Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 December 2009

396 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned about the proposed statement from the Minister of Education. During Question Time yesterday, in response to question 5 to the Minister of Education, which my colleague Mr Kinahan asked, she said:

“I am constrained in how far I can go at this point without risking the wrath of the Chair by providing the details that I wish to impart in the statement.” — [Official Report, Vol 46, No 3, p173, col 2].

There is substantial concern that media outlets, both press and electronic, relayed the detail of the statement that the Minister of Education is about to make to the House. Mr Speaker, I find that unsatisfactory, and I ask that you investigate the matter and relay to the Minister of Education and all Ministers the importance of treating this House with proper respect.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I hear what the Member is saying. I have always encouraged Ministers to come to the House first. I have always encouraged Ministers to give the House its place. I recognise that that is not always possible. However, when I meet with Executive members, I encourage that it be the case as far as possible. I expect Ministers to give the House its place before going to the press.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, I am of the firm understanding that there is no indication whatsoever that the Minister of Education made any statement to any press organisation or issued any press release before coming to the House. It appears that the Ulster Unionist Party raises a point of order every time that we enter the House to hear a ministerial statement. It might be useful to hold a class on how to use Standing Orders, because it is clear that that party does not realise what they are for.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I cannot add much to what I have already said. I am not blaming any Minister. All that I am saying is that, as far as possible, it is important that Ministers give the House its place without going to the press, and that is what I said to Mr Kennedy. I am not blaming the Minister of Education.

I am not saying that the Minister went to the press. I am just establishing the principle that the House should be given its place in respect of particular Assembly issues.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As Mr O’Dowd suggested, perhaps you can help me. Will you tell me whether it is necessary for the statement that the Minister of Education is about to make to be brought before the First Minister and deputy First Minister and whether it has been approved by the First Minister?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That is a matter for the Minister. It is up to any Minister whether he or she wants to make a statement to the House. Ministerial statements do not have to be approved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Ministerial Statement

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have received notice from the Minister of Education that she wishes to make a statement on interim governance and management arrangements for the education sector in the period before the education and skills authority (ESA) is established.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I would like to confirm that I did not speak to any press in relation to this matter. I have always given the House its place, and I respect the House. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis seo le ráiteas a thabhairt don Tionól inniu —

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I will be happy to take points of order after the statement.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

OK; we will see whether we can improve the hearing.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis seo ráiteas a thabhairt don Tionól inniu faoi na socruithe idirthréimhseacha rialachais agus bainistithe atá á gcur i bhfeidhm agam don earnáil oideachais le linn na tréimhse sula mbainfear amach sprioc an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin an t-úadarás um oideachas agus scileanna a bhunú.

I welcome the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly about the transitional governance and management arrangements that I am putting in place for the education sector in the period before the Executive’s objective of an education and skills authority is established. The Executive committed themselves to 1 January 2010 as the establishment date for the ESA, and I have devoted my energies and those of my Department to implementing that Executive commitment. However, the Bill has not reached Consideration Stage, and the agreed operational date of 1 January 2010 is no longer achievable.

The new year was to bring a new era for education here. Sadly, the failure to find a political agreement means that that era has been delayed. The implementation date for the ESA has been put off on several occasions since 2008. That has been unsettling for thousands of staff employed in the sector and potentially disruptive for front line services. We cannot continue to allow things to be delayed and keep on pushing the problems in front of us. By doing so, we forgo the benefits of improved educational standards and the greater efficiency that will be realised from the operation of the new authority in delivering front line services.

Creidim go láidir go gcinnteoidh na daoine ar fad a bhfuil spéis acu i leas na bpáistí atá i gcroílár ár gcórais oideachais go ndéanfar an t-aistriú chuig an údarás um oideachas agus scileanna a réidhe agus is féidir tríd. Áirítear ar an méid sin freagracht na bpolaiteoirí atá sa Seomra.

I believe firmly that all those who are interested in the children at the heart of our education system can and will ensure a smooth transition to the ESA as soon as possible. That includes the responsibility of politicians in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the many members and staff in the affected organisations for the contributions that they made towards that goal during the transition period. However, I recognise that the heightened uncertainty, which could impact on front line services if it is not managed, has to be dispelled. As the Minister of Education, I have the responsibility to act. I must ensure that momentum is maintained towards delivering this long-awaited Executive reform. The Assembly, too, must act in a responsible manner in the weeks and months ahead.

Caithfear leanúint leis na hiarrachtaí atá déanta ag an earnáil oideachais go dtí seo i dtreo choinbhéirseacht na ngníomhaíochtaí isteach san eagraíocht nua agus leanfar leo. The efforts that have already been made by the education sector towards the convergence of activities in a new organisation must and will continue.

There are significant financial implications too. Departments are already facing major resource constraints next year. The delay in ESA coming into being has impacted on the £8·3 million that we had expected to achieve this year from ESA, and any further delay could impact on savings in the coming year. Between this year and next, £21·3 million has already been taken out of the education budget and, thus, any delay in establishing ESA has a direct impact on education services. That is something that we simply cannot afford to let happen. The longer the establishment of ESA is put off, the longer education will have to await the benefits and absorb the financial loss.

Caithfear an coigilteas pleanáilte ón údarás um oideachas agus scileanna a fháil. Mar sin, tá rogha simplí ach géarthábhachtach le déanamh againn: is féidir an coigilteas a fháil trí ghearradh siar ar mhaorlathas; nó trí ghearradh siar ar theagasc agus ar fhoghlaim. Tá sé ar intinn agam gearradh siar ar mhaorlathas. Is éard atá i gceist ag ESA ná maorlathas a chuíchóiriú agus caighdeáin oideachais a ardú. Tá an dá rud ríthábhachtach.

The planned savings from ESA must be made, so we face a simple but stark choice: savings can be made by cutting bureaucracy or by cutting back on teaching and learning. I intend to cut bureaucracy. ESA is about streamlining bureaucracy and raising educational standards. Both are vital. I have, therefore, been considering the transitional governance and management arrangements for the period before ESA is established. We need to keep on the path of convergence. Therefore, I have decided to implement new arrangements to achieve that aim.

A smooth transition is on my agenda, as it should be for everyone in this Assembly. I am, therefore, using existing legislation to press ahead with interim arrangements from 1 January 2010. Those are designed to ensure that we continue to reduce bureaucracy and streamline education services in preparation for ESA; that momentum towards ESA is not lost and that work towards convergence of services across the nine existing organisations is accelerated; that greater uniformity is achieved in the services that are provided; that school improvement and raising standards are pursued more vigorously; that there are greater efforts to drive out savings through efficiencies to protect front line education services; and that there is increased financial oversight in this period of increased uncertainty.

Dá n-athbhunófaí na boird, bheadh sé seo contrártha le cuspóir an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin: athchóiriú radacach na struchtúr oideachais, agus bheadh sin ina chúis éiginnteachta do bhaill foirne agus do scoileanna. Is beag is fiú fad a chur le ballraíocht iomlán na mbord arís don idirthréimhse. Deir cuid mhór de chomhaltaí an ELB go bhfuil a gcion féin déanta acu le himeacht na mblianta, agus tá an ceart acu.

Simply reconstituting the boards would be contrary to the Executive’s objective of radical reform of education structures and would only cause further uncertainty for staff and schools. I do not see value in simply extending the entire board membership again for a transitional period. Many education and library board members rightly state that they have already played their part over the years. I have, therefore, decided to use existing legislation to reduce the membership of the boards so that we have smaller decision-making structures in place. For Members’ perusal, I have appended to the written copies of the statement the numbers that will be involved in each transitional board.

I plan to reduce membership of the boards by over half, taking into account equality legislation and discussions with the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I aim to ensure that the transitional boards will reflect the communities that they serve. My Department will be in contact with the relevant bodies that nominate to the boards about the details in the coming days.

Tá mé ag iniúchadh socruithe cuí ballraíochta do Chomhairle na Scoileanna Caitliceacha faoi Chothabháil, don Chomhairle Curaclaim, Scrúdúcháin agus Measúnaithe, do Choimisiún na Foirne agus don Chomhairle Ógra.

I am also looking at the appropriate membership arrangements for the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards and the Youth Council. I have considered, too, how the organisations should operate in the interim period towards the implementation of the Executive’s decision to establish ESA. There must be a stronger push on the preparations for ESA and a greater focus on the convergence activities.

I have asked the chairperson-designate of ESA, Sean Hogan, to take on a greater role during the transitional period. The chairperson-designate will convene meetings of the chairpersons of the transitional boards and of the other education bodies to ensure that there is a strong co-ordinated approach to the convergence activity. Performance management arrangements will be put in place for the chairpersons so that there is a clear focus for their work. It is important that the transitional boards work increasingly together on the reorganisation and delivery of services to facilitate transformation and convergence. Each board currently operates with a number of committees that perform functions delegated by the boards. I will be asking the transitional boards to introduce a committee structure that will help to facilitate transformation and convergence.

Ba mhaith liom a chinntiú go nglacann príomhfheidhmeannach ainmnithe an ESA, Gavin Boyd, ról níos dírí sna hullmhúcháin. Beidh mé ag cur socruithe i bhfeidhm do na hoifigigh cuntasaíochta ar na boird agus ar na forais eile le gur féidir leo tuairisciú don Roinn tríd an bpríomhfheidhmeannach ainmnithe, atá ina oifigeach cuntasaíochta leis an Roinn Oideachais

I want to ensure that the chief executive-designate of ESA, Gavin Boyd, now takes on a much more direct role in the preparations. I will be putting in place arrangements for the accounting officers in the boards and in the other bodies affected to report to the Department through the chief executive-designate, who is an accounting officer in the Department of Education.

I will be asking the chairperson and the chief executive designates to produce a convergence delivery plan with clear leadership roles for the incoming ESA directors and associated timescales for implementation. The plan should cover the reorganisation of back-office functions, managing cross-board services and determining how existing organisations should be directed to drive forward key policies, including ‘Every School a Good School’, the entitlement framework and area-based planning, as well as their adherence to equality duties under the Good Friday Agreement.

In the transitional period, there is a need for increased financial oversight so that we continue to ensure that services are delivered and that the risks to a seamless transition to ESA are carefully managed. I have, therefore, asked my Department to review the financial delegations to the existing bodies.

As I said, all those arrangements are designed to reduce uncertainty and to ensure that progress continues to be made until ESA is established in line with the Executive’s stated objective. The chair and chief executive designate of ESA will play a greater role for the Department in working with the nine existing organisations to ensure that there is a strong co-ordinated approach to the convergence activity. I have set out the measures that need to operate in the transitional period, which, I hope, will be very short. I will monitor the effectiveness of the measures and supplement them with other changes as necessary.

Níor cheart go mbeadh aon mhoill eile ar dhul chun cinn na reachtaíochta i dtreo aidhm an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin le haghaidh athchóiriú na seirbhísí oideachais. Ba chóir do gach duine ar suim leis todhchaí an oideachais anseo a bpáirt féin a imirt lena chinntiú go bhfuil an mhoill seo chomh beag agus is féidir.

A further delay in the progress of the legislation towards the Executive’s objective of reforming education services should not be allowed to occur. All those who have the future of education here at heart should now play their part in ensuring that the delay is minimal. I have appended to the written copies of the statement a breakdown of the membership of the transitional education and library boards.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Quite a number of Members wish to ask questions about the Minister’s statement. Therefore, in order to get everybody in, I encourage Members to come to their questions quickly.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

It is appropriate that I set the Minister of Education’s statement in context.

As Chairperson of the Education Committee, I wish to first remind Members of what the Minister said to the House on 25 November 2008 during a statement on the review of public administration for education, just prior to the introduction of the first Education Bill:

“The RPA is a single legislative programme. My intention is that it will be implemented by means of two Acts that will be intimately linked. Full implementation of both Acts will be necessary in order to achieve the programme’s objectives.”

She also said:

“local democratic accountability…is vital for a service as important as education.” — [Offical Report, Bound Volume 35, p257, cols 1-2].

The position is as the Minister has just said: the first Education Bill has not reached Consideration Stage, and the second education Bill has not been introduced to the House. A total of 97 amendments and six notices of clause not stand part have been tabled on the first Education Bill. No information on the scrutiny or the content of the second Bill has been brought before the House. Yet, the Minister today tells the Members of this legislative Assembly:

“I have decided to implement new arrangements to achieve that aim.”

That is, the convergence of nine existing statutory bodies into an ESA.

Clearly, the House has not made its decisions on these Bills. So, for the Minister to now implement new arrangements —

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Is that a speech or a question?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. It is well known in this House that when Chairpersons of Committees rise in their place they have some latitude before they put their question, and this morning is no different. I encourage the Chairperson to come to his question.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

The House has invested in its Committees power to scrutinise, and it ought to be the case that, when it comes to a very important issue, the Chairpersons have the right to ensure that they set in context the statement that has been made to the House. It is one thing to make preparations to implement legislation, but pre-empting the will of the Assembly is something that I think is very serious.

To reduce membership of the education and library boards by over half and to introduce transitional boards —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I encourage the Member to come to his question.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I will get to the question.

I can find no reference to transitional boards in the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 or to the chairperson-designate of ESA having responsibility to ensure the delivery of convergence. Therefore, I have a number of questions for the Minister.

First, will the Minister state whether the legal status of the individual education and library boards and their chairpersons and chief executive accounting officers will be altered in any way by her proposals and, if so, should there not be legislation before the House? Secondly, what is the current legal status of the chairperson-designate of ESA and the chief executive-designate of ESA, and where specifically do powers exist for them to carry out the tasks that the Minister is proposing in relation to the current education and library boards and other bodies? In conclusion, I come to questions that will be very important for the Minister. The Minister said that she will take into account equality legislation. Has her Department equality-screened her proposals, will an EQIA be carried out and what is the timescale for that to be done?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat as an ráiteas sin.

I had a meeting with the Chairperson of the Education Committee prior to making this statement, and I thank him for that meeting. My officials and I have always worked with the Education Committee, and I will continue to do that.

I will answer the Chairperson’s first question, which was whether the revised transitional arrangements are legal. The answer is yes. Officials have scrutinised the relevant statutes. I am using existing legislation; the transitional structures will be constituted within the existing education and equality legislation.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. It is worth putting it on the record that the Chairperson of the Committee for Education did not agree any statement of the Committee prior to this meeting.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will take the point of order at the end of this item of business. There are no points of order during ministerial statements.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Members talk about efficient and effective government and about reducing bureaucracy and investing money in front line services. They talk the talk, but they cannot walk the walk. My question relates to savings in education. Some £21 million has been removed from the Minister’s budget, because the Executive had agreed that the ESA would be established by 1 January 2010. How will the Department of Education deal with that loss of £21 million?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

We will deal with it with great difficulty. Efficiency savings were identified on the basis that the ESA would be established in line with the Executive’s agreement. The delay in establishing the ESA means that it has not been possible to deliver the savings in the way in which the Department intended, and, as the funding has been deducted from the budget, the reduction will have to be borne across education services. One factor that is more important than savings and one which, I hope, Members will reflect on is that many of our young people are being failed by our education system. Members need to ask themselves what impact the delay in the establishment of the ESA will mean for those young people, be they on the Falls Road or the Shankill Road.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let the Minister respond.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

What impact will the delay have on the young people in the Waterside, Coleraine or in any other part of the North? For me, that is the biggest question today.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister touched on the loss to her Department of £21·3 million between this year and next year. At an Education Committee meeting, officials confirmed that much of the saving that was to be brought by the ESA was already trapped due to difficulties with vacancy control and various other issues. The anticipated savings were, therefore, already in the system.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to come to his question.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Given that the Minister, in her statement, said that financial oversight is important, will she elaborate on the performance management arrangements of the chairperson-designate of the ESA? Do the education and library boards have a statutory obligation to listen to the chief executive-designate of the ESA?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The chairperson-designate and the chief executive-designate have key roles to play in the interim phase to keep the momentum going towards the new authority. Therefore, I have asked Sean Hogan, chairperson-designate, to take on the co-ordination of the work of the chairpersons of the education body, so that there is a stronger focus on the convergence activity. I also want the existing bodies to report to Gavin Boyd, chief executive-designate — he has been an accounting officer in the Department for a number of months — so that stronger linkages are put in place between the work of the existing organisations and the preparations for the ESA.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. An féidir leis an Aire a dhearbhú go mbeidh ceapacháin ar bith a dhéantar san idirthréimhse de réir na reachtaíochta um fhostaíocht chothrom? An féidir léi a dhearbhú fosta nach ndéanfar éagóir ar bith ar théarmaí seirbhíse na n-oifigeach atá sna heagraíochtaí oideachais eile?

Will the Minister assure the House that any appoint­ments or promotions made by the reduced education and library boards in the interim period will meet the requirements of equality legislation? Will she also assure us that the terms and conditions of board officers and those in the other relevant education bodies, such as CCEA, NICIE, CCMS and Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta will not be adversely affected by the changes?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat as an cheist sin. I can confirm that I will take account of all equality legislation. As I said, I aim to ensure that the transitional boards reflect the community that they serve in a very even-handed way.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

To follow on from Mr Storey’s question about the legality of reconstituting the boards, if it is legal to do what the Minister suggests, surely it would be legal to allow the existing boards to have a stay of execution and to continue in their present form. The Minister speaks about streamlining bureaucracy and taking financial considerations into account, yet board members are not paid. Therefore, would it not be simpler and quicker to allow them to remain in their present form?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The simple reconstitution of the boards is neither practical nor desirable. Many board members rightly state that they have played their part. Simply to reconstitute the boards for another three months or three years, or for whatever length of time it takes before there is political agreement, will cause only further uncertainty for staff and will be contrary to the Executive’s stated objective. We need transitional arrangements to be put in place that are capable of accelerating the convergence process towards the ESA and ensuring that we are fit for purpose to face the financial year. We are about streamlining bureaucracy. What I have said is that I plan to reduce board membership by half.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

The Minister is on public record as saying that local democratic accountability is vital for a service as important as education. Can she, therefore, explain why the Belfast Education and Library Board will move from the position of having 14 elected councillors on the board to having only four? How will that board be representative of the community that it serves?

Furthermore, is the fact that the Minister has not consulted any of her Executive colleagues or the Committee for Education an indication that she has given up on trying to find consensus on any of the issues, or is it merely an indication that she knows that nobody will agree with her?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I never give up. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Minister answered my question in her response to Trevor Lunn. However, I declare an interest as a member of the Western Education and Library Board — a current member.

Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I note with interest that the Minister said that she will ask the chairpersons of all the new bodies to converge and produce a delivery plan in conjunction with moving over to the ESA. I take it that she is really saying that Donal Flanagan, the chief executive of the CCMS, has just got the sack, because how will she deal with the fact that he instructed his members to have no dealings with the interim ESA set-up? I take it from what the Minister has said that she has just given that man the sack.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Absolutely not. I wish to make it very clear that all the organisations have worked closely with me and with my Department over the past number of years. I have chaired regular meetings with all the chairpersons of the existing organisations, and they have all played their part very well and very constructively, including Bishop McAreavey, who is the chairperson — the cathaoirleach — of the CCMS. My officials and I look forward to working with the chairpersons of the transitional boards and with the chairperson designate and chief executive designate of the ESA to ensure a smooth and seamless transition.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Minister indicated that she had not spoken to any media outlet. May I press her on whether her special advisers or the press relations people in her Department were responsible for the leaking of information? Has she instructed her permanent secretary to instigate a leak inquiry?

In streamlining the education and library boards, who will decide which elected members will retain their places on them, and how will that decision be made? Given the Minister’s record, how can the House have confidence that she will not appoint her political cronies to those positions?

Finally, will the Minister explain to the House what the ramifications of the transitional reforms will be should the Assembly reject, or substantially amend, the Education Bill?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I can confirm that my special adviser did not talk to the press. He also respects the House.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

What about the PR people?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I can also confirm that —

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I can also confirm that the PR people did not speak to the press.

Mary Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The transitional arrangements may allay fears for a while, but we need certainty. Will the Minister clearly state when the Consideration Stage of the Education Bill, which provides for the establishment of ESA, will come before the House? Will she also specify the status that she is using to make the changes?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am using existing legislation to make the necessary changes.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. Will the Minister tell the House when the current board members will be informed about the revised governance arrangements? Will she also confirm whether the Commissioner for Public Appointments has been consulted about the transitional arrangements?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I wanted to announce the changes to the Assembly first. Therefore, board members will be informed of the changes after the debate.

What was the Member’s second question?

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I asked whether the Commissioner for Public Appointments has been consulted about the transitional arrangements.

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Commissioner for Public Appointments has been consulted, and the Department will work closely with her.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I note that no reference was made to the South Eastern Board in the Minister’s statement to the House and that there is to be a reduction in the overall membership of the transitional boards. If the process is to be carried out equitably, will there be a reduction in the number of commissioners who run the South Eastern Board?

Appendix a of the Minister’s statement shows that 21 “others” will be appointed to the transitional boards. Will the Minister confirm that all 21 are existing members of education and library boards?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will ask the commissioners to stay on for a short period. That is a proportionate approach, because the board has worked well under them, and it would be wrong to disrupt the system at this key time.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat. I thank the Minister for her statement. How will the failure to pass the Education Bill affect children transferring between primary and post-primary schools?

[Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

My proposals for a new exceptional circumstances body were dependent on the passage of the Education Bill. I am considering the introduction of other measures to ensure that children are not further disadvantaged by the arrangements that a small number of breakaway grammar schools have put in place this year. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will make every effort to ensure that children do not bear the brunt of the obstruction or inaction of others, as I did when the Executive failed to consider my proposals for transfer in 2008.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Most of the Members who are in the House today and those who read the Minister’s statement later will come to the conclusion that she may as well have not made it, because it offers no conclusions. Does the Minister accept that her Department is on the verge of meltdown and that her statement contains nothing to prevent that? Will she assure the House that she will adopt a more consensual approach, rather than the belligerent and confrontational manner that she has adopted to date, and sort out our education system once and for all?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I brought forward the proposals today to ensure a smooth transition for all our children and young people and to deal with the effects of political parties trying to block very important legislation. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Perhaps the Member will go back to his constituency — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Perhaps he will go back to his constituency and explain to the young people who are being failed by the system how his party’s policies and the delay in the introduction of ESA help them.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I note the Minister’s statement today. Many Members feel that the Minister is introducing what amount to educational commissars at a time when the Committee for Education and the House have grave difficulty with the progression of the Education Bill. Does she not realise that not only is that causing the educational world some difficulty but it is adding to the fragility of the current state of the House?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I absolutely accept that the delay in bringing forward an Executive decision is very serious, and that is why I have brought forward proposals today. Faced with delay and obstruction, I have a duty to act for the benefit of children and young people. That is what I am doing.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The appendix to the Minister’s statement refers to 24 councillors and, as my colleague Peter Weir said, to 21 others. Will the Minister detail how the 24 councillors will be selected? Can she also answer the question that my colleague asked about the selection of the 21 others?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

That is one of the areas that is under discussion with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and the chairpersons and chief executives will be informed in due course of the outcomes of those discussions. I assure Members that I will take equality legislation into account, and I aim to ensure that the transitional boards will reflect the community that they serve.

Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for her statement. Will she expand on why the arrangements that she detailed are necessary? Will she also explain, not only to those in the House but to people in the community, who are important, exactly what or who is causing the delay in the establishment of ESA?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The Education Bill has not proceeded to Consideration Stage because the Executive have not yet considered the amendments that I, the Committee for Education and individual Members have tabled. I trust that my Executive colleagues will recognise the need to consider the amendments urgently so that the much needed reform of education administration, which the Executive have agreed, can go ahead. That is essential, because we can ensure that schools will be well supported and that children will get the best chance. It is no secret that Members on the unionist Benches are trying to block change.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. I appreciate the situation that the Minister is in at the moment. Further to her previous answer, will she expand on what processes are under way to try to find agreement on the way forward for the Bill between parties on the Executive so that we can have some clarity and so that the transitionary period will be closed? Can the Minister also clarify the situation on speculation in the media about lowering the threshold for delegated financial authority? That was mentioned in media reports last night but was not referred to in her statement.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I am putting financial arrangements in place, and I will bring forward details on those in the coming days.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

In light of the fact that the Education Bill has not reached Consideration Stage, will the Minister inform the House what her centrally controlled convergence plan will be converging towards?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The convergence plan will be implementing the badly needed reforms and ensuring that there is a smooth transition for all our children and young people. It will also ensure that ‘Every School a Good School’, area-based planning and the entitlement framework will be policies that will be implemented fully. The convergence plan will ensure that we use the scarce resources that we have to the best possible effect.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

I note that the Minister passed on most questions. She said that she must ensure that momentum is maintained and that there will be a smooth transition process. What does she feel that she could have done better?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I think that the House agrees that it would be better for everyone if all the parties that had originally agreed an Executive decision had followed through with that decision. I am ready and waiting to make sure that the ESA is established. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

In the absence of that body, I have brought forward proposals, because I am not prepared to stand idly by while children are failed by the system.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That ends questions to the Minister of Education on her statement.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some Members of the House seem to think that it is funny that Members want to raise points of order. However, this is a serious issue.

Will you confirm — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

We are well used to the arrogance of the party opposite; it is nothing new.

Mr Speaker, will you confirm that I, as the Chairperson of a Statutory Committee of the House, have every right to ask questions of the Minister that are relevant to the Committee on the basis of its debates and discussions and on information that has been made available to the Committee? Secondly, will you make a ruling on the totally dismissive nature of the Minister of Education in the way in which she dealt with some questions, whereby, in the normal way that she deals with the House, she dismissed, and, therefore, did not answer, the questions that were asked on a very serious point and a very serious issue in relation to what was said in the House today?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

With regard to the latter issue, I have always said in the House that it is up to all Ministers to decide how they might answer a question. I certainly do not intend to sit in judgement on how a Minister might answer a question. With regard to the Member’s first point, that is certainly a responsibility of the Committee for Education and its Chairperson; it is not an issue for the House. It rests with the Committee.

Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, you said that it is up to Ministers to decide how they answer questions. However, is there not a directive that Ministers give at least some type of answer to questions? No answer whatsoever was given to my question about the Belfast Education and Library Board or to other Members’ questions.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As Members know, I encourage Ministers, as far as possible, to answer questions as fully as possible, but I will not sit in judgement on how a Minister might answer a question — that is the key — because that would be a very difficult role.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is it a point of order on the same issue, Mr McCrea? We really need to move on.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate the need to move on because we have other important business. However, this is a fundamentally important issue. When Members ask a direct question, are they not entitled to a response?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I hear what the Member is saying, but I cannot add any more to what I have already said this morning, and I feel that we should move on.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move

That the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [NIA 15/07] do now pass.

Today, as one might expect, I want to draw attention to the purpose, aims and objectives of the Bill, to thank the Committee for the Environment and other Members for their contribution to its passage and to say something about looking forward to working with the Committee to develop the regulations that are needed to give the Bill full effect.

I will go back in time and pick up on the early days of the proposals that are now included in the Bill. Members will see why many people, my officials among them, are relieved that we have arrived at Final Stage. I guess that those who are sitting in the Officials’ Box to my left may still be biting their nails and wondering what could go wrong.

Nearly 18 years have passed since legislative change for the freight industry was first reviewed. It would not be out of place to call it ‘The Long and Winding Road’. In 1991, the issue was the responsibility of direct rule Ministers. In fact, a total of 14 Ministers have, in some way or another, had responsibility for leading the process to its current position: that is, nine direct rule Ministers and five devolved Ministers.

I will return to the real business of today’s debate. I remind Members of the purpose and aims of the Bill. Its purpose is to provide enabling legislation to create a new legal framework for freight licensing. It is the outcome of a number of comprehensive reviews that were conducted by officials and has been drafted with great skill by the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and hand tailored to meet the demands of an important sector of industry in Northern Ireland. The aims of the Bill are to improve the standard of goods vehicles on the roads, promote fairer competition in the sector through the reduction of illegal freight operational activity, provide a fairer share of the burden of regulation and develop a better approach to dealing with the environmental impact of the industry.

The Bill is the third major piece of primary legislation to have been introduced by road safety division in as many years. It follows the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 and the Taxis Act 2008, and, together, the three Bills represent a commendable endeavour to improve road safety. It is the first Bill that I have brought to Final Stage as Minister of the Environment. I do not expect it to be a Christmas number one, but if it were, I would have to share the royalties with my predecessors, Arlene Foster and Sammy Wilson. I expect it to be the first of many Bills, and, although some of those will be of greater significance than others, I am proud that my first Bill deals with bread-and-butter issues such as the freight and logistics industry.

The freight industry is of significant importance to the Northern Ireland economy. Some 25,000 goods vehicles lift over 75 million tons of freight in Northern Ireland every year and transport it by road. The most popular commodities are crude minerals, food, drink, tobacco and building materials. Most end users do not appreciate the planning effort and risks that are associated with the road-based industry, and all that is reasonably possible must be done to reduce the risks and ensure the effectiveness of that key industry in Northern Ireland. For those reasons, I am pleased to ask the House to support the Bill.

I thank Members for their attention to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill, not only during Consideration Stage, when the amendments were approved, but in the detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee. I am pleased with the level of consensus that the Bill enjoyed in all parts of the House, and I particularly thank the members of the Committee for the Environment and its current and former Chairpersons for the Committee’s considered evidence taking and detailed scrutiny of the Bill, its useful suggestions for amendments and its comprehensive report, which was published in December 2008.

My officials have aged slightly during the Bill’s passage; I think that they were about 21 when they started. They are appreciative of the constructive working relationship that has been established between them and Committee members and, on their behalf, I thank the Committee.

The Bill, as it stands to be voted on in the Assembly, shows that a Minister, a Committee and officials can achieve positive outcomes by working together. I look forward to continuing that relationship as I consult with the Committee for the Environment on the detailed proposals for the Bill’s implementation. I commend the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill to the House.

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

I thank the Minister for moving the Final Stage of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill. The Committee welcomes the Final Stage of that important Bill, which is needed to deal with all matters relating to the regulation of road freight operators. The Committee recognises that the Bill has the potential to enhance road safety, improve the image of the freight sector and contribute to the fight against organised crime.

The Bill was referred to the Committee on 21 May 2008, and members conducted detailed scrutiny, making recommendations and prompting amendments where they deemed necessary. The Committee considered that the key issues relating to the Bill were the fact that the own-account sector is not currently regulated; the financial impact of the proposed new arrangements on operators; the definition of “operating centre”; organised crime; the poor reputation of Northern Ireland’s haulage system; cross-border issues; exemptions; planning; and enforcement.

The Committee outlined its recommendations for the Bill at Consideration Stage, and it would be remiss of me not to thank the Deputy Chairperson for speaking in my absence on behalf of the Committee on that occasion. Committee members had particular areas of concern, and I request that the Minister and his Department keep a close eye on those. The first of those is the issue of flagging out. Several stakeholders expressed concern that the Bill would distort operating conditions and competitiveness across the border and that businesses would be under pressure to relocate their operating centres. The Committee feels that that issue will require monitoring by the Department so that we are aware of any negative impacts of the Bill in that regard.

The second issue is that of the financial impact of the proposed new arrangements for operators. Many stakeholders expressed concern about the Bill’s cost implications. In addition to the licensing process, costs will be associated with extra paperwork, insurance implications, obtaining professional competence and more time off the road for maintenance. The Committee calls on the Department to ensure that, in the current economic climate, any increased costs and bureaucracy that the industry faces are kept to an absolute minimum.

The third and final issue is enforcement, which the Committee discussed at length. Although members support the Bill and recognise its importance in improving the industry and, consequently, road safety, they feel that it will not bring about the intended improvements unless it is properly enforced. I, therefore, call on the Minister to ensure that adequate resources are allocated to ensure proper enforcement, and I urge him again to consider the feasibility of appointing an independent traffic commissioner for the North.

On behalf of the Committee, I thank the Minister for addressing its concerns and for bringing forward amendments in response to the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill. Once again, I put on record my thanks to the Committee staff and departmental officials for their hard work in assisting the Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill. The outcome is improved legislation that will genuinely help to protect lives.

The House will know that the Minister has several other Bills in the pipeline. I welcome his constructive working relationship with the Committee and look forward to working with him on those Bills.

Adrian McQuillan (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for the opportunity to discuss, at this Final Stage, the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill.

We all understand the importance of road safety in Northern Ireland, and it is with this legislation that we will be able to control and monitor the operators of goods vehicles. The current situation in Northern Ireland allows any heavy goods vehicle operator to use our roads without having their vehicles and drivers properly regulated. That includes operators with only one vehicle as well as a large operator with a fleet of however many vehicles. The proposed legislation will allow the Department of the Environment, through the licensing of operators, to ensure, for example, that drivers’ hours are correctly enforced, that only roadworthy vehicles are used, and that, if not, corrective action will be enforced, with subsequent penalties.

The legislation will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain, which enforces the licensing of operators. It will apply to all operators fairly and will ensure that all vehicles are maintained and used on the road by an experienced and responsible driver, thereby reducing the possibility of accidents and keeping the roads safer. I support the Bill.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá.

I thank the Bill Office, the Committee Clerk and her staff, and anyone else who contributed in bringing the Bill to the Chamber. I also pay tribute to the former Chairperson of the Committee.

The Bill, when implemented, will complement the road safety strategy. It will also paint freight operators in a better light in the eyes of the public, which was an issue that raised its head in discussions on enforcement during scrutiny of the Bill. However, I want to bring to the Minister’s attention the fears that were expressed to the Committee about the effect that operator centres would have on independent carriers who operate from home. The Minister told the Committee when he appeared before it that that policy was only in the form of guidelines. I would appreciate it if that rationale and common sense could be applied to some of the independent operators in relation to planning.

The Minister said that this was his first Bill, and it may be a Christmas number one. However, the Committee spent a long time scrutinising the Taxis Bill, which has taken a long time to implement on the ground. I hope that this Bill will be fully implemented more quickly.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I congratulate the Environment Minister on the Final Stage of his first Bill.

As Members know, goods vehicle operators are Northern Ireland’s lifeblood. They need all the support that they can get. I congratulate the Committee, the Minister and the Department on their hard work. Many Members will be aware that, as the Committee’s junior member, I was not involved in any of that. However, I congratulate it on that work, which I know to have been thorough. I also encourage the Assembly to keep an eye on the concerns that have been raised and to ensure that enforcement is effective. I look forward to the day when Northern Ireland’s freight industry is seen as one of the best in Europe. My party supports the Bill.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

One example of what happens in this place when a good Bill is made better by a Committee is that there is nothing left to say when the Bill reaches Final Stage. If one happens to be the sixth Member to speak in the debate, one has even less to say. I shall, nonetheless, do my best to say a few words.

I welcome the fact that we have reached the Bill’s Final Stage and have done so with such unanimity around the Chamber. In that context, it is right that Committee members, especially old, grey-haired, bearded veterans of two Committee Bills, so far, should thank the current Minister, the former Minister Arlene Foster — I am not sure that the one who came between them was necessarily as enthusiastic for the Bill as has been suggested — departmental officials and Committee staff for the good work that they did together to ensure that a good bit of proposed legislation will be even better in its implementation.

Key issues needed to be addressed — for example, road safety and having a level playing field for legitimate freight transport operators in Northern Ireland who, at present, suffer due to the behaviour of others who observe the law somewhat less than they should and get through loopholes in the inadequate current law. It is therefore welcome that the Bill was introduced by Arlene Foster and completed by Edwin Poots.

Of course, the issue is not just to pass the Bill through the House today. As the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee has already highlighted, enforcement of the Bill’s provisions is also significant. A major issue remains to be followed through with regard to secondary legislation. Therefore, although it is a pleasure to see the Bill team smiling and happy at your end of the Chamber, Mr Speaker, I trust that we will not detain them too long and that they will be back at their desks to prepare the secondary legislation that is now needed. I wish the Minister good speed in taking that forward.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It is particularly relevant that Mr Ford could not find anything negative to say. That is significant and demonstrates the unanimity that has been achieved.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Trevor Clarke is not present. [Laughter.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I also want to thank the Chairperson of the Environment Committee.

One of several issues that have been raised is flagging out and the relocation of operating centres outside Northern Ireland. The Department has looked at that and believes that there is not a considerable amount of evidence to show that that will happen. Given the deficit that would exist, if there were savings to be made, they would, at best, be minimal. We do not believe that the benefits that would be derived would be significant. Therefore, in that respect, we do not believe that significant flagging out, if any, will occur. However, the Department will continue to consider and keep an eye on that issue.

Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Minister referred to flagging out. Will the Department of the Environment’s enforcement powers apply to vehicles that come into Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, where there is not the same level of enforcement and requirement to keep vehicles to an adequate standard?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Department’s powers will apply to vehicles used on Northern Ireland’s roads. Such vehicles will be expected to be of the same standard as those registered in Northern Ireland.

When we implement the regulations, it will be done through the regulatory process that will flow from the Bill. We will be looking for adequate powers to impound vehicles that are not roadworthy, an appropriate level of fines to dissuade people from the notion that it is a good thing to use vehicles that are not roadworthy and extensive powers to deal with people who wish to break the law.

The second issue raised by the Chairperson of the Committee related to the financial impact for the operators. They will have to spend more on maintenance and ensure that vehicles are in proper roadworthy condition. That money ought to have been spent in the first instance. The operators who are doing the job properly and whose vehicles are in a roadworthy condition are already doing that and competing in the market. Sometimes they are competing against those who are taking short cuts, and those who take short cuts have an unfair advantage over those currently operating their vehicles safely and in accordance with the law.

Another point is that those who operate their vehicles to the highest levels indicate that there are savings to be made by having vehicles kept in a well-maintained condition. Keeping a vehicle well maintained is a cost-effective thing to do.

As a result of the comprehensive spending review, we have enhanced enforcement resources, which will increase over a three-year period. Because a fairer licensing structure will be introduced by the Bill, we expect there to be a further improvement in the resources that will be dedicated to freight enforcement. Therefore, we will have the appropriate enforcement officers in place to deal with it.

The prompt implementation of the Bill has also been raised. A lot of regulations flow from this Bill, and indications have been given that the Assembly would like to see faster progress made on the regulations associated with the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. I will pass that on to my officials, and I trust that, with respect to both pieces of legislation, we will be able to respond effectively and bring forward appropriate regulations within an appropriate timescale.

Subject to the Bill’s passage, I look forward to working with the Committee to fulfil those plans and to improve the regulation of the freight industry for its own benefit, that of its users and that of the wider Northern Ireland public. I am delighted to have brought the Bill to this Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Bill [NIA 15/07] do now pass.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I beg to move

That the Department of Justice Bill [NIA 1/09] do now pass.

This is a very short Bill with three clauses and one schedule. It is possibly one of the shortest Bills to be brought before the Assembly, and yet it has generated considerable debate in the Chamber. In total, in its Second Stage, Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, there have been over 20 hours of debate. That does not take into account the time spent in scrutiny of it by the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

There is good reason for the Assembly’s entirely appropriate interest in the Bill. It is an essential part of a process that has great relevance to us all. At the end of Second Stage, the First Minister said:

“The devolution of policing and justice will bring significant additional responsibilities but, more importantly, it will carry enormous potential for all of us here and for all our people. It will bring real local accountability and real local leadership and provide genuine synergies between policing and justice policies and the wider social and economic initiatives of the Executive and the Assembly.” — [Official Report, Vol 43, No 4 Part 2, p253, col 2].

Those are some of the reasons why the First Minister and I have consistently maintained that we want to see devolution of policing and justice powers without undue delay.

The Bill itself does not give effect to devolution. That will happen only after a further process, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act 2009, that will begin when the Assembly approves, by cross-community vote, a resolution requesting the transfer of powers. However, the Bill means that structures can be established quickly to support the powers once a decision to proceed has been taken.

The purpose of the Bill is that simple. It will enable the establishment of a Department of justice and make arrangements for appointing its Minister by drawing on one of the models that is outlined under the Westminster legislation.

Despite its brevity, the Bill has deep roots. The Good Friday Agreement recognised the imperative of having a criminal justice system that delivers a fair and impartial system of justice to the community, that is responsive to the community’s concerns, that encourages community involvement, where appropriate, that has the confidence of all parts of the community and that delivers justice efficiently and effectively.

Responsibility for policing and justice was, however, reserved from the Assembly under the terms of the 1998 Act, which established the arrangements for the devolved Administration. The matter was revisited in subsequent discussions, but it was not until the St Andrews Agreement in 2006 that the way forward became clear. With the establishment of this Assembly in 2007, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee commenced its valuable work on the legal and practical implications of the devolution of policing and justice powers.

It was against that background that the First Minister and I announced in November 2008 that we had reached agreement on a number of key issues relating to the devolution of policing and justice powers. In particular, we had come to a view that there should be a Department known as the Department of Justice to exercise the majority of policing and justice powers and that the justice Minister should be elected on the basis of a cross-community vote in the Assembly.

Those will be interim arrangements that will last until 2012, before which the Assembly will need to come to a considered view on permanent arrangements. We also took the opportunity of using that announcement to state that the devolution of policing and justice powers should happen without undue delay, and we made public a paper setting out a process by which devolution will be achieved.

Since then, preparations for the devolution of policing and justice powers have continued to progress in line with that process paper. In January 2009, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee reported on arrangements for the devolution of policing and justice matters. The Assembly endorsed that report, and legislative changes have been enacted at Westminster to reflect some of its recommendations.

One of the essential steps that was identified in the process paper was the satisfactory conclusion of financial discussions involving us, the NIO, the Treasury and the British Prime Minister. Those discussions have been pursued intensively in recent months. An offer of a generous financial package to meet the pressures faced by bodies delivering policing and justice functions has now been set out by Gordon Brown in a letter that he made public on 21 October.

The passage of the Bill will complete another of the essential steps in the process. When I introduced the Bill on 14 September, I said that it was succinct. The first clause establishes a Department of justice, and the second clause sets outs a process for appointing a Minister of justice by vote of the Assembly, requiring that not only a majority of Members vote on the resolution but that a majority of designated nationalists and designated unionists vote. That condition will ensure that there is cross-community support for the new Minister. The First Minister and I are on record as saying that, initially, neither of our parties would nominate one of its own members for the post of Minister of justice.

The third clause ensures that the preceding clauses, which are the operative parts of the Bill, will not come into operation until the First Minister and I jointly make a commencement Order. That will be in the final stages before devolution is achieved.

The schedule to the Bill is technical in nature and tidies up a number of references in existing legislation to the future Department by amending them to use the new title of Department of Justice. The content of the Bill was agreed by the Executive in the summer, and it has now been scrutinised in the OFMDFM Committee as well as in the Chamber during exhaustive debates at Second, Consideration and Further Consideration Stages.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed, through constructive debate, in getting the Bill to this point. In particular, we are grateful to the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for its prompt but thorough scrutiny of the Bill and for its ultimate approval of the Bill as drafted. Earlier, I referred to the valuable work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which provided the essential framework for the provisions of the Bill. I also thank Members who tabled and debated amendments at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage. The fact that the wording of the Bill has remained as introduced, even after such lengthy debates, is, I hope, a measure of its robustness. I thank Members for their forceful challenges in that regard. Such challenges are a valuable part of the passage of any Bill in concentrating minds on the objectives of legislation and the means employed to achieve them.

I am no less convinced that the Bill’s objectives are right and its means appropriate than I was on its introduction on 14 September 2009. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

I declare an interest as Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I want to make it very clear that I am not speaking as Chairperson of that Committee.

As the deputy First Minister said, the Bill is very short, and it has certainly had its fair share of debate in the House. The deputy First Minister referred, I think, to some 20 hours of debate. He will be pleased to know that I intend to add only two or three minutes to that to say that we, on this side of the House, support the Bill in its passage through Final Stage.

The deputy First Minister referred to the work that has been done on the Bill, including that done by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. I hope that that Committee made a valuable contribution, particularly through the financial work that it did, and that that was helpful in the discussions that took place. The Committee will report to the House on that work in the not too distant future. I hope that it assisted in getting the financial package that the deputy First Minister referred to and which was laid out and made public in the Prime Minister’s letter.

The Bill is very short but necessary to set up and pave the way for the Department of justice. In the long debates on the many amendments that came before the House, in particular from the SDLP, those amendments were duly debated, given due care by the House and dealt with. We are now beyond that stage, and we, on this side of the House, support the Bill in its Final Stage.

Members will be pleased to know that I do not intend to say anything other than that.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Éirím le tacaíocht a thabhairt don mholadh seo. I support the Bill in its Final Stage. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board.

The Bill and all the discussions that we have had around it demonstrate that the process to deliver policing and justice into the hands of locally elected politicians is moving ahead. Unfortunately, along the way, we witnessed what I think were attempts by the SDLP, through unsuccessful amendment after unsuccessful amendment, to almost hijack and frustrate the process. Although it is everyone’s entitlement to table amendments when Bills are being processed and discussed, the SDLP’s continued opposition clearly demonstrates a lack of leadership and shows the disarray that that party is in. The SDLP spent months demanding that it be given a future justice Ministry. We were then faced with its opposition to the Bill and the establishment of a justice Department.

In reality, the SDLP’s opposition to the Bill was not about scrutiny. There were amendments on scrutiny and North/South co-operation, but the opposition was not based on either of those issues. The opposition was based on the SDLP trying to get its hands on the Ministry and putting its party political interests before the needs of the people.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to return to addressing the contents of the Bill, because the House has already debated the amendments.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I accept that the amendments have been debated, but it is important to note them at Final Stage.

As the Minister said, a title for the justice Department has been agreed, and the process paper was discussed at length, not only at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee but also when it was reported to the House. The financial package was also fought for and agreed.

As the most popular Minister, the deputy First Minister said, the Bill’s passage represents another important part of the process. We must secure cross-community support for the Bill. Sinn Féin has always stated that it will support an SDLP candidate for justice Minister, if that party is able to nominate one.

We must all show leadership in the process. When the commencement Order comes through and the Department of justice is established, we will need to realise that many of our constituents want to see us taking control of our own destiny. That is what the people whom we represent demand. I and many other Members recall seeing the faces of many distressed constituents who are sick and tired of the revolving door justice system that allows hoods and thugs back on the streets only an hour after their arrest.

As we were discussing the Bill and the amendments that were tabled to it at its different stages, our constituents had had enough of seeing death drivers walking the streets and being granted bail after continually attacking the community. Following the transfer of policing and justice, the statutory framework that governs what constitutes a crime and its appropriate penalties will become the responsibility of an Assembly Minister. For instance, it will be possible to deal with sexual offences, to which Members often refer, more appropriately within that framework. That is what society wants from the transfer of policing and justice.

The Bill presents us with the opportunity to take on a new responsibility in the Executive and in the Chamber. We must all embrace the opportunity and provide the kind of leadership that the vast majority of our constituents want and need, regardless of their political affiliation. Although there are issues, many of which were discussed in the Chamber, we must use the time ahead to secure a consensus built on equality and mutual respect.

For that reason, I call on all Members to ensure that we give the Bill the appropriate support, that we move forward together and that the Bill is supported in a way that allows us to demonstrate unity to the many people who are sick, sore and tired of the debate on policing and justice. People want to see action, and they want to see it now.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Today I will speak on policing and justice for the first time in some time. Many Members have spoken at some length on the Bill, but we are nearing the final elements of its passage. Although it is not my normal style, I have been provided with a few notes. I will not bore the House by reading all of them.

I genuinely hope that every party in the House wants progress to be made in Northern Ireland. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party is participating in an Executive that is, at best, dysfunctional. The Ulster Unionist Party has always stated that it is, in principle, in favour of the devolution of policing and justice. We have always believed that it would be of great benefit to the entire community in Northern Ireland if justice were to be administered from this place.

I will deviate a little bit to address matters that colleagues have raised previously. There was some discussion about the need for leadership. In fact, certain parties in the House remonstrated about the lack of leadership. Parties might disagree with other parties, but that does not mean that they do not show leadership. In an Assembly such as this, it is entirely appropriate for Members to have differences of opinion, which they can bring to the House for discussion in a proper manner. Even if a motion is defeated, it does mean that it was wrong to bring it to the House.

I mentioned leadership. I want to talk about the other key word that was mentioned: respect. The phrase “mutual respect” was mentioned towards the end of a certain Member’s contribution. There are lessons to be learnt. It is not only the case that some people must proffer respect to Benches near the front; it must come in the other direction as well. Everybody here has a mandate, and we all have a voice on behalf of other people who are not here. Therefore, I urge sections of the House to respect suggestions made by those of us who disagree with them.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I want to talk about mutual respect. In my constituency at the weekend, a leading member of the party opposite took part in an event and, basically, made threats about deadlines and timetables concerning the devolution of policing and justice. However, the irony is that he made his statement in the village of Dunloy, which is the very place where there is no respect for the tradition of Orangemen who only want to parade from their Orange hall to their place of worship. However, they have not been allowed to exercise that God-given right for eight or nine years, because a small element of vociferous republicans in that village has prevented it. Is that not a lack of mutual respect?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I must insist that even interventions, as far as possible, relate to the contents of the Bill. That is the only subject that we are discussing this morning. I know that Members might want to go slightly outside that. Provided that they do not go too far outside it, we can resolve the issue. However, as far as possible, Members should try to keep to the contents of the Bill. Although I will allow some latitude, I must say that to the whole House.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful for that, Mr Speaker. I think that I have broken new ground, given that I am now being admonished for the interventions of others. However, the Speaker and colleagues on both sides have raised important points: the language used by people is an issue. In the past — not always but in general — I have sought to convey the message that, if we are to build mutual respect and offer genuine leadership, our language must address, in a civilised and seemly way, the genuine concerns raised by colleagues to my left. In the spirit of Christmas, I must also respect the fact that words of wisdom come from Benches to my right.

I am sure that the deputy First Minister will not mind my mentioning that, according to the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, he is making something of an impact.

There may be something for all of us in the legislation. There is much that unites us. I am wearing a ribbon on my lapel in support of the campaign against domestic violence, and I know that Mr Storey spoke most eloquently in Larne last night on that subject. Ms Anderson explained that we want the Department of Justice Bill to pass because we want to tackle issues that unite us. Surely there can be little that we abhor more than violence against the most vulnerable people in society. We are absolutely committed, on a cross-party basis, to stopping that. There is complete unanimity in the House against violence against elderly people, which is the most obscene of crimes, and we want to find ways to deal with those issues.

I would welcome the opportunity to address the somewhat tetchy relationship that exists between the Public Prosecution Service and the PSNI. I want speedier justice; I want the Court Service to have responsibility, and, most importantly, I want the justice system to focus on the concerns and tribulations of victims. There is definitely a feeling in society that our justice system focuses on the perpetrators of crime, not on the victims of crime. We could unite on those issues if there was goodwill, mutual respect and a genuine way to move on together.

It may have been a year ago that the deputy First Minister responded to the Alliance Party by saying that we must be careful about the language that we use, because it can inflame situations unnecessarily. With that said, the Ulster Unionist Party believes that the only long-term strategic direction for the Assembly and this part of the world to take is one in which we achieve complete community confidence in the forces of law and order; in which policing and justice are at the centre of democracy; and in which we are all democrats.

I hope that the message is loud and clear that we are positively behind the devolution of policing and justice powers. However, we have some legitimate concerns that should be raised and addressed. As democratically elected politicians, we should have asked ourselves some telling questions long before this process began. I will say this as gently as I can: Sinn Féin and the DUP have not asked each other those difficult questions. In fact, they may not have even asked them of themselves. Therefore, we started down the road to devolution ill-prepared for the journey and the destination.

What are those questions? First, is the Assembly ready for such an important, significant and controversial mandate? I do not presuppose the answer, but it is right to pose the question. We are not alone in asking that question. In its 2007 manifesto, the Alliance Party stated:

“Alliance believes that the timing for the devolution of policing and justice should be primarily determined by the correct conditions being in place, including the executive operating in a collective and responsible manner.”

On 4 August 2008, Mr Ford stated:

“The Alliance Party will not be taking the Policing and Justice Ministry. This Executive is failing in its duties”.

I have to ask the Alliance Party: what has changed between then and now?

The Department of Education, as we heard earlier, is still in a mess. The transfer debacle is ongoing, and now we are facing the potential administrative meltdown of the entire system because of the controversial stalling of the Education Bill. There is still a limited amount of legislation coming to the House, no progress on A Shared Future, and Executive meetings are still being run, I am told, in a shambolic manner.

The Ulster Unionist Party’s answer to the first question is that we are concerned that we are not administratively ready to take on a mandate such as policing and justice. Other parties here must answer, or at least address, that question.

The second question that the DUP should perhaps have asked Sinn Féin and that Sinn Féin should have —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have already said to Members that it is important that they address the content of the Bill. They may be imaginative in developing their arguments as long as they keep to the content of the Bill. I urge the Member, as far as possible, to keep to the content of the Bill.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful for your direction, Mr Speaker. I apologised earlier, as I am reading from a prepared speech, which is not normal for me. I will try my level best to deal with the issues. There are important things to say, and we are trying to contribute properly to the debate to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

The question asked was whether Sinn Féin is ideologically ready to devolve United Kingdom justice to Northern Ireland. It is a serious and fundamentally important question. The Ulster Unionist Party poses that question in recognition of our troubled past and in full recognition of the journey that many Members have made over the past 15 years. We do not mean to be negative, just to pose a question that must be asked.

Northern Ireland is facing the highest level of dissident republican threat that is has faced in the past 10 or 15 years. The recent events in Fermanagh and at the Policing Board, as well as the tragic events in March, illustrate perfectly that some are intent on violence at all costs. The next justice Minister, whoever that may be and with whatever influence the DUP and Sinn Féin will have over them, will have to address robustly the threat of terrorism. If Northern Ireland is to have the future that we all want, the Police Service will have to deal with that threat within its powers and remove those people from society, because they offer nothing to our future.

Is Sinn Féin ready for reality, and will it give the PSNI and the next justice Minister the full support and resources that they need to tackle terrorism and criminality? I do not wish to put Sinn Féin on the spot unnecessarily, but that is a question that has been asked by my community.

The recent events surrounding the arrest of Sean Hughes raise serious questions about certain parties’ commitments to supporting all arms of the law and about their actual knowledge of the police and legal system. To accuse a UK-wide, independent investigatory body such as SOCA of acting politically is a very worrying progression. I ask all parties whether they are mature enough to devolve those institutions without jeopardising the work of the police or the security of men, women and children.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Once again, if the Member fails to address, or to relate his remarks to, the contents of the Bill in some way, I really will have to move on.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Speaker, I am somewhat at a loss. We, as a party, are trying to make a very constructive policy position clear. Serious debates are taking place even now, and we think that this is germane.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I appreciate what the Member is saying, but I ask that he ties whatever he is saying to the contents of the Bill. That is what I am trying to achieve from the Member.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

If I can refer directly to the Bill, Mr Speaker, I must say that, during discussions on the Bill, questions have been asked about the particular vision for a justice Department in Northern Ireland.

Some Members who are not present in the Chamber have made confusing statements about the way forward. In the ‘News Letter’ in October, Mr Donaldson stated that he had no idea what power the justice Minister would have as it was one of the issues yet to be agreed. The headlines in last Friday’s edition of the ‘News Letter’ further illustrate the ongoing issues that have to be resolved.

The Department of Justice Bill will create a shell of a Department, and there is no agreement on how to fill it. A power will be accepted without knowledge of how, by whom, for what purposes and for how long it will be administered. Would such a scenario arise anywhere else in western Europe? The entire process raises a number of questions, and we bring those issues forward in the debate on the Bill. A more detailed look at the process raises questions that other parties have tried to put forward somewhat inconclusively.

A deal has been contrived between two parties, aided and abetted by a third party. That deal excludes the SDLP and the UUP. We have tried to say that it is not the right way forward and that we want the Bill to reflect genuinely the views of all Members. The issue is so important that it behoves us all to find consensus.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Member has made a number of comments in relation to the Alliance Party. It would take too long to address them all in one intervention, so I will come back to them.

The Member said that deals are being made, aided and abetted by the Alliance Party. Can he give me an example of any deal on policing and justice that has been made between my party and either the DUP or Sinn Féin? There has been speculation surrounding my party, but I am not aware of any deals. Indeed, we have raised a number of issues on which we want clarification. Will the Member also reflect on the reality that his party is a full member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and my party is not? Of all the parties in the Chamber, it is the Alliance Party, not the Member’s party or the SDLP, that is most disadvantaged in the discussions.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

As the Member knows, I am always happy to allow helpful interventions, and I will address that issue. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has also been sidelined. We all know that agreement will be reached by people outside that Committee. The Bill has been pushed through by a triumvirate of the DUP, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party, which has rejected the genuine concerns of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists. I would be happy to hear clarification to the contrary from the Alliance Party.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I know that the Member is having a difficulty, because he does not seem to have any thoughts of his own on the issue and is unable to move away from the script that was prepared for him. Will he explain to the House how the Ulster Unionist Party is not involved when it is a full member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which deals with the progression of the devolution of policing and justice? Will he tell us how his party is not involved when his leader has had at least four phone calls and meetings with the Prime Minister on policing and justice? Will he tell us how his party is not involved when it has had a meeting on policing and justice with the Secretary of State? Will he tell us how his party is not involved when there have been numerous debates on policing and justice in the Assembly?

All parties in the Assembly have had every opportunity to have their say at one point or another. All that the legislation is doing is putting in place the ability to have policing and justice devolved when the other decisions have been taken. As the Member said, one of those decisions is to determine what powers will be exercised solely by a justice Minister and what powers will be referred to the Executive. It is not unusual for the necessary apparatus to be put in place in order that the powers can be devolved when everything else has been agreed.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for his comments, but let me tell him quite clearly that I have no problem talking for myself on any issue or tackling matters directly. What I was expected to do — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

What I was asked to do was to put forward a helpful position on behalf of the party. I can deviate and express my personal opinion, and I can certainly address the language in which certain Members address other Members.

Earlier in the debate, I talked about the need for mutual respect, temperate language, and the need to reach consensus. Frankly, I have seen very little of that in certain situations. I am trying to make a contribution that will move the situation forward in relation to certain serious matters. If we come to a point at which the DUP and, for that matter, Sinn Féin, do not need our contribution or support, so be it. However, we have made a positive contribution.

Our party feels that it is not included in these matters because it is totally ignored when discussions take place. We have a contribution to make in building confidence in the community that we represent. If there is some failure or misunderstanding, it is for the leaders of the various political parties to address. All that I can do, in addressing this Bill, is explain our thinking.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I notice that the Member has avoided answering any of the issues that I raised. I will throw another one towards him. The deputy First Minister and I met the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and offered to set up a Committee to deal with education, policing and justice, and all the other issues in an informal setting. Weeks after we made that offer, we are still waiting for anybody to take it up.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Therein lies the problem with communication. I have heard the First Minister raise that point before and I have discussed it with the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. We do not want some sham procedure in which we produce papers for others to sign off. If genuine engagement and a genuine coalition Government are desired, the First Minister has to talk properly with people. He needs to engage with and listen to others. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The First Minister may well laugh. It shows the seriousness with which he takes this issue. I am being quite clear in response to a direct question. The Ulster Unionist Party is prepared to engage, but in a proper way. We will not just sit there and — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I have already given way twice to the First Minister to allow him to make his point.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will give way, but I want to make my point.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened intently to what Mr Basil McCrea has said. Does he want to be taken seriously in here or not? I suspect that he does. He will not be taken seriously if he sets up straw men and then knocks them down. I am very sincere in this regard, and I want you to answer. The First Minister has stated that your party leader has been consulted. They have had meetings on a number of occasions. With respect, if you have an internal problem of communication in your group, you should address that internally rather than trying to flout it here on the Floor of the House.

Will you be good enough to tell the House that you have been consulted? It may be that you either do not like what you are hearing or you do not understand it. There is no shame in that, but let us not put up straw men here and say that you have not been consulted when it is quite clear that you have been consulted on more than one occasion.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members should address their remarks through the Chair.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will answer that question directly: there are all sorts of ways to be consulted. In fact, when I became involved in politics, I discovered that, in politics, consultation does not mean the same as it does in the real world. In politics, consultation involves being told what is to be done and then, when people hear whether we agree or disagree, doing it the same way anyway. That is not real engagement. People want to be involved in a coalition Government. It may well be that there is some confusion in the message, but it is not a one-way street: it is a two-way street. Let me say clearly to the Lord Morrow that I have spoken to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party about these issues.

My party’s message is that the type of engagement, consultation and discussion that is being offered is not satisfactory to resolve our concerns. It may well be that we cannot find a way to do that, but I am telling the DUP where the problem lies.

We are prepared to engage with all Members and parties, whether they are in the Executive or not. Policing and justice is a serious issue that we want to see addressed and are prepared to address. However, we will not be railroaded into something that we are not part of. I do not know how to make that any clearer. One can say that one has been consulted and talked to, but we all know how the political game works. Therefore, when it comes to the issue, I do not know whether the DUP thinks that the UUP’s input and involvement is useful. That is a matter for the DUP but, if it does want the UUP’s input, things are not going very well. We are prepared to discuss the issues, because we all want to find a way to make policing and justice work.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I appreciate that the Member is trying to be constructive. At the start of his speech, he reflected on Martina Anderson’s comments about the important issues that need to be discussed. At the beginning of September, my party leader, David Ford, wrote to Sir Reg Empey suggesting that parties need to meet to discuss the programme that any future Minister might wish to undertake. Sir Reg Empey merely acknowledged the letter, saying that his party officers would discuss it. He has not responded further to that invitation. I ask Mr McCrea to take that point to his party leader. In light of what he has just said, it is in his party’s interests to engage in that type of discussion.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Lots of parties here send letters to lots of people requesting meetings, but nothing happens. However — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

However, in response to Dr Farry, I will say that in other situations, notably those to do with education, there has been engagement and we have responded. I wonder whether Dr Farry wishes to clarify the following statement that he made:

“As things stand the legislation suggests that any minister including an Alliance Minister could be elected on a cross-community vote in the assembly but also removed by such a vote. Under a political whim the DUP and SF could reach a conclusion they want to remove a minister from office. If a Minister is looking over a shoulder then their ability to take those decisions is going to be significantly impaired.”

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Speaker will stop talking to me if I carry on.

Those were Dr Farry’s words, so I ask him and his Alliance colleagues: as things stand, has the Bill changed since he said that?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Please make your remarks through the Chair.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am more than happy to clarify that point. My party believes that, on balance, a cross-community vote is the best way to elect a Minister and to provide him or her with legitimacy. However, it poses a number of risks for that Minister, particularly for one who has come from any of the three parties other than the DUP and Sinn Féin. Time after time, in the Chamber and elsewhere, my party has stressed that the best protection against the arbitrary removal of any Minister from any of those three parties is agreement on a substantive Programme for Government addendum to cover policing and justice in advance of devolution. If the Member’s party is happy to engage in such a process, we will have that protection not just for Ministers but for the integrity of the devolution project.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that clarification, and we are prepared to discuss those issues. However, the impression that we have is that the Alliance Party has supported the DUP and Sinn Féin at every stage. Therefore, we have little confidence that dialogue between our parties on those substantive issues will produce a meaningful outcome.

On a personal note, given that the Alliance Party occasionally gives the impression of being the moral guardian of this place and tries to bring people together, I am surprised at its stance on the issue.

I simply do not understand why the Alliance Party adopts a position that supports the DUP and Sinn Féin but which will not give it anything of any substance. I also do not understand why the Alliance Party ignores the genuine concerns of the UUP and the SDLP. The process of the Bill has been a revelation to me. If there is a change in the Alliance Party’s stance or if it wishes to engage on these matters, my party is all ears.

My party would prefer to have genuine, round-table, all-party discussions because, to be frank, the discussion on the devolution of policing and justice is not going terribly well. There is talk of crises, free fall, meltdown and things not going right. If we are to tackle the issue in the timescale in which parties here say that they want it to be tackled, we need to get round the table and start talking about it. That, surely, is the premise of the Bill. The Bill must address those issues.

We are unhappy about the sunset clause and what will happen in 2012. I think that history will judge the Bill to be the most ill-thought-out piece of legislation, which will cause only further brinkmanship —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to speak.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I hear an intervention from a sedentary position. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am quite happy to rise to my feet to deal with any issue or topic, but when it comes to important issues — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

When it comes to this issue —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for us to find out who wrote that speech for him?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I ask the Member to continue.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

If Members want to find that out, perhaps they should engage in meetings with us, and we will be able to tell them that what I have outlined is the collective view of the Ulster Unionist Party Assembly group.

I will move on to the questions that DUP Members have been asking themselves. It appears that some DUP Members have been asking very different questions from other Members. Given the number of interventions that I have taken, I look forward to some clarification on that matter. Mr Donaldson rather haphazardly asked himself whether the full-time Reserve was a deal-breaker on devolution. He answered that it was a deal-breaker. I do not need to give the quote because it is well known. However, I ask the First Minister, since he is here in person, whether he agrees with the stated position that the full-time Reserve is an operational matter for the Chief Constable. Does he demur from the views that have been put forward by the honourable Member for Lagan Valley?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Rt Hon Member.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, I agree.

I ask Mr Robinson whether he still believes that it is an operational matter, and I ask Mr Donaldson, who, I am quite sure, is listening from another place, whether he still believes that the DUP will not agree to devolution if the full-time Reserve is disbanded.

Mr Donaldson and other Members talked about public confidence. The Ulster Unionist Party has long believed that adequate public confidence is crucial for the devolution of policing and justice, which is why we have been appalled by the process so far. Mr Robinson said that the following actions constitute the process to effect the transfer of policing and justice powers:

“Commence process of building confidence to achieve cross community buy-in

Consult party organisations …

Public consultation

Secure necessary community confidence for transfer of P&J.”

I ask Mr Robinson where we are in that process.

Yesterday, talking about a date for the devolution of policing and justice —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Would the Member like an answer?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Gregory Campbell stated —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Member not want an answer?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Of course I would like an answer.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If someone else researched and wrote the Member’s speech, I accept that he will have difficulty knowing where the quote came from. In case he does not know, the Member quoted from the process document that the deputy First Minister and I agreed last November. One of the sets of processes that we must go through is building confidence and selling the package that has been agreed. That is precisely what will happen when we have agreed the package. At that point, I am sure that the Member will want to join us in selling it to the community and asking people to buy into the devolution of policing and justice. Perhaps he will tell us whether he will do that.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Mr Speaker —

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

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I give way to everyone.

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

It is interesting to hear the First Minister’s interpretation of what was agreed last year, because it differs from that of Sinn Féin, which thought that a date had been agreed. That is why the deputy First Minister said that, if there is no date for the devolution of policing and justice by Christmas, we will be in deep trouble. Clearly, there is a communication problem between the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am grateful to the Member for that point of information. If clarification has to come from other parts of the Chamber, I am all ears. If the First Minister wishes to intervene, I am happy to take his intervention.

The First Minister talks about dates and misunder­standings. It is helpful that Mr Campbell is in the Chamber, because he can clarify something for me, if he so wishes. Yesterday, he stated that:

“It will take years, for not only my colleagues and myself, but for many in the unionist community to see Sinn Féin continuing to work the Northern Ireland Assembly and not using it as some sort of battering ram, because that’s where we are now.”

That is somewhat different to the timescale on which others are operating.

In Friday’s ‘News Letter’, Mr Campbell’s leader made no mention of years or community confidence. He laid the blame for the delay in the devolution of policing and justice squarely at the feet of Sinn Féin. In his conference speech, he said —

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member give way?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

That was a slightly delayed reaction from Mr Campbell.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I was hoping that the Member would complete the quote. The Member keeps talking about timelines and dates. We are all aware of the outstanding issues of community confidence. The Member says that he believes in openness and transparency. In light of that, will he join us in resolving the outstanding issues, so that it will not take years or decades for policing and justice to be devolved? Will he join us in ensuring that policing and justice is devolved in a manner and time frame that everyone in the community finds acceptable? We are working on the outstanding issues. Will the Member join us?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes. We would like to be involved in resolving those issues. We have laid out a number of our concerns, such as education and the need for full, frank and inclusive debate. We are open to such debate, as we have made clear. The response to Mr Campbell’s question is yes. I know that our involvement would truncate the negotiations and discussions, but the answer is yes. We want to have proper discussions and round-table, all-party, inclusive debates to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all.

Our biggest concern about the devolution of policing and justice is that we do not think that the Assembly can run anything, never mind policing and justice. Let us look at a host of areas, including education and local government reform. The UUP’s position is that, if the Assembly can start to show the people of Northern Ireland that it is capable of governing, then, and only then, should policing and justice be devolved. The justice Bill is connected to that process, and the devolution of policing and justice can happen whenever Members want. Some parties want it to happen before Christmas, and others think that it will take considerably longer. However, as other Members pointed out, we are not timeline-led; we are condition-led. Show us the conditions in which this place can deal with the issues, and the Ulster Unionist Party will not be found wanting.

We are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised, but they can be resolved through discussion and all-party talks. That is what we call for, and that is what the people of Northern Ireland want.

We do not expect parties that have legitimate mandates to be reviled for daring to put up a contrary position.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Has the Member finished?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

You called me to order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I was calling other Members to order.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I appreciate that the Member is coming to the end of his speech. However, I would be grateful if he could clarify for the House whether his party is going to vote for or against the motion to pass the Final Stage of the Bill; he did not mention that.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

It is like all good books and films; you do not rush to read the last page until you have read the whole book. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Before I accepted those interventions, I was talking about the First Minister’s conference speech, in which he stated:

“Those who are opposed to devolution seek to exploit the imperfections of the present system.”

Can we read from that that Mr Robinson is now fully committed to devolving policing and justice powers as soon as possible? The answer to that question will be interesting. If that is the case, where does that leave Members such as Mr Campbell, Mr Donaldson and Dr McCrea?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Does the Member want an answer?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

As the First Minister knows, I will be happy to take an answer. Any answer might be helpful for the people of Northern Ireland.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The next time that somebody writes a speech for the Member, it might be worthwhile if they insert wee gaps so that the Member can pause now and again to allow other Members to respond to his questions.

I am on public record as indicating that I want policing and justice powers to be devolved. I am also on public record as saying that I want it to happen without undue delay.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I was just making a little gap in my speech. I am grateful for the lecture and for the advice on good public speaking; it is always useful to get advice. It has been useful to have an interchange such as this, in that Members aired serious issues. I think that some progress has been made.

We have come an extremely long way in Northern Ireland in the past 10 years, and I believe that we should not jeopardise that by hastily devolving policing and justice powers into institutions that are not ready and to parties that have not thought long and hard enough about the potential ramifications of their actions. I have made it clear throughout the debate that the timeline is not the issue; the concern is our ability to address the issues. If the issues are addressed, people will find that we have reached a particular position.

The people of Northern Ireland are not actually talking about policing and justice powers, which is more of a political issue. The people of Northern Ireland are talking about education, jobs, energy costs and crime on our streets. They are not talking about devolution. In fact, many people do not actually understand what will be different when those powers are devolved. Nevertheless, we should get it right.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for his patience in giving way. Will he clarify why the Ulster Unionists are now so opposed to the devolution of policing and justice powers when they were perfectly prepared to devolve those powers in 2005 before Sinn Féin had given its support to the police, before it had decommissioned, and, indeed, before the terrorist campaign had been put behind it?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I will break with tradition and actually answer that question. When people pose that question, it is interesting to note that they do not recognise that we are in a completely different place now and that circumstances have changed. From my experience, in all walks of life, people have an imperfect knowledge about what is happening, and they make calculated decisions. I am sure that Members from all parties will find that. Nobody ever has the complete answer to everything.

The Member asked me to comment on what happened in the past, and it is important to learn lessons from the past. However, we are where we are now, and the Ulster Unionist Party is outlining its position on the Department of Justice Bill — a piece of enabling legislation — in a way that it thinks might be helpful.

The DUP must demonstrate to the Assembly, and to the public, that it can govern and that it has the responsibility, maturity and right attitude to do so. That will remove some concern. How might we do that? The Assembly could begin the process of achieving community confidence by demonstrating that, when it tackles issues, it is prepared to listen to others and to advance their views. If we could do that, that would build confidence. Nothing would send a more powerful message to the people of Northern Ireland than if the entire Assembly were able to agree to the Bill’s proposals, and I regret the fact that certain Members have felt that that has not been necessary. However, that, in essence, is what the discussion is all about.

I have some —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I do not wish to interrupt the Member, but I am also conscious that the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 12.30 pm today. Are you finished or coming to the end of what you are saying, Mr McCrea, or should I suspend the sitting and allow you to continue after lunch?

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

It may be better to suspend the sitting to allow the Business Committee to meet. I will continue my remarks when we return.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. On resumption, Mr McCrea will finish his contribution.

The sitting was suspended at 12.41 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

No doubt, Members will be relieved to know that I do not have much more to say on the matter. However, I conclude by saying that the Ulster Unionist Party is not, in principle, opposed to the devolution of policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it remains of the view that the Bill leaves too many questions unanswered. The deputy First Minister referred to the legislation and the various models at Westminster, and part of that included a discussion on the sunset clause, without which no discussion of the Bill is complete. It remains unfinished business. We would prefer that the matter was dealt with now so that it does not become an overhang to be dealt with in the future.

In our opinion, the Bill represents gerrymandering in its most undiluted form, and I use that much maligned word because I can think of no other word to describe it. It is a side deal between the DUP and Sinn Féin, a side deal concocted in November 2008 in which Sinn Féin set out its terms for allowing Peter Robinson to reconvene the Executive after 154 days of not meeting. The other parties, including mine, were not party to the original deal, and we have been mostly sidelined in the discussions since then.

The crux of our concern is that no specific powers have been outlined for the new justice Minister, and Jeffrey Donaldson admitted as much in a letter to the ‘News Letter’ a couple of weeks ago. Furthermore, no specific powers have been outlined for the new justice Department. On Saturday, Peter Robinson accused Sinn Féin of holding up the decision-making process governing the justice Minister and that Minister’s relationship with the Executive. In other words, we have been asked to agree the creation of a new Ministry and the appointment of a new Minister without actually knowing the powers and duties of either and without knowing to whom the new Minister would be accountable. Mr Speaker, you can call that what you will, but it does not seem to be democracy.

There is a challenge for all Members. An opinion poll in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ indicated that almost 60% of people believe that the Assembly has either made no difference or has made matters worse. Regrettably, 74% of people in Northern Ireland rate our performance as average, poor or very poor, and I know that I am part and parcel of that. Those ratings are low because people believe that we are making a mess of the transfer process in education, council boundaries and our Shared Future strategy, to name just a few. Therefore, why would they trust us to make a good job of policing and justice, particularly when the background negotiations have been so prolonged and acrimonious and where so much fog and ambiguity have surrounded those issues?

The Ulster Unionist Party is not unsympathetic to the policing and justice situation; we made it clear that we would like issues to be addressed constructively. However, let us try to get some things right before lumbering ourselves with a potential albatross. The Ulster Unionist Party has said many times in many debates that policing and justice — the core of democracy — is simply too important an issue to get wrong. The Ulster Unionist Party still believes that the major parties have not yet got it right. Therefore, it is with regret that I say that the Ulster Unionist Party will not be supporting the passage of the Bill.

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

This is a proxy debate. It is really an argument between the DUP and Sinn Féin over the actual transfer of policing and justice powers to the Assembly. Unfortunately, that debate goes on outside the Chamber.

It is time for sober reflection in the Chamber, as well as outside, because this institution and the Executive are threatened by the destabilising argument over the devolution of justice and policing. I appeal in particular to the DUP and Sinn Féin not to prejudice the good work of the Assembly and to rethink their position so that an agreement can be reached. The people we serve deserve more from us on this issue. It should not be used as something that threatens the Assembly.

Before I address the detail of the Bill, let me make it plain that we in the SDLP fully support the transfer of justice and policing powers to the Assembly. We believe that that is very important indeed. We do not want to see the transfer before Christmas; we wanted to see the transfer of justice and policing powers a long time ago, and we believe that it is now timely that such a transfer takes place.

As the deputy First Minister said, the Bill does not bring about the actual transfer of justice and policing powers. It does not bring about actual devolution, and, as I said, the argument about that transfer goes on outside the Chamber. However, I want to make it very plain that we are fully supportive of the immediate transfer of justice and policing powers to the Assembly.

We have said before and will continue to say that the Bill is defective in two crucial aspects. The first is the future stability of a Department of justice and a Minister for justice, and the second is the method used to appoint or elect the Minister for justice. Those are two crucial issues. In dealing with the issue of instability, it is right and proper for us to highlight, as Mr Basil McCrea did in his speech, the so-called sunset clause. I accept that it is not a part of the Bill, but nonetheless one cannot read the Bill without reference to the sunset clause in schedule 1 to the 2009 Act. It is a very dangerous piece of legislation, because it writes an instability into the Department of justice and policing, which, I believe, will undermine the effective working of the Department of justice and the effective operation of that Department by a Minister for justice.

It is a matter of regret that we must point that out to the House. It is regrettable and could destabilise this institution if a Minister for justice is appointed or after a subsequent election in 2011 or earlier. It creates such instability in the institution that it could threaten any future Assembly. It is not some minor matter of detail, some fiddly point or simply some smart observation by the SDLP. It is a real danger that is written into the operation of any Department of justice, and parties should rethink that seriously.

The SDLP has been scolded by DUP and Sinn Féin Members for raising concerns in the House, but it is our job as legislators to raise concerns. That may be an alien concept to some Members, but it is proper parliamentary process to scrutinise legislation that comes before the House, and it is our duty to do so. The fact that we press our case may not please others, but it is proper that we do that. We do so not to obstruct legislation or the devolution of justice and policing but to make devolution perfect. We make our arguments to strengthen the legislation, and we will not accept criticism on the grounds that we should not make arguments. It is right and proper that we do so.

We have made arguments previously to do with the election of a Minister of justice by cross-community support, but it is important to re-emphasise and reiterate those arguments. The election of a Minister by that method would mark a serious departure from the d’Hondt mechanism, which supports the principle of democratic inclusion. The d’Hondt mechanism supports the principle of partnership, the means by which this political institution and our other political institutions can make progress to bring together our fractured society and to create the conditions in which we can achieve reconciliation. If we abandon the principle of partnership, we abandon the hope of bringing society together, of binding the wounds and of bringing about the unity of our people. Those hopes are good for all in society, so the partnership principle is fundamental to the agreement and to the working of this institution.

If we depart from d’Hondt, we effectively undermine and weaken partnership in this institution. Partnership is at the core of the agreement, and it should be the hallmark of the workings of this institution. It is also the fairest way to bring about proper representation and a level of input from every significant political opinion. If we abandon that, we abandon fairness. Therefore, I emphasise the importance of maintaining d’Hondt.

In practice, the legislation will import a veto into the election of a Minister. The d’Hondt system does not permit that, and rightly so. In a sense, it creates a level playing field for all political parties. Therefore, the introduction of a veto damages the political process, and we must resist that. I ask parties to rethink what they are doing, because they are damaging a critical and sensitive political calibration in the Assembly and in the other institutions. If we really want to achieve partnership, we should maintain the d’Hondt mechanism. In itself, d’Hondt is not a principle, but it highlights the principle of inclusive democracy and partnership, which is such an important and integral part of the political dispensation.

We have been told that we object to and criticise the legislation for self-serving reasons alone, because the SDLP would be the beneficiaries were d’Hondt run for the post of justice Minister. That is not true. The SDLP is committed to d’Hondt and would like, in the first instance, d’Hondt to be completely rerun. If that is required, let us do that. If that cannot be achieved, let us top up d’Hondt. In any event, we are not saying that we claim the Department as an SDLP Department. It is a matter —

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will take the Member’s intervention in a moment. It is for us to protect the d’Hondt principle, and if that means a DUP, Sinn Féin or Ulster Unionist justice Minister, so be it.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Is the Member now saying that the SDLP’s firm position — I use the word “firm” because the party’s position appears to be a little wobbly — is to want a complete rerunning of d’Hondt? If so, that would appear to be at total odds with SDLP comments made at earlier stages of the Bill, including those from Mr O’Loan, who spoke about his party being denied the Department.

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

Unlike the DUP, we do not change our position from day to day or from personality to personality. We heard from Mr Campbell that it may take years for justice and policing powers to be devolved. Other colleagues of Mr Hamilton have said that it will take a lifetime. No, the SDLP’s position from the outset — I emphasise this — has been a commitment to d’Hondt and its total rerunning.

We have said that, in circumstances in which that is not done by agreement among the parties, we will accept a top-up situation, whereby d’Hondt is run to fill the post of justice Minister. However, on realising that in a top-up situation the SDLP would get the post, other parties were determined to frustrate that scenario. Indeed, Mr McCrea and his party leader made it clear that a cross-community vote in those circumstances would be tantamount to gerrymandering. The suggestion did not come from the SDLP, but we accept that, when other parties are attempting to frustrate the d’Hondt process, they are doing so to engineer a situation in which, in the event of there being a top-up by d’Hondt, the SDLP does not get the justice portfolio.

Cross-community voting imports a veto into the appointment of a Minister. If the Member does not believe me, he need only listen to the First Minister, who on 9 July this year said that he would veto an SDLP Minister. I am not bringing some academic proposition to the House but something that the First Minister has predicted. It is he who said that he will exercise a veto, and a veto should have no place in the selection or election of a justice Minister. That is wrong and is alien to the spirit of partnership that should pervade this institution, the Executive and our political culture in Northern Ireland. It is through partnership that we will all progress to healing our society’s wounds. Therefore, I totally reject the suggestion that the SDLP is supporting d’Hondt simply on the basis of some self-serving proposition — we are not.

Further to that, the 2009 Act, which again is related because it precedes the Bill, contains a mechanism whereby the Minister for justice can be removed from office by cross-community vote. The very fact that that is in legislation will threaten the Minister for justice’s freedom, manoeuvrability and exercise of clear and independent judgement. The Minister will know that, if he or she offends both the major parties in the Executive, he or she could be threatened with exclusion from the Executive. That is another departure from the rules that the House has established. The House should not take that lightly. Surely, the Assembly wants a Minister for justice who is free to act on his or her own judgement to the betterment of all in the House and in society.

I believe and my party believes that there is a pressing need for the transfer of justice powers to Northern Ireland. In his contribution earlier, Mr Basil McCrea referred to the problems of criminality that confront older people. Indeed, other Members also referred to that particular problem. Domestic violence is a problem, as is getting proper justice for victims of crime and their families. That is an important issue that all of us should be addressing in this House. The best way to do that is through the establishment of a Department of justice and Minister for justice.

There are many other issues: the Public Prosecution Service (PPS); sentencing policy; community policing; the reform of criminal legal aid; the Prison Service; youth justice. The list is endless. We should be addressing those and other issues in this House. The people whom we serve would be grateful if we did that.

I refer to that list because it is timely that the transfer takes place. However, the Bill removes timeliness from the transfer process. It makes no reference to any date or time. The transfer could take place in 2015 or beyond. Timeliness is important: now is the right time to do this. Some people will say that it is not the right time because of such-and-such. There will never be a good time. However, it is timely because of the long list of issues that need to be addressed by us, as legislators, and by any future Minister for justice. Time is of the essence. Now is the right time for us to make that transfer.

Mr Speaker, you will recall that, in an amendment to the Bill, my party proposed that 7 December 2009 would be an appropriate date not for the devolution of justice and policing but for kick-starting the process, using that as the key to the establishment of a Department and for the appointment of a Minister. Surely, that was a timely date to select in order to progress the transfer of policing and justice in a goodly fashion.

The defects that we have identified in the Bill are rightly and properly brought to the attention of the House. Far from doing the House a disservice, obstructing the transfer of policing and justice or opposing devolution, we would strengthen the process by our arguments, criticisms and amendments, which were rejected by the DUP and Sinn Féin. Those amendments would have strengthened the legislation and brought back the basic principle of partnership, which I have referred to and which is absent from the Bill. Only through partnership can we progress to a mature and reconciled society.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Member has set out a list of strong reasons why the House should move forward on the devolution of justice, a view with which I entirely agree. However, he and his colleagues voted against the Bill at Second Stage.

The amendments that the Member and his colleagues put forward were argued comprehensively in the Chamber and defeated. In those circumstances, the Member and his colleagues can either accept the only possible plan for the devolution of justice contained in the Bill as it stands following Further Consideration Stage or else state that they are opposed to it. I am unsure from what the Member says which position he takes.

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

It is difficult to take criticism from Mr Ford, who, for a long time and on many occasions, said that the devolution of policing and justice was not a priority. It is therefore disingenuous of Mr Ford to raise that point. At the conclusion of our contribution to the debate, we will make known our voting intentions to Mr Ford and to other Members.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

The Alliance Party welcomes the Final Stage of the Bill, which has been on a strange and frustrating journey. The Alliance Party supports the devolution of policing and justice. It may not be the number one issue on the lips of the public of Northern Ireland, but it is important. It is important in making further political progress — an important aspect of the peace process — for accountability in policy making and resource allocation, and for joined-up government, as it will put criminal justice alongside other issues that provide outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland. It should lead to a reduction in offending and antisocial behaviour and to a more effective way of dealing with offenders.

The Bill is critical to achieving the devolution of policing and justice. There are other issues on the outside, but this Bill deserves to be judged on its merits. It is not a side step or a step backwards but a step in the right direction.

We have clarity on the powers and responsibilities that will be devolved; that is governed by Westminster legislation. We also have clarity on the financial package. Today, if we pass the Bill, we take yet another step forward.

Other issues remain to be addressed, including the relationship between the justice Minister and the Executive and those relating to the process by which a justice Minister will have a programme for government in place that will govern the exercise of power. My party has taken an extremely strong stance on the importance of having such a programme in place before devolution one that is agreed by both the Executive and the Assembly to give greater surety to the process. There is the wider issue of the decision to be taken by parties to see the devolution of policing and justice occur.

Confidence may be an issue today, before policing and justice powers are devolved. Every party in the Chamber can have an influence and can help to build confidence. Through leadership, confidence can be delivered. However, there is also the confidence that will exist after devolution, because devolution is not something that happens on a certain date, after which we can all sit back and congratulate ourselves. In many respects, that is when the real work will begin. Confidence will come from seeing devolution work and seeing it make a real difference to the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, confidence happens before and after devolution.

With respect to the issues that have been raised in relation to devolution, it is important that we keep focused on those that are relevant. My party thinks that it is entirely appropriate for parties to discuss financial matters relating to the exercise of power to ensure that we do not short-change ourselves or leave people, particularly those on the front line, without the resources to do the job on behalf of the community. It is equally important that we focus on a Programme for Government in order to clarify policies. However, we think that the other issues that have been thrown into the mix are not directly related to the devolution of policing and justice and are holding the process back.

The Bill is relatively simple and straightforward and has two different aspects. First, it provides for the creation of a Department, and, secondly, it provides for the mechanism for an election. Clearly, a justice Department needs to be created for devolution to happen, and that is why the Bill is important. That aspect has received less comment and controversy than the mechanism for election.

There seems to be the notion that the choice is between d’Hondt and a cross-community vote. I welcome the fact that we are moving away from d’Hondt, and I am glad that the SDLP has now accepted that d’Hondt is only a mechanism, not a principle, which is what it had argued initially. D’Hondt as a mechanism for proport­ionality is flawed. It delivers many anomalies, which I have explained in the past; and, in some circumstances, it is not proportionate, particularly when dealing with a fragmented society. The SDLP itself has recognised the limitations of d’Hondt and has recently argued against its use at local government level in Lisburn City Council. We support what it is doing and the logic of what it is saying. Therefore, the argument that d’Hondt is an important principle is already crumbling.

I fully accept the importance of proportionality in the way that we do business in the Chamber and elsewhere in society. However, there is more than one way of achieving that. By contrast, a cross-community vote brings many advantages. It will bring a unique sense of legitimacy to any new justice Minister that does not exist through the d’Hondt mechanism. Under d’Hondt, Ministers are picked through a random process to control a certain portfolio. However, to a certain extent, that means that the opinions of other sections of the Assembly and the Executive are excluded from contributing to that portfolio.

For example, earlier today, some Members expressed built-up frustrations about what they viewed as arbitrary decisions taken by Ministers who have been appointed under the d’Hondt process, while other Members have had little or no ability to influence the outcome. That is the danger of d’Hondt. Therefore, let us not pretend that it is a wonderful system that delivers harmony to how we do business here.

That said; my party is fully aware of the limitations of a cross-community vote. Some Members have said that a new justice Minister will be a puppet of the DUP and Sinn Féin. That cannot be said in relation to a potential Alliance justice Minister, and it applies to any potential Ulster Unionist or SDLP justice Minister. Indeed, as things stand, it could be said that the two Ulster Unionist Ministers and the SDLP Minister in the Executive may be in office but not in power. Therefore, this is not a black and white issue.

It is important to recognise that there are ways in which the risks that Members have identified can be mitigated. First, since David Ford made his comments in the summer of 2008, one issue that has been clarified is that the new justice Minister will be a full member of the Executive, with the same powers as any other Executive member. That is clearly established in Westminster legislation.

Secondly, there is a clear need for any Programme for Government addendum to be agreed by the Executive and the Assembly in advance of devolution. That would give any Minister a degree of protection, based around the Programme for Government, from any arbitrary use of the power of removal. Frankly, any Minister who ended up in the situation of being removed from office merely for trying to implement a programme that had been agreed in advance by the selfsame parties that were trying to oust them would leave office with their head held high and their credibility intact. To some extent, a straw man is being built here. That is a problem that has been somewhat addressed and which can be further addressed in the future.

My party has clear ambitions for wider institutional reform of the Assembly and Executive. The current system is not working; the Assembly and Executive are not delivering the optimal outcomes in their policies. For many years, we have made no secret of our ambitions in that respect. Our agenda is not targeted against any one party, and that includes, notably, Sinn Féin. Our agenda is about making governance work better and about creating a system that can deliver on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. Although an initial step has been taken in the legislation, it is not a Trojan Horse for wider reforms elsewhere in the system. That is a debate for another time and another place, and we accept that. Nonetheless, the Bill is a welcome step towards reform of the procedures for election.

In his lengthy intervention, Basil McCrea —

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I was making a speech.

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

In his speech then — pre-packaged from above — Basil McCrea questioned the wisdom of any party wishing to join what is a dysfunctional Executive. If Basil McCrea believes that the Executive are as dysfunctional as he says, his party should leave, and should fight the Executive, unambiguously, in opposition, rather than being in and out at the same time.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

That is a two-edged sword. Does the Member believe that the Executive are dysfunctional, and, taking his argument, does he think it is right that the Alliance Party should take the Ministry for justice?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I am just about to come to that very point. I took extensive notes during Basil McCrea’s speech — something had to be done — and listened to the comments that his party made. The difference between our approach and that which was articulated by the Ulster Unionists is that although we recognise that, as things stand, the Executive are dysfunctional, we regard the successful devolution of policing and justice as part and parcel of efforts to make the Executive less dysfunctional. It is quite clear that the issue of devolution of policing and justice is one of many.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Stephen Farry (Alliance, North Down)

I will in a second.

It is perhaps the primary issue that is poisoning relations between parties. To take it to another level, if the issue is not resolved in the near future, there is the very real prospect of the institutions being further destabilised. Indeed, we have potential threats or warnings, call them what one will, that may have direr implications for the institutions.