heating and insulation systems. Last week, along with Minister McGimpsey, I announced a major new and innovative project to maximise access to and uptake of grants, benefits and services in rural households by assisting approximately 4,200 vulnerable rural households. Also last week, alongside Minister Conor Murphy, I launched the assisted rural travel scheme, which will allow people over 60 and disabled rural SmartPass holders to access free transport on their local community transport partnership’s vehicles.

Letters of offer have been issued to successful applicants to the £1·5 million rural childcare programme, and we received over 125 applications from the community and voluntary sector to the rural challenge programme. I also confirmed my support for continued rural community development and funding for rural support organisations.

All those initiatives will provide positive impacts for people who are on benefits and for those who suffer from poverty and exclusion in rural areas. Through my rural anti-poverty and social exclusion work and as a member of the ministerial subcommittee on poverty and social inclusion, I will continue to advocate for the rural poor and excluded.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her detailed answer. I was going to ask about maximising the uptake and provision of benefits, but the Minister has adequately answered that. Go raibh maith agat.

William McCrea (DUP, South Antrim)

Does the Minister accept that many farmers and farming families in Northern Ireland live in poverty? That is because many farmers work for well below the minimum wage, and that forces many young people to leave farms. Does the Minister agree that young people are the lifeblood of the sustainability of rural areas and, in light of that, what more can be done to keep them on the farms?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I agree, and I take the Member’s point. My Department’s intervention aims to help people who are hard to reach because they live in the 88 most deprived rural super output areas. That means targeting people who would not normally feel comfortable investigating or taking up the benefits, grants or services that are available to them by right.

The project, which harnesses a community development approach, was developed with the new Public Health Agency and other government and statutory partners, such as DSD, the Housing Executive, Access to Benefits, Advice NI and Citizens Advice.

The project is based on an extension to a pilot project that was carried out with great success in parts of County Fermanagh and County Tyrone, whereby, for every £1 invested, £6 was drawn down in benefits and grants for vulnerable people who needed the support. That is a good way to quantify the work of that project and its benefit to rural communities. However, farmers are sometimes the last people to go looking for such benefits, and we want to go out, find them and help them with that sort of information.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Will the Minister confirm that she had £10 million for tackling rural poverty in her budget, and, if so, say what changes that money made to rural poverty?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sometimes accused of being too long-winded in my answers, and I think that the Member will find the answer to her question in my answer to the lead question.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

4. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, with regard to the single farm payment scheme, why problems have occurred as a result of changes to the mapping system, and what action is being taken to resolve these problems. (AQO 423/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In line with EU requirements, as part of the controls for area-based schemes such as single farm payment, the Department is required to have a computerised mapping system to identify agricultural parcels or fields. Before my Department can pay a single farm payment or other subsidy, we have to check that the land area declared by the farmer is correct and eligible under the scheme. In order to do that, we cross-check the information received from the farmer against our mapping system.

If we find that a farmer has claimed for an incorrect area or for ineligible land, we have to adjust his claim for the current claim year and, in many cases, for previous years. Those changes fall into two categories. The first involves permanent features such as houses, lane ways or tanks; and the second involves semi-permanent features such as whins or scrub. Land under both categories is considered to be ineligible and should not be claimed for. However, such claims are still being made, and the message is not getting out.

Claims that have to be adjusted can be complex and take time to clear. The Department has no choice but to make those adjustments, and it faces about £30·5 million worth of disallowance at the current exchange rate, partly because of its approach in those cases and partly because farmers are not telling it about changes.

I cannot emphasise too much how important it is that farmers tell the Department about any changes to field areas. It is not in our interests to spend time adjusting claims, nor is it in the farmers’ interests to have their payments delayed and, in many cases, penalties applied. Therefore, I again urge farmers to come to us and let us check their maps before we find that there is a problem, at which stage it will be much more difficult to resolve.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

Does the Minister agree that the best solution would be a complete review of the single farm payment scheme?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We will not get a complete review of the single farm payment scheme. Elements of the scheme were examined in a health check earlier this year. However, it will be 2013 before we see an overall review of the common agricultural policy (CAP), under which the single farm payment falls. For now, therefore, we have to use the system that we have. The best way to alleviate problems is to get the message out that farmers must check their maps and let us put them right before we find a problem. We just have to deal with the present system and make it work better until 2013.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

The Minister will recognise that all her Department’s clients are in rural areas. She also spoke about a mapping system. Will she assure the Assembly that, when she is replying to her clients, she will use the townland name in their address?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If someone writes to me using a townland name, I will always respond with the correct townland name. I recognise the importance of townlands and the good work that has been done to protect them. We could all do more.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Will you give a lead, though?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

If I know the townland name, Kieran, I will use it.

Francie Brolly (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh míle maith agat. What, precisely, has the Department done to encourage farmers to notify it of changes to maps?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Since 2007, I have made at least 20 appeals to farmers — I am starting to feel like an oul nag, and I do not mean the four-legged variety — to check their maps and to tell my Department about changes. I have constantly encouraged them to take care when completing their applications and to make sure that their farm maps are correct. In order to make it easier for farmers to tell us about changes, we have included a form in all single farm payment application packs. Earlier in 2009, I invited farmers to call into their local offices to see their maps on screen alongside aerial photographs. I am disappointed that only 208 farmers took up my offer. I hope that, of the208 farmers who went to check out their maps, at least 11 were members of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development.

During the recent European Commission audit, the auditors again expressed their concerns about the failure of farmers to report mapping changes. The auditors consider the Department to be too lenient in its handling of those cases. Given those concerns, the Department is considering what other steps it can take to ensure that farmers tell us about changes to their maps and its approach to applying penalties.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

5. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made in resolving issues relating to the transfer of pension rights for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute staff at Hillsborough. (AQO 424/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Employment issues, which include staff pensions — in this case, the transfer of pension rights — are a matter for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). Thirty-seven former Agricultural Research Institute (ARINI) staff chose to transfer their pension rights from the local government scheme to the principal Civil Service pension scheme.

My colleague will be aware from my letter to him dated 5 November 2009 that, on 26 October 2009, AFBI held a meeting with the Local Government Officers’ Superannuation Committee (NILGOSC) to resolve outstanding issues. At that meeting, NILGOSC agreed to provide the value of assets that are to be transferred from it to the principal Civil Service pension scheme in respect of the 37 staff who opted to transfer their rights.

AFBI has pressed NILGOSC for that information, which has not yet been provided. The business case to seek approval for that expenditure to complete the bulk transfer cannot be finalised until NILGOSC provides AFBI with the total transfer value for the former members who opted to participate in the bulk transfer.

AFBI, supported by the Department, works with NILGOSC, the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) and the principal Civil Service pensions branch to resolve the outstanding issues so that AFBI can complete the business case and bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive reply. She and I have corresponded on the issue since devolution was restored.

Obviously, staff have transferred to the new institute. Since then, there has been uncertainty about their pension provision. I know that the Minister is conscious that some of those staff are approaching retirement age and want to consider the options that are available to them.

Will the Minister assure the House that every effort will now be made to persuade NILGOSC to get that information on transfer values and to bring it forward as soon as possible so that the business case can be completed and staff can, finally, have a clear idea of what pension entitlement they will have under the transfer arrangements?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is important that NILGOSC does what it has to do as quickly as possible so that the matter can reach a satisfactory conclusion. It is fair to say that DARD and AFBI have pioneered that area of work. Since AFBI was established on 1 April 2006, 10 of those staff have retired. Since then, AFBI has worked with NILGOSC and the principal Civil Service pensions branch to ensure that that principle is applied.

Pat Doherty (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also thank the Minister for her detailed answer. Will she assure the House that no former Agricultural Research Institute staff will suffer as a result of their pensions being transferred to the principal Civil Service pension scheme?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Former staff of the Agricultural Research Institute who work for AFBI have been provided with the option either to defer their pension rights with NILGOSC or to transfer their accrued service to the principal Civil Service scheme. Staff will, therefore, be offered the opportunity to receive their full pension entitlement in accordance with each individual’s option decision. Staff will be provided with an update on progress by early December 2009.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how she intends to work with the Department for Regional Development to improve transport provision in rural areas, particularly for isolated groups or people with disabilities. (AQO 425/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In conjunction with DRD’s dial-a-lift scheme, I was delighted to announce the assisted rural transport scheme (ARTS) on 10 November 2009. The scheme, which will be supported by DARD, has been developed following work with DRD in response to the transport/access priority that has been identified as part of the rural anti-poverty and social exclusion work. It will be rolled out from 1 December 2009. Under ARTS, SmartPass holders who are over 60 years of age and disabled people who live in rural areas can avail themselves of free and concessionary transport via the 16 rural community transport services.

As part of my work to develop a rural White Paper for the North, I have spoken to rural stakeholders, who have consistently identified transport as one of their biggest stumbling blocks. I have spoken to young people with disabilities and heard at first hand how lack of transport provision inhibits their ability to work and socialise. The lack of suitable, reliable rural transport has, for some time, been a concern to me because it compounds rural poverty and social exclusion.

I am pleased that, through working closely together, Minister Murphy and I were able to announce the introduction of the assisted rural travel scheme and the dial-a-lift scheme. Improving rural transport will make a real difference to the lives of rural dwellers, particularly the mainly elderly and disabled people who are entitled to SmartPasses.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Will the Minister elaborate further on the dial-a-lift scheme and how exactly it works?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The dial-a-lift scheme has been piloted by DRD through three of its 16 rural community transport partnerships (RCTPs). The dial-a-lift scheme enabled the RCTPs to facilitate individual, unscheduled journeys, in that members could call up and arrange journeys specific to their needs. As that is rolled out to all RCTPs, the level of service will expand, and it will become more accessible to all users. Introducing the assisted rural transport scheme simultaneously with the dial-a-lift scheme will provide significant access provision, particularly for elderly and disabled people, as they will be able to arrange individual journeys and to avail themselves of the concessions.

DRD is funding the additional costs of introducing the dial-a-lift scheme, and that includes the non-passenger costs associated with ARTS. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will pay the cost of the concessionary journeys actually taken by passengers, and DRD will cover the other costs required to facilitate such journeys. Therefore, it is a real example of how joined-up government and partnership working can deliver for people.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

While I welcome what the Minister has said, is it possible for her to outline how she intends to protect rural areas when prime agricultural land is being cut to pieces and new roads are being built through those areas? Does she agree that any new roads in the countryside ought to be built in parallel with existing roads and that good agricultural land should not be used willy-nilly, destroying farms?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I could answer the Member now, but, with his indulgence, I will deal with it in my response to a later question. However, I agree that, working together with DRD, we want to maximise the benefits to rural people and minimise the difficulties.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I am grateful to the Minister for her earlier replies. Has the Minister held any discussions with the Minister for Regional Development to address and improve areas where serious road flooding has occurred, especially in the many minor roads and rural roads of my constituency of Newry and Armagh?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The question was about how we are going to work with DRD to improve transport provision in rural areas, particularly for people who are isolated or have disabilities. Therefore, it is a bit of a creative stretch to get that in, but I am happy to respond to the Member in writing.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

7. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development when the outstanding farm nutrient management scheme payments will be made. (AQO 426/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am pleased to report that good progress has been made with farm nutrient management scheme payments, and £116 million of grant aid has now been paid to farmers. That represents 95% of the total grant payable under the scheme, which closed in December 2008. All claimants have had a pre-payment inspection. My Department is aiming to make the remaining grant payments by the end of December. In a limited number of cases, there are minor issues that claimants must resolve before their final grant payment can be made.

The scheme is the largest capital grant scheme ever run by DARD. Through the farm nutrient management scheme, some £200 million has been invested in farm infrastructure. More than 3,900 projects have been completed, and farmers have demonstrated their commitment to the environment and to improving water quality. I congratulate farmers on their vision in investing that money and in getting their storage up to standard. It has been a very positive scheme that I am very proud to be associated with.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

The Minister outlined the extent of the scheme. Can she elaborate on any appeal mechanism for the outstanding issues that she referred to in her initial reply? When does she expect the outstanding 5% of claimants to be paid?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On 13 November, 312 farmers still had to receive their 50% balance, and 11 still had to receive their full payment. I introduced the part-payment facility last year, and most farmers opted for it. That has enabled the Department to pay half of the grant before the prepayment inspection and so help the farmers’ cash flow. The balance is paid after the final prepayment inspection has been cleared. However, we will wind up the scheme by 31 December 2009, as per EU Commission rules.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for what she said. Some £6 million must still be available for spending. Will she clarify whether that sum and the money paid out in this financial year was budgeted for? If not, what is the source of that money?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The farm nutrient management scheme has been budgeted for. It has long been a part of our budgetary roll-out. We have been planning for completion of the scheme.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister tell us what proportion of applicants was required to undergo a repeat inspection? Will that hold up their payments?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I said, only a small number have still to be inspected. A few issues need to be tidied up, but they will not hold up the scheme. It closed on 31 December 2008, and it finishes entirely on 31 December 2009.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

8. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for an update on her planned reform of the dangerous dogs legislation. (AQO 427/10)

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

10. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development how she will consult on the proposed Dog Control Bill. (AQO 429/10)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

With your permission, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I will answer questions 8 and 10 together.

On 5 November, the Executive approved my plans to consult on new policy proposals for new dog control legislation. I thank my Executive colleagues for their support on that.

In 2008, some 8,000 stray dogs were impounded, 2,900 unwanted dogs were collected, and 3,500 dogs were put down. Almost 800 people were attacked by dogs, and 59 of them were admitted to hospital. To address those serious issues, I propose to introduce new dog control measures that are based on a more robust and effective dog licensing regime. The new measures will include compulsory microchipping and new powers for dog wardens to intervene at an early stage and to add conditions to a dog licence if a dog’s behaviour has given cause for concern. Those licence conditions could include, for example, requiring the dog to be leashed and muzzled when in public. I also propose to make it an offence to allow a dog attack another dog.

The dog licence fee has not changed since 1983, and, as a result, the cost of dog warden services is borne by all ratepayers, whether or not they own a dog. Therefore, I propose to increase the licence fee to £12·50 in line with inflation. As an incentive towards responsible ownership, the fee will be pegged at the current level of £5 for those who have their dogs neutered. I also propose that, for the first time, the dog licence will be free for dog owners who are aged 65 and over. If an older person has more than one dog, the fee for the second dog will also be paid at the current rate of £5. The dog licence for those on means-tested benefits will also be pegged at £5. I propose to increase the penalties for offences to enhance the effectiveness of the new measures.

I launched the formal consultation process on my proposals today, and that will run until Friday 1 February 2010. Details of my proposals and how to respond to them are available on the Department’s website and, to enhance the consultation, arrangements are being put in place for public workshops that will help individuals and organisations formulate their responses. Details will be available on the DARD website shortly.

My proposals will address the key problems while protecting the elderly and those on benefits and will encourage neutering and provide additional resources to district councils to meet the costs of dog control. I believe that the proposals will be widely welcomed and look forward to hearing responses to my consultation. I will carefully consider all the comments made during consultation before finalising my legislative proposals, and I aim to introduce a new Bill to the Assembly before the summer recess.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I ask the Minister for an answer to my question.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for her detailed response. Is she hopeful or confident that the measures that she has announced will prevent the type of instance that she referred to?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I hope so, and that is why I took such steps. My proposals will result in the most robust and innovative legislation available, and they will help us to tackle this problem. Dangerous dogs are a problem not only here but elsewhere. Children have been killed by dogs that were out of control. I want to do my best to protect people, and I am grateful to the public for writing to me about issues and to the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, with which I have worked closely to bring about the best legislation that we can.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the Minister on getting through 10 questions, and I hope that that habit spreads to some of her ministerial colleagues.

Executive Committee Business

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will not speak for half an hour, as did the previous Member who spoke for the SDLP. I will keep my remarks short and to the point.

I oppose amendment Nos 1 and 2. It is becoming clear to Members, if it was not already clear, that the SDLP is intent on holding up and frustrating the devolution of policing and justice, regardless of the consequences.

The issues outlined in amendment No 1 are currently under the remit of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Those matters are very important and must be addressed, as has been recognised. However, the amendment serves only to delay and complicate the transfer process, as the Members who proposed the amendment know fine well.

Practically speaking, a difficulty arises from the need for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to report to the Assembly on the day of commencement of sections 1 and 2 of the Act. That would require the commencement to fall on a day on which the Assembly sits, which could conceivably cause further delay. That would be extremely unhelpful.

I will conclude at that. I commend the Bill as it stands and oppose both amendments. This sham debate serves only to hold up and delay the process of devolving policing and justice powers. That is irresponsible, given the events over the weekend and the fact that there are those who want to capitalise on a delay in devolving policing and justice — on the one hand, Jim Allister, and, on the other, the micro-groups. The Governments want to see policing and justice powers devolved, as do most politicians here and the Police Federation. Even police officers want to see the issue resolved, as does the public.

I commend the Bill to the House, and I oppose amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I want to begin by trying to be at least a little charitable to the SDLP. I know that that is a difficult task for Members — [Interruption.] I am being criticised by my colleagues. If they would only let me progress, they would see that my charity does not run deep. It is but a few fleeting remarks as I start.

I want to be charitable to the SDLP in this respect: there has been some criticism of the SDLP today for tabling the amendments. As we sit here, well into our third or fourth hour of debate, with perhaps more to come, a lack of good spirit and generosity towards the SDLP can sometimes be justified. However, I would never seek to deny the SDLP its right to table amendments, no matter how silly or spurious the amendments might be. I accept, as Mr Durkan said, that, on this occasion, the amendments are not necessarily an attempt to frustrate things — unlike the previous raft of amendments tabled by the SDLP at Consideration Stage. It may be frustrating for the rest of us, but I do not believe that the amendments are an attempt to frustrate anything.

However, amendment Nos 1 and 2 do not advance anything in the debate. They certainly do not advance, in any respect, the SDLP’s ideal of having the devolution of policing and justice powers as rapidly as possible or straight away. Contrary to what the Member who spoke previously said, I do not think that the defeat of the amendments or the ultimate passage of the legislation will hasten the devolution of policing and justice because, as everyone knows, there are outstanding issues that have yet to be resolved. That said, amendment Nos 1 and 2 do not do anything to advance the devolution of policing and justice, although I accept that they are not in any way as frustrating as the amendments that the SDLP tabled at Consideration Stage.

I want to pick up on a couple of points and to state my opposition to the amendments. By its own argument, the SDLP has got this one wrong; when it comes to timing, the SDLP is badly wrong. If the issues are so important, why is the SDLP seeking to have a report on a host of issues — a fairly meaningless report, as I will come to later — come before the Assembly after commencement of the legislation?

I think that Dr Farry was wrong about the timing of the report when he referred to that in his contribution. He talked about the passage of the Bill, but on reading the amendment, it is clear that the report would have to be made after the commencement of sections 1 and 2, which would be a much more advanced stage in the process. When we get to that stage, we will effectively begin the countdown towards the devolution of policing and justice powers. Therefore, why do those Members want to wait to such a late stage in the process to get a report on the issues that they seem to value so highly?

The truth is that those issues are being discussed and debated regularly, although that is not what the SDLP seems to be inferring. The place in which they were, and still are, being discussed is the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Some members of that Committee have endured lengthy discussions on those issues and no doubt they will have to endure many more discussions on those and other issues. I firmly believe that those issues will be explained fully and fulsomely in and to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee before the devolution of policing and justice powers and that they will be resolved, if, indeed, any resolution is required.

The issues may not be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, which is an important point that may have been a core reason for the amendments being proposed. The issues may not be resolved to the satisfaction of the SDLP, but they will be resolved. It is worth pointing out, as I tried to do earlier in my intervention to Mr Durkan’s contribution, that the deliberations of the —

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Hamilton for giving way. I wish to respond to the questions that he asked of the SDLP. It has been suggested to us, by the First Minister among others, that the issues that we are talking about will be washed through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and that that report will be subject to a vote in the House. Whether we are dissatisfied or not, we will be voting one way or another on that report.

However, the point of the amendment is to make clear, beyond whatever some parties might contend, that there should be a clear status given to the protocols and that, as a matter of form, the First Minister and deputy First Minister should make a statement about what the protocols are on the day of the commencement of the Act.

People might regard that as a bit of political liturgy, but it would be a significant bit of political liturgy as part of the devolution of justice and policing. It is important that there is a report so that whatever contentions there were about those matters — matters that may have been the subject of votes — no one can dispute the status of the protocols as reflected in that statement, which, under the amendments, would be in the form of a report.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

From what the Member said, I presume that he is seeking some sort of imprimatur from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and that seems to differ from what was said previously.

I do not accept the argument that the protocols and memorandums will be “washed through”. It is disrespectful to the House and the Committees to suggest that anything will be washed through them. Hours upon hours have been spent discussing these issues and after today’s debate, further time will be spent debating them in those Committees in order to reach a conclusion. Whether they are resolved or are agreed to the Member’s satisfaction is something that he will have to resolve in his mind.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I assure the Member that I regard “washed through” as a positive thing. I did not use the term “washed through” in a pejorative way. I was not talking about a whitewash in the Committees. To me, “washed through” means going through the proper scrutiny.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member has helpfully made my point. If the protocols are going through the proper scrutiny in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, why is there a need for a superfluous, meaningless report from the First Minister and deputy First Minister? Such a report will merely repeat what has been said in debates and in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which has had, and will have, time to scrutinise all the relevant documentation.

I firmly believe that the deliberations in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which will tease out all those subjects, come to conclusions on them and ensure that the issues are resolved, even perhaps if not to the Member’s satisfaction, are sufficient scrutiny. The Committee will produce a report, which, if experience is anything to go by, will be fairly lengthy and contain a number of conclusions and recommendations. The report will then come to the House for a reasonably lengthy debate and will, ultimately, be voted on by Members. I consider that to be a much more appropriate way to examine the issues in the amendments than the Member’s suggestion of a statement by the First Minister or the deputy First Minister in the House.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank Mr Hamilton for giving way again; he is very generous. Does he accept that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee report will cover many issues, hopefully including the ones that the amendments seek to address? Whether the debate on the report adequately reflects all those issues is another matter.

Unlike the vote that may or may not take place on a report by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, a statement by the First Minister or the deputy First Minister will have its own definitive standing of reference, because it is not subject to challenge and could not lead to a Division. Therefore, such a statement would provide assurance for the agencies that will be on the other side of those protocols. That assurance does not exist if protocols are subject to a Division, because they could become matters of controversy and the negotiations on them could become matters of controversy. There is more assurance and better protocol and form in the measure that we seek in the amendments.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I am not entirely convinced that a statement in the House carries more weight than a debate in the House on a Committee report.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Was there not something contradictory in the remarks by the Member for Foyle Mark Durkan? He said that the protocols and concordats might be one of a number of issues in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s report to the Assembly, which could mean that other issues might be debated and that protocols and concordats might not get adequate cover. Does that not suggest that the protocols and concordats are not the all-important factors that others make them out to be? Why should they be given prominence if the natural inclination of Members is not to make them prominent in a debate on a report by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

That is a fair point. I could make similar arguments to Mr Durkan about other issues that might be in an Assembly and Executive Review report and ask that they be taken out, highlighted and scrutinised. In many cases, particularly for our community, such issues would be of much greater importance than the ones that are highlighted by the SDLP amendments. We do not seek to do that, because we value the work that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and all its members will do and the report that they will produce.

Given those points, I start to ask myself, as I always do when I see amendments, particularly from the SDLP, about the purpose. If the purpose is not to achieve the aims in the amendments, there must be other reasons behind proposing them. After having to endure lengthy discussions on the subjects in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, I accept that the SDLP has taken a keen interest in all the matters. However, the SDLP has not taken a keen interest to merely have sight of the documents that we hope that the Committee, and, therefore, the Assembly, will get sight of. The purpose of the SDLP amendments is not to simply see or scrutinise the protocols and concordats as has been suggested. The real motivation is a desire to interfere in the memoranda, protocols and the documentation. The SDLP is not happy with the way that many issues are going with regards to SOCA, the PPS and the judiciary. The desire of the SDLP is not only to get sight of the documentation but to interfere with it and to try to bring about some changes to the protocols and the memoranda of understanding.

It must be made clear that in many, if not all, cases the SDLP will be unable to interfere. Most sensible people will not stand for any interference, particularly in issues of national security.

After the Consideration Stage debate and the incident in south Armagh, where SOCA, justifiably and rightly, took back assets from a criminal and made arrests, some Members became jittery, jumped up and down and made inappropriate comments that they should not have made. I echo the words that I said during the Consideration Stage debate: people who think, when policing and justice powers are devolved, that anyone will have the right to interfere in individual cases should get that idea out of their heads now. That point needs to be stressed again.

I made this point during the Consideration Stage debate, and I will make it more broadly now. If the SDLP thinks that it will have the ability to interfere in such issues, it is barking up the wrong tree. National security issues will clearly remain non-devolved matters, and the ability of the Assembly, its Committees and its Members to interfere will be severely limited. We must get it absolutely straight that there is no question of interference. A future justice Minister and the Assembly at that time may show interest in, examine and scrutinise the operation of some of the other broad subject areas that are listed in the amendment, such as the Public Prosecution Service. However, we cannot interfere in such bodies’ independence; that is absolutely out. Moreover, we cannot and should not become involved in the independence of judiciary.

I suggest that the SDLP’s motivation for tabling the amendments is the same behind the tabling of its amendments at Consideration Stage; that is, an attempt to show up Sinn Féin.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Sinn Féin does that by itself.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I will allow the Member’s comment to sit for a minute. At times, it is entertaining and enjoyable for Members on these Benches to sit back and watch the squabble.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

It is a family feud.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Yes; the intra-nationalist spat is like a family feud. It is entertaining.

That is the motivation behind the amendments. Amendment No 1 lists areas such as SOCA, the PPS, North/South arrangements and the judiciary. That party wants to show that, although it tabled an amendment to seek better scrutiny and to make matters crystal clear, Sinn Féin rejected and opposed it.

If anything goes wrong in the future, the SDLP’s mantra will be to trot out the assertion that it tried to do something during the debates on the Department of Justice Bill and that Sinn Féin opposed it and that, therefore, its hands are clean and Sinn Féin’s are not. That is as much the motivation behind the amendments as anything else. I do not want to become involved in that family feud. There is a bit of a domestic going on; I do not do domestics, I am not getting involved, and I will let those parties fight it out among themselves. However, as much as we on these Benches enjoy that feud, it is holding us back from passing proper legislation in the House.

Amendment No 2 mentions a report on the North/South arrangements. I make it clear that my party has a record, through its membership of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, of supporting practical cross-border co-operation where it is of mutual benefit. That does not differentiate between policy areas and does not rule out justice matters. North/South co-operation and, indeed, east-west co-operation, which is as essential, if not more so, is imperative to deal with sex offenders, who know no boundaries, and organised crime, which respects no borders. It is imperative that cross-border co-operation exists. Such co-operation has existed perfectly well for the past number of years. It has been lauded by many people on both sides for its effectiveness without having the constraints, strictures, cost, waste and inefficiency of the North/South Ministerial Council.

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has already rejected an attempt to include a justice sector of the North/South Ministerial Council. Mr McFarland said that his party did not see the need for a justice sector at the moment, but the rest of us on this side of the House reject the need for such a sector of the North/South Ministerial Council at any time. Nonetheless, we respect the need for cross-border co-operation to exist and to continue.

Work is already well advanced to ensure that the current arrangements, which would collapse on devolution, do not do so and lead to a nightmarish scenario, but are replaced by other appropriate mechanisms. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee will deal with that issue: indeed, it will come before that Committee because its members have shown an interest in the subject, and it was put on the Committee’s agenda at the request of the SDLP. Therefore, it is clear that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, in its deliberations, will examine the issue and ensure that the appropriate arrangements are in place, and it will report to the Assembly on that basis.

The amendments are completely and utterly pointless. Many of the issues mentioned are already documented and are in the public domain. We have had sight of quite a few of the documents that outline how the relevant agencies will work after the devolution of policing and justice powers.

It is worth touching on the point that Mr Durkan made earlier, which was that the amendment seeks a report from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister on the operation of the protocols and memorandums of understanding at one particular point, which would be the commencement of sections 1 and 2 of the Act.

We have been regaled with tales of how the Member for Foyle is scared witless every time he watches ‘Spooks’, and what those nasty men in the shadows might be doing and how they will change things. If the SDLP believes that that is so important, it would have ensured that the amendment provided for the publication of a similar report. If such a value is to be placed on the report at the commencement of the two sections, surely the same weight and importance should be given to such a report every time the protocols are changed. However, that is not provided for in the amendment.

We have been told that a precedent would be set, but that is clearly not the case. There is a legal requirement to report once, but there is no requirement to do it twice, three times or four times and so on for infinity. The SDLP Members who tabled the amendments should reflect on the error that they have made. They should ask themselves why, if that requirement is to be repeated for ever and a day, they did not make that clear, or if it is for now and forever, why is it not absolutely crystal clear in the amendment that that was to be the case? The SDLP has got it wrong.

The Member for Foyle Mr Durkan said that the ministerial statement would deliver due and proper oversight. Ministerial statements to the House are a valuable device for asking questions, but no one suggests that such statements, which outline the position as it is, which is clear because documents are in the public domain, offer due and proper scrutiny in comparison with the Committee’s report, which will go to great length and will contain evidence from not just one moment in time or one meeting, but from several meetings in which the issues have been discussed, and other meetings to come. I suggest that that is by far the better way to achieve due and proper oversight of the issues. An Assembly and Executive Review Committee report, with recommendations debated and ultimately voted on in the Assembly is better than a one-off, never-to-be-repeated statement by the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

For all those reasons, I believe that the amendments are pretty pointless. They do not achieve anything, nor do they make any advances. The frailties of the amendments have been proven, not by me or others, but by the bad arguments put forward by SDLP Members.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

As has been said, it is unfortunate that the backdrop to today’s debate has been set by others outside the Chamber who have dastardly intent. I, too, place on record my complete condemnation of those who seek to destroy the accountability mechanisms of the police. I condemn the actions of those who planted a bomb outside the headquarters of the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and of those who sought to take the life of a young police officer in Fermanagh.

To debate amendments that are completely worthless and meaningless displays, not a lack of respect for the House, but a complete immaturity on the part of those who tabled the amendments. Their piousness concerning the issues that they are trying to debate and in wanting to see devolution of these powers, suggests to me that those same Members, because of their immaturity, would be the first to call for a justice Minister to resign at the first instance of a crisis in policing. That is the problem with the debate and with the amendments that have been tabled.

As my colleague has outlined, the debate centres on one party on the nationalist side of the House saying to another party on the same side of the House that it is greener, cleverer on the issues, and has tabled the amendments because it knows what is really going on. If one were to probe the amendments in any way and test them rigorously, it would become fairly clear that they are completely and utterly pointless. That should not be lost on the House.

The SDLP has sought to pursue this matter since the St Andrews Agreement, and possibly since before then. It lost that debate in annex E of the St Andrews Agreement. Its obsession with the issue does the party no good whatsoever. The Member for West Belfast Alex Attwood, in his approach to the matter, reminds me of the little boy who cried wolf. He keeps crying wolf on national security, SOCA, the independence of the judiciary and of the Public Prosecution Service. Some day he may latch on to an issue that is important, and he will be dismissed because people will just think that Alex is crying wolf again. He should do himself a favour and stop this farce. He should stop going back over issues again and again on which the debate, from his point of view, has been lost.

I despaired when I heard the Member for Foyle Mark Durkan’s justification for his reasoning on exploring the amendments before the House, when he said that if one watched ‘Spooks’, one would be aware of how these matters operate.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I clearly said that one does not have to watch or be a fan of ‘Spooks’ to know that the concept of national security has changed and expanded, and will do further. I do not watch ‘Spooks’.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I am glad. He is more of an ‘Austin Powers’ man.

If the Member wants to order a JCB and keep digging that hole, he can. He has shown political dexterity during the debate: he has changed horses, not in mid-flow, but mid-amendment and mid-sentence. He has moved, almost seamlessly, from proposing an amendment to hold the House to account and require the First Minister and deputy First Minister to make a statement on the day of devolution to saying that that statement would go on and on into the future. The Member already demonstrated better dexterity than that.

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

Mr Durkan’s comments about ‘Spooks’ backfired. I witnessed the expression of despair on the face of the colleague sitting beside him when those comments were made; indeed, I think that most of us saw that. The Member changed horse and tried to claim that the amendment was aimed at getting statements, in the future, on changes that may or may not occur. However, amendment No 1 states clearly that there should be a statement “on the day of commencement”. Those matters are ex post facto, and the statement will be made after the event. The Member did his argument no good by referring to ‘Spooks’ on the Floor of the House.

I turn now to the specifics of amendment No 1. Mr Attwood mentioned a change in circumstances that will arise on the day of devolution. The amendment refers to national security, the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the independence of the judiciary, and the independence of the Public Prosecution Service. However, the Member failed to present a single argument that explained the changes that will occur in respect of any of those matters. It is very simple: no changes will occur. It will be no surprise to people that national security is national security.

I remind Members of a debate that took place in a meeting of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee on 27 January 2009. As recorded in the Hansard report, I said on the issue of national security and SOCA:

“That should be the be-all and end-all of the relationship; as a devolved administration, we should have only a briefing relationship. National security is national security, and the administration and direction of national security starts and stops with the Prime Minister.”

Members from the Benches opposite agreed with me at that time, and it was accepted that that was the nature of the situation. Members recognised that the same situation applied in respect of SOCA, and one Member said that that was the “realpolitik” of the situation. We can have a briefing relationship, but national security starts and stops elsewhere.

I also indicated that the relationship between the Policing Board, SOCA and the security services is now settled. I said:

“the fact is that there is a settled relationship, and that is an operational issue. Why would we want to bring those operational matters, over which we would have no jurisdiction anyway, into week in, week out discussions in this forum? I do not think that that is necessary.”

Members from all sides agreed with me again.

In that debate, Mr Attwood acknowledged that the elements that I identified will continue. He indicated that changes could only arise in respect of matters that fall outwith the sovereign Government’s responsibilities. Members should recognise the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Even under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Given that we know our constitutional status, we should also know that national security is national security.

I tried to get the Member for West Belfast to explain some of those issues at the beginning of the debate. After promising that he would do so, he failed to develop on any of those in a speech that lasted 45 minutes. That highlights that the change in circumstances that the Member spoke about are fantasy. For good reason, the changed circumstances do not affect national security or SOCA. National security is not a parochial issue, and SOCA deals with issues of national crime, which can even cross frontiers, rather than parochial issues.

At the weekend, Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, reiterated that national security is not a parochial but a national matter. The wisdom is that we should not shrink national security into a corner and make it a parochial issue. The purpose of the amendments may have been intended to be probing, but they actually limit national security. What we saw today, and what we have been witness to in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee since January 2009, was a series of fishing exercises to try to bring the issue of national security back onto the agenda purely to satisfy green politics and to allow an argument to ensue about who is a better nationalist when it comes to the issue of national security. It does the House, and the circumstances in which we find ourselves, absolutely no good whatsoever.

Outside the House, others wish to mislead wilfully on the current set of relationships and what will happen after devolution. It has been stated that:

“Immediately policing and justice is devolved it indeed comes within the ambit of the all-Ireland institutions as a subject for the North/South Ministerial Council”.

That statement was made by none other than a QC. One would have thought that he might have known better. It is clear that that is a complete misrepresentation. In fact, it is more than that: it is a lie, and it is not the truth. None of those matters will involve the North/South Ministerial Council. Perhaps the person who made that comment thinks that issues about Special Branch are dealt with under the ambit of an animal health forum in the Republic of Ireland.

People need to get real and recognise that wilfully misleading people and trying to initiate a debate on issues to wipe people’s eyes, to create fear or to generate anger in the community will not work. Perhaps other people have had their eyes wiped in that regard, but the public will not allow their eyes to be wiped by certain people.

I have a letter that was written by the Secretary of State on 31 May 2009. The Member who tabled today’s amendments will have the letter in his possession. Members of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee will have a copy, and, more importantly, the document was made public at a Committee meeting. The letter spells out clearly that the intention is to share protocols and concordats with the Committee:

“in parallel with the First and deputy First Ministers and nothing has changed in that regard.”

Therefore, we will receive those papers. I assume that we will receive them when they are complete and are with the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which is the right thing to do. However, the letter makes a distinction about when we cannot have access to material. It states:

“However, issues will arise within the transferred policing and justice field which have a national security dimension or which touch on national security related issues. Where this happens, the UK Government will provide all the relevant information to devolved Ministers to support them in the fulfilment of their Ministerial roles and responsibilities, except where to do so would compromise national security.”

If Members really want to dissect that and say that they want national security to be jeopardised so that they can better hold bodies to account, they have taken leave of their senses. When protocols are shared with Members, it will be for the right and proper reasons. They will address some of the issues that have been identified.

Members know that some of that work is already being carried out. We are aware, for example, that an exchange of information is critical to the management of sex offenders, who can more easily monitored be between the jurisdictions of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. However, it is clear that some of that work is not complete and that that is a fluid process. The police will be able to develop more capability in tracking computer records so that it will be easier for them to track paedophiles who use the Internet to groom victims. As technology develops, the skill and protocol will also develop. Consequently, Members should recognise that neither the protocol nor the relationship is fixed and that matters of practical co-operation should be and are fluid.

The House should reject the amendments for the reasons that I, and other Members, have stated. Moreover, the ritualistic ceremony of constantly debating needless amendments for the sake of someone who seems to have too much passion for John le Carré and not enough for realpolitik should be set aside, and Members should recognise that if we are to get on with the devolution of policing and justice powers, we should do so sensibly and in the appropriate place, which, until the powers comes to the House, is in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Therefore, I will vote against the amendments.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

It would appear from Members’ contributions that some of them are either unable or unwilling to understand the purpose of the amendments. To paraphrase the First Minister at his party conference: when something comes from the other side, it has to be detrimental to our side. If it were not for the Sinn Féin/DUP tag team, Sinn Féin, through its refusal to support the amendments, would not have provided a fig leaf for the DUP. Unlike the way in which Mr Paisley Jnr and others were trying to present the amendments, they are not only necessary but are related to and fall within the constraints of the Bill, and that is why they are so constrained.

Mr Hamilton said that one would not want to have superfluous and meaningless reports from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Perish the thought. If one were to examine what is said in Question Time at times, one might wonder whether we get meaningful answers on a wide range of issues.

Amendment No 1 recommends the insertion of a new clause 2A to cover, among other bodies, the work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Unlike the near hysteria from some members of Sinn Féin in the past two or three weeks when there were raids in south Armagh, the SDLP has always sought to ensure that the Serious Organised Crime Agency’s work takes full account of criminal activity in the North and that the Assets Recovery Agency’s work was not overlooked when it was subsumed into SOCA.

We welcome the targeting of organised criminals and gangs that rob people in the North. Perhaps one outcome of the debate and what happened two to three weeks ago will be to give some explanation of the difference between devolved and non-devolved policing matters, and allow time for members of Sinn Féin to understand that difference, because SOCA is a non-devolved matter. It is right and proper that the public, particularly those who see criminals in their midst and believe that many of them are getting away with what they have done, see criminals being held to account under proper protocols that have been explained in the House.

Given that no one knows the date for the devolution of policing and justice powers, surely the purpose of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister’s statement is not to hold it up. Last year, Sinn Féin held up the Assembly’s work for five whole months on the premise that it was going to deliver on the devolution of policing and justice powers. However, here we are again, still with no debate and no time frame.

At the weekend, the First Minister said — I trust that he does not mind my paraphrasing his conference speech, because I listened well — that Sinn Féin is looking over its shoulder at Alex Attwood. Is that really what this afternoon’s debate has been about? It has certainly been what Sinn Féin’s contribution has been about. [Interruption.]

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. The Member should return to the subject at hand, which is the debate on amendment Nos 1 and 2.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I will respect your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, although the other Deputy Speakers gave Members considerable latitude earlier in the debate.

I shall now speak about why the public might want proper protocols and agreements to be in place on national security. One has only to ask the surviving victims of the Omagh bombing about whether there should be transparency in the oversight of national security to answer that question. I welcomed Mr McFarland’s contribution in which he said that the Ulster Unionist Party would be minded to support amendment No 1. I hope that that will be the case. The SDLP is not divided on the matter; it is not a division that we have created with Sinn Féin. Comments about splits in parties are rich coming from the DUP when one looks at its internal feuding. [Interruption.]

Did someone mention Jim Allister? What was that? Sorry, I did not quite hear that.

Amendment No 2 is about North/South agreement and co-operation on criminal justice matters. As Mr Spratt said rightly, such co-operation has existed for many years. Indeed, the current co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the PSNI was exemplified in the arrest of individuals in relation to the shooting incident in Fermanagh. What is wrong with strengthening the protections of all our people on the island of Ireland? Surely, there is nothing to fear from amendment No 2. One would wonder why Sinn Féin cannot support amendment No 2, and that party will certainly have to answer a number of questions on the matter from its supporters.

In relation to amendment No 1, the questions about the independence of the judiciary and the Public Prosecution Service have been well articulated by my party colleagues. The relevance of those issues to the amendment speaks for itself. I think that it was Alex Maskey who said in a recent press release that the decision has been made by the two main, big parties and the other parties are almost immaterial in the matter. That is coming from a party that has shouted about its electoral mandate for many years but seeks to deny the SDLP and other parties in the Chamber full disclosure and full debate by way of a statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister at the commencement of the Act. Why should everything be held in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee? As Dr Farry pointed out, the Alliance Party is not represented on that Committee, and I am sure that it would welcome an opportunity to have more of a say.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I will give way to Dr Farry.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

Notwithstanding the way in which the Alliance Party has been discriminated against and excluded from the Committee, it goes without saying that we do have confidence in the workings of the Committee and respect the ability of the institutions of the House to reach conclusions. Certainly, we have aspirations to rise to the dizzy heights of a seat on that Committee some time in the future, but we respect that there are set procedures for dealing with business and it is counterproductive to try to circumvent them. We look forward to having a full debate on the detail on the Floor of the Chamber, as opposed to simply asking a question of the First Minister or deputy First Minister if a statement were made.