Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 May 2013

415 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Matter of the Day

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Mr Gregory Campbell has been given leave to make a statement on Graeme McDowell's World Match Play Championship golf success, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24.

If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members will have up to three minutes to speak on the matter. As normal, I remind Members that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the matter of the day has been dealt with.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I felt it fitting and appropriate, given the scale of Graeme McDowell's success in winning the World Match Play Championship, to ask for a matter of the day.

We cannot overestimate the scale of the success that Northern Ireland golfers have achieved in recent years. When we look at the illustrious list of previous winners of the World Match Play Championship, we read of people such as Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Seve Ballesteros, Greg Norman, Nick Faldo and Ernie Els. Those are golfing greats — many were legends in their own time — and Graeme McDowell has now joined that illustrious list.

The key factor here is simply that we now have three outstanding golfers. Golf is an internationally recognised sport that is followed by millions around the globe, and Northern Ireland — a very small country — has three of the most outstanding golfers in 2013. They are, of course, Graeme McDowell, or G-Mac as he is known in America; Rory McIlroy, the world number two; and Darren Clarke. The statistic that, I think, is the most important one, Mr Speaker — with this, I will close in marking this significant achievement by Graeme — is that, while golfers in the United States of America often believe it to be the home of golf — indeed, it has some of the finest golf courses in the world — the United States of America has a population of 315 million. Northern Ireland has a population of 1·8 million, yet we have three of the greatest golfers in the world. That tells you what you need to know about the golfing prowess of Northern Ireland. That is why it was so important to get the Irish Open. That is why we hope that the Open will come to Royal Portrush in the coming years, and that is why we should do all that we can to mark achievements such as Graeme McDowell's over the weekend.

Cathal Ó hOisín (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ar son mo pháirtí, ba mhaith liom ár gcomhghairdeas a ghabháil le Graeme as an bhua stairiúil seo. I congratulate Graeme on what was indeed a very historic victory in the Volvo World Match Play Championship. He came so close last year, as runner-up, and it is no mean achievement for him. He said so this morning on breakfast television, when he talked about seeing his name on the trophy along with the most illustrious in golf to have won it since this competition started in 1964. I hope that Graeme's achievement will be an inspiration to other young sportspeople to take up golf or other sports. I pass on my congratulations to Graeme McDowell and to his father, Kenny. If Graeme inspires a new generation of sportspeople, I will be very pleased.

In passing, I just mark another inspirational sportsperson, James O'Kane, who was laid to rest yesterday.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for facilitating and Mr Campbell for raising this matter. I join everybody in congratulating Graeme McDowell on his success over the weekend. That success had been coming for the past year. He came second in this tournament last year and was very close to winning the US Open last year. Therefore, his success in winning a tournament a few weeks back and another at the weekend had been coming for a time.

There is no doubt that this success is timely, because, in and around a year since the Irish Open was played at Royal Portrush, it brings the spotlight back to Irish golf, Irish tourism and to the opportunity of jobs around the tourism product. So, this win is very timely in Graeme McDowell's career and in bringing our minds back to the opportunity that we have around tourism and golf tourism, in particular.

Although Tiger Woods is currently world number one — not for long, I suspect — it is also now the case that, given his recent successes, Graeme McDowell is, with Tiger Woods, one of the two best players in the world of golf at this time. That is the significance of the achievement of Graeme McDowell in recent weeks. He has raced up the world rankings and is now number seven. He and Woods, in this period of golf, are clearly the two standout players in the world. Mindful of Rory McIlroy being number two, that is the measure of Graeme McDowell's achievements and the measure of golf's achievements in this part of the world.

Michael McGimpsey (UUP, Belfast South)

I join in the congratulations to Graeme McDowell. On a personal level his is a stupendous achievement and reflection on Northern Ireland, where we have a golfer who is achieving at the heights of the world game. A look at our roll of golfers — Graeme McDowell, McIlroy, Hoey, Maybin and Darren Clarke and others coming through — shows the huge range of talent in this country.

Around 12 years ago, when I was the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, I opened a youth games in Belfast. As I was going around meeting contestants in a full range of games, a coach came over to me and said, "Look, I have a group of young golfers that I would like you to meet". He wanted me to get my photograph taken with them. He said, "You will think I am exaggerating, but among this group of golfers there are future world champions and greats of the game". He was not exaggerating, and the achievements of that group of golfers — there are more than the ones I have named coming through — have been huge. Graeme McDowell has done exactly what that coach said. He is a world champion, on top of winning the US Open, which is one of the key majors. That is a fabulous achievement for him, and it is a tremendous achievement for Northern Ireland.

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I join others in congratulating Graeme McDowell on yet another fantastic win. That particular tournament is a hard one to win; it is a match play tournament with two rounds every day, as far as I could see, which is pretty hard. Graeme is, by now, a hardened professional, and he will take everything in his stride. It is nice to see a bit of emphasis on him rather than on Rory McIlroy all the time. We are very lucky to have both of them representing us, but Graeme has a track record that is second to none.

It always surprises me that Northern Ireland golfers do not win more match play events, because they grow up on match play. We can see how well they play in the Ryder Cup. It was only a few years ago that Darren Clarke beat Tiger Woods in the final of a match play world championship in America. Congratulations to all.

Mr Speaker, I know that, if David McClarty had been here, he would, as a friend of the family, have wanted to join in the congratulations. Perhaps we could send him our best wishes at the same time.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I will be very brief. I also want to add my congratulations to Graeme McDowell, who set a terrific example for all our golfers, particularly with such an incredibly difficult course as Thracian Cliffs. If we think about it, we will remember that that is where Alexander the Great started his world domination. Let us see it going further, and, perhaps, we can have "Graeme the Great" or "G-Mac the Great".

Private Members' Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call Mr Jim Allister to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Civil Service (Special Advisers) Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Allister.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in my provisional grouping of amendments selected list.

There is one group of amendments. The debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 20, which deal with the removal of the disqualification of existing special advisers with a serious criminal conviction; the replacement of the Civil Service Commissioners with a review panel as the body to determine the eligibility of certain special advisers; changes to the matters to which the panel must have regard; and changes to the commencement provision.

Once the debate is completed, further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 20. Members should note that amendment Nos 3 and 4 are consequential to amendment No 1. Amendment No 3 is also mutually exclusive with amendment No 2.

Amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7 are consequential to amendment No 2 and mutually exclusive with amendment No 4. Amendment Nos 13 to 17 are consequential to amendment No 4, and amendment Nos 18 and 20 are consequential to amendment no 2. I call Mr Allister to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 1, line 13, leave out "Commissioners" and insert "Department of Finance and Personnel".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In page 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5).— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 3: In page 1, line 22, leave out "Commissioners" and insert "Department".— [Mr Allister.]

No 4: In clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert

"(1) This section applies where an appointment, or proposed appointment, of a person as a special adviser is referred to the Department under section 2(2) or (5).

(2) The Department must, within 14 days of the referral, establish a review panel and refer the matter to it.

(3) The review panel must determine whether the person is eligible for appointment as, or to continue to hold appointment as, a special adviser.

(4) The person is only eligible if the review panel is".— [Mr Allister.]

No 5: In clause 3, page 2, line 6, leave out from "or" to end of line 7.— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 6: In clause 3, page 2, line 9, leave out

", or to continue to hold appointment as,".— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 7: In clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out

", or to continue to hold appointment as,".’— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 8: In clause 3, page 2, line 17, leave out from "contrition" to the end of line 18 and insert

"regret for and acknowledgement of, and accepts the gravity and consequences of, the offence to which the serious criminal conviction relates,".— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 9: In clause 3, page 2, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert

"(b) whether the person has demonstrated, where applicable, a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means for political change,".— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 10: In clause 3, page 2, line 23, at end insert

", in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors.".— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 11: In clause 3, page 2, line 23, at end insert

"(d) any information which the proposed appointee wishes to submit in writing.".— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 12: In clause 3, page 2, line 24, leave out "Commissioners" and insert "Department".— [Mr Allister.]

No 13: In clause 3, page 2, line 26, at end insert

"(5) The Department must—

(a) appoint independent persons to be members of the review panel,

(b) pay those persons such fees, allowances or expenses as appear appropriate,

(c) provide the review panel with staff, accommodation or other facilities as appear appropriate.

(6) A review panel may regulate its own procedure.

(7) A review panel only remains in existence for so long as is necessary for it to exercise its functions.".— [Mr Allister.]

No 14: In clause 4, page 2, line 28, leave out "the Commissioners" and insert "a review panel".— [Mr Allister.]

No 15: In clause 4, page 2, line 32, leave out "Commissioners" and insert "review panel".— [Mr Allister.]

No 16: In clause 4, page 2, line 34, leave out "Commissioners" and insert "review panel".— [Mr Allister.]

No 17: In clause 10, page 4, leave out lines 28 and 29.— [Mr Allister.]

No 18: In clause 11, page 4, leave out clause 11.— [Mr D Bradley.]

No 19: In clause 12, page 5, line 2, leave out "Sections 2(5), 3, 7, 8" and insert

"Sections 1, 2(5), 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9".— [Mr Allister.]

No 20: In the schedule, page 6, leave out the schedule.— [Mr D Bradley.]

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I propose to speak to amendment No 1 and the further amendments in my name that flow from it. I will also speak on the amendments in this group tabled by others.

Members will recall that, when the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill was listed on an earlier occasion, I did not move it. An issue had arisen touching on the Secretary of State's consent by virtue of the fact that, at Consideration Stage, there had been inserted into the Bill a role for the Civil Service Commissioners, whose functions, of course, are a reserved matter. Therefore, to see through that function would have required the Secretary of State's consent at a stage before Final Stage. By virtue of issues about that being raised just in advance of the previous Further Consideration Stage, it was not moved on that occasion.

Since then, there has been considerable toing and froing on the issue. As sponsor of the Bill, I have arrived at the situation that, whereas my preference has been that the Civil Service Commissioners should be the body to perform the role anticipated in clause 3, in that it seems to be the natural home for that sort of function, because it has not been possible to get the degree of clarity that I would have wished to have at this stage on the issue of the Secretary of State's consent, I will be moving amendments — beginning at amendment No 1 — that substitute the role accorded to the Civil Service Commissioners with an independent panel appointed by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). I am somewhat torn in this, in that a large part of me does not want to let either the Civil Service Commissioners or the Secretary of State off the hook on this matter. However, I am faced with a situation where, to move the Bill forward, decisions have to be made, and that is the decision that is being suggested to the House.

I might say that I was not impressed with the extent to which the Civil Service Commissioners thought that they could take it upon themselves to determine what functions they should have. I would have thought that that decision is a matter for legislatures and that it is not for a body having functions bestowed on it to say whether it thinks that it is right that it should or should not have those functions. Indeed, I think that, in taking that stand, they somewhat politicised their own role. It is also somewhat regrettable that there was not a definitive answer from the NIO on how it would handle that situation.

Faced with all that, one has moved on to the proposition of the amendments that appear in my name. The substance of those amendments is quite straightforward. It is that the role hitherto anticipated for the Civil Service Commissioners in clause 3 should now be performed by an independent panel appointed by DFP. That is to say that, if there is an applicant for the position of special adviser or a person holding the position of special adviser who has a serious criminal conviction — one that has carried for them a sentence in excess of five years — that person would have the right to make a special case to a panel, where the presumption, I respectfully suggest, given how clause 3 is worded, would still be against appointment. However, if that person could show special circumstances, according to stipulated criteria, it would be for the panel to decide whether they could be appointed or, if already appointed, could continue to hold their position. That role, hitherto anticipated for the Civil Service Commissioners, will now fall to an independent panel appointed by the Department of Finance and Personnel, which seems to be the appropriate Department in that regard. Therefore, all my amendments are related to that proposition and the consequences that flow from it, because there are many places in the Bill where the word "Commissioners" has to be replaced with "Department".

Amendment No 1, however, is not just a paving amendment; it is crucial to all my amendments. Without it, all the rest would fall, apart from amendment Nos 12 and 19, because they come as a package. I make that plain to the House.

I will now deal with the other amendments, which have been tabled by the SDLP. I am disappointed by the SDLP amendments. They seek to hollow out key parts of the Bill and water down criteria to the point where they are largely meaningless for any appeal to the independent panel.

In amendment No 2, the SDLP seeks to exempt from the ambit of the Bill sitting SpAds. In other words, it seeks to make a distinction between a serious criminal, as defined by the Bill, who applies to be a SpAd and a serious criminal, as defined by the Bill, who already is a SpAd. It seeks to suggest that we should have a special dispensation for serious criminals who are already SpAds but not for those who are applying to be SpAds. That seems to be incongruous and wrong.

We must remember the genesis of the Bill. It was initiated in consequence of the gross appointment of Mary McArdle as a SpAd by the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister and the furore that that rightly created from the victim's family. A courageous stand was taken, in particular by Ann Travers. It would surely be the ultimate irony to process and pass a Bill of that genesis that did not deal with that situation, so that, if Mary McArdle had stayed in post, the Bill would not even have applied to her. If, between now and the Bill obtaining Royal Assent and becoming operative, she were, by one means or another, to be reappointed, this Bill, if the SDLP had its way, would not apply to her. That is incongruous and wrong.

There is no justification for seeking to distinguish between the sitting SpAd and the incoming SpAd if both have the qualifying criminal conviction that makes them someone who is carrying a serious criminal conviction. That distinction is unwarranted. So, that first batch of SDLP amendments, which would rob the Bill of that key component, are not worthy of support.

I hear people saying, "This is to deal with the retrospective element of the Bill". There is no retrospective aspect to the legislation. It is prospective and says that, from a point in time, there are certain qualifications needed to be a special adviser. It then says that, if you presently hold that position and fail to meet those qualifications because you have a serious criminal conviction, there are compensatory provisions available to you through clause 11 and the schedule, whereby you are compensated for the loss of your post, if that is the outworking of the arrangements.

I remind the House that the posts come with no security of tenure. A special adviser is appointed at the whim and stays in office only at the whim of a Minister. The posts come with no security of tenure whatsoever, so such threat to their tenancy of that position as the Bill poses is in a context of constant threat to their very existence in that post. I am perfectly satisfied and, indeed, everyone, as I recall, who gave evidence to the Committee on this point was satisfied that the compensatory arrangements were sufficient to judge-proof the Bill in regard to what people loosely call its retrospective elements. Therefore, there is no good reason, I respectfully submit, to follow the SDLP amendments on that point and very good reason not to follow them in order to maintain the consistency, intent and continuity of the Bill. It should, I suggest, extend to anyone aspiring to hold or actually holding the position of special adviser. It would be better to resist the hollowing-out of the Bill that SDLP amendment Nos 2, 5, 6, 7, 18 and 20 would indisputably secure.

I will move to the other SDLP amendments. Amendment Nos 8 to 11 —

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

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

You said that no evidence was given to the Committee that did violence to the argument that you outlined on retrospectivity. Could you then advise the House why no less a person than the Attorney General, in his evidence to the Committee on 19 September 2012 — whether you want to take his advice or otherwise — made it very clear that there were issues with retrospectivity and, in particular, article 7 of the convention? How do you reconcile, on the one hand, informing the House that no evidence was given to the Committee that did violence to your view on the retrospective nature or otherwise of your Bill and, on the other hand, the Attorney General's evidence to the Committee?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Attorney General was speaking to a very different matter: he was speaking to the compatibility of the Bill with article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He was seeking to suggest that it might be the situation that, because a penalty was involved in consequence of the Bill, it could be interpreted as a criminal penalty that did not exist when the person was sentenced and that article 7 prohibits retrospective criminal penalties. In other words, if you are convicted of an offence today and the sentence today is five years but, when you committed the offence, the sentence was three years, the maximum to which you could be sentenced is three years because you cannot have a retrospective element to the sentence; it is about what pertains at the time. The Attorney General suggested that the penalty could be interpreted as a criminal penalty. I take issue with him over that. Professor Brice Dickson and others who gave evidence took issue with that, but the Attorney General went on to say that, if there were a provision that provided an appeal mechanism, it would considerably dissipate concerns.

The Attorney General gave that evidence before clause 3 existed. Clause 3 was brought in to show some deference to the points that had made in that regard and as, in shorthand, an appeal mechanism, which was not in the Bill originally. So, when the Attorney General raised his points about article 7 and couched them in the way that he did, it was a different Bill, so to speak. The Bill now has an appeal mechanism, which means that individuals who find themselves disadvantaged not only have compensation for the disadvantage but, before they get to compensation, have the right to plead their case on exceptional circumstances to, it is now suggested, a panel. That is a very different picture to the one that the Attorney General was dealing with. So, I make the point that I am not aware of anyone seriously saying that the application of the Bill to sitting SpAds in the circumstances now anticipated in the Bill should not be considered.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Sure.

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

I thank the Member for his explanation. Hansard will show that the Member, in his opening remarks on the matter, said that nothing was said to the Committee in any evidence to it that would give rise to the issue of retrospectivity. The Member's explanation confirms that, whether you agree with the AG or not — I have had differences with the AG on advice that he may have given in some matters — it is quite clear that the evidence given to the Committee had more dimensions than indicated by the Member. The fact that he then had to reinterpret his opening remarks in light of the new clause 3 on the appeal process to reconcile the AG's evidence in Committee with what is now in the Bill demonstrates that the narrative initially outlined by the Member is not the full picture. The full picture is more accurately conveyed in the comments made in response to my intervention.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member is dealing with a different issue. The Attorney General's focus was on article 7. The issue about appeal mechanisms probably touches more on article 6 and article 8 rights than on article 7. If I recall correctly, the Attorney General said that it would help to ameliorate his concerns if there were an appeal mechanism, as a tangential issue to the article 7 issue. The issue of objections based on article 7 seems to have faded away, and I think that that is right. So, we are left in a situation in which the Bill now affords an appeal mechanism to disappointed applicants or postholders, and it does so in circumstances in which, subject to listed criteria, they can seek to show the exceptional circumstances that are applicable to them. I am not sure how much more one needs to do, having done all of that, to get to the point at which the SDLP would say that it is happy for the Bill to apply to sitting SpAds. There does not seem to be anything that could be done in that regard, because the SDLP seems to have reached a view that sitting SpAds should be exempt from the Bill. I do not understand the logic of that or how it would be squared with a situation in which, for example, Mary McArdle was still sitting in position, as she might well have been, beyond the control of the SDLP or anyone else in the House other than Sinn Féin. I do not understand how it makes sense to put forward a Bill that would sidestep that issue and not deal with it at all. That is why I think that, in policy terms, it is foolish of the SDLP to try to restrict the ambit of the Bill to aspiring SpAds and not to include sitting SpAds.

I move on to deal with amendment Nos 8 to 11 on criteria, which come from the same quarter. Amendment Nos 8 and 9 in particular seem to be focused on weakening the criteria on which the panel would decide whether exceptional circumstances existed, despite that person having a serious criminal conviction. My starting point is that, since it should be possible only, as the Bill says, in "exceptional circumstances" for someone to circumvent the requirement that they should not have a serious criminal conviction, it follows that the criteria need to be rigorous. If the circumstances are to be exceptional, the criteria need to be rigorous. The criteria in the Bill, on foot of Consideration Stage, are, in shorthand, contrition; having helped to advance the police investigation of the crime; and the view of the victim of that crime. Those three criteria hang together as the testing ground for whether an exception should be made to the presumption against the appointment of a serious criminal to a SpAd post. SDLP amendment Nos 8 and 9 would systematically take the first two of those and water them down. Amendment No 8 wants to replace "contrition" with mere "regret" — not even "remorse", just "regret". My concern is that that amendment, as worded, would be open to the abuse and usage of someone making a bland, meaningless declaration such as "I regret all deaths in the Troubles and acknowledge the grave consequences inflicted on many". That is such a meaningless affirmation that it robs the requirement for remorse, contrition and real regret of any substance.

Most of us in the House probably have children or grandchildren. How many times have we heard the errant child say, "Sorry, mummy"? Is that remorse or real regret, or does it just mean "Sorry I have been caught"? When we are appointing someone to a very highly paid, high-profile, publicly funded post whereby that person will have access to the very top, the very heart of government and to civil servants on a par virtually with Ministers — to the status of a senior civil servant — is it not right that we should have some regard to whether, if that person is a serious criminal by virtue of serious criminal conviction, they have any contrition or remorse for the fact that they put themselves in the position of being a serious criminal?

I remind the House that the Bill does not talk just about terrorist convictions; the Bill is blind to whether it is a terrorist or non-terrorist conviction. The Bill is premised on it being a criminal conviction of whatever sort. Whether it is a rapist, a fraudster or a terrorist who collects a serious criminal conviction, is it too much to say that, before such a person should have the privilege of occupying that high position in our land, they should at least have shown remorse and contrition for the offence that they committed? To go back to the Mary McArdle situation, that was part of the aggravation. There was arrogance in the appointment — deliberate, calculated arrogance to do it because it could be done. According to amendment No 8, all that such a person would have to do would be to say something like, "I regret all the deaths in the Troubles. Some terrible things were done and great anxiety and consequences inflicted on many". I just do not think that that is good enough. That is why I say that contrition, which imports real remorse and shows that someone is genuinely sorry for what they have done, is not too much to ask for the holding of such a position. Does anyone think that the person appointed who gave rise to the Bill has genuine remorse or contrition? Under the SDLP formula, that person, if she came up for reappointment, would have done enough by merely expressing regret. She would have ticked the box. I do not think that that is doing enough.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. I listened very closely to what he said. I think that, if you step back from some of the toing and froing around the Bill, the SDLP amendment captures everything that should be captured.

I will make these points by way of intervention. First, I hope that no SpAd thinks that they are on a par with a Minister. If there is a SpAd who thinks that they are on a par with or ahead of the Minister, I would be very worried for the authority of government. We can have some discussion around all of that.

Our view is that our amendment captures what should be captured. Why? Because it captures the word "regret", it captures the word "acknowledgement" and it captures the concept of the "gravity" and "consequences" of the offence. I put it to the Member that, taken together, those four terms are greater than the term "contrition". Why? Because "regret" in the English dictionary means a feeling of contrition, and you can check that. That is what is captured by "regret" — a feeling of contrition. It goes further than "contrition" in itself. I put it to the Member that, rather than missing the wood for the trees, he should acknowledge that the words in the SDLP amendment go further in standing with victims and survivors than the words in the Bill. Therefore, before a vote is taken today, the Member should acknowledge and embrace all of that, stand with the victims and survivors by going beyond "contrition" and using the words "regret", "acknowledgment", "gravity" and "consequences".

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I wish that it were so. I wish that a mere intonation of regret equated to contrition. It is clear — I return to this point — that the boxes of amendment No 8 could be readily ticked by someone saying, "I regret all the deaths of the Troubles. I accept the gravity and the consequences of all those deaths". That would be sufficient to tick the box for the SDLP.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will in a moment.

I respectfully suggest that those are the sort of weasel words that we have all heard time without number that, in truth and in essence, mean nothing. The generalisation and branding of the equality of criminality where you say, "I regret all the deaths of the Troubles and the consequences that they created" would tick the SDLP box.

However, that person has come nowhere close to showing contrition that is personal to them and personal to what they did. That comes nowhere close to showing genuine remorse that they ever picked up the weapon, planted the Semtex, pulled the trigger or did whatever they did. To simply brand it in a globalised way, as the SDLP amendment would permit, is falling far short and therefore it is not right to say that this amendment would do more for victims than clause 3 presently does. It patently does not. I think that the Member knows that victims who have been in touch with his party take that view and he knows that victims see what the SDLP is seeking to do as a watering down of contrition.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes, I will give way.

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

If the words on the page were what Mr Allister has just outlined, namely that the SDLP amendment is, to borrow his phrase, "a globalised way"; that it is a catch-all of regret in respect of any and all of the terror and state violence that was part of the history of this country for 40 years, then his point would be a valid one. However, the SDLP amendment borrows the words used in Mr Allister's Bill. Clause 3 (3)(a) in Mr Allister's Bill states:

"whether the person has shown contrition for the offence to which the serious criminal conviction relates".

The SDLP amendment to that clause repeats the words:

"the offence to which the serious criminal conviction relates".

It is not a globalised reference; it is very specific reference to the specific serious criminal offence of which the SpAd was previously convicted. Do not pretend to the House, Mr Allister, that our clause in any way diminishes and reduces the words of regret to something that is global. It is in the particular. I invite Mr Allister to correct his misunderstanding of that particular clause and to respond further as to why regret, acknowledgement, gravity and consequences move beyond the narrow terms of contrition and captures all that this House should try to capture in order to stand with those who suffered from terror and state violence.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Let me return to the Member. If an aspiring SpAd were to say, in the context of the many terrible things that happened during the Troubles that were wrong, that in that context, they regret, acknowledge and accept the gravity and consequences of what they did, has that person ticked the SDLP box? It seems to me the person has done so by burying it in a generalised excusatory presentation that goes nowhere near touching the personal contrition that the Bill looks for.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one difference between regret and contrition is that contrition has to be something personal that is involved in one's own actions, and that regret can be generalised in the nature of the overall situation or it can be personal where it can be widely drawn? For example, I have never committed a murder, and I would say I regret all the murders of the Troubles — and I can legitimately say that — but I cannot say that I have contrition because I did not commit them. Therefore, if someone was to make a bland generalisation saying that they regretted all the deaths of the Troubles, that would by definition include the offence that is being referred to but shows no indication of personal remorse or contrition. That lies at the heart of the distinction between the two words.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

If I could deal with this point first. I agree with the Member, and I think he has put his finger on it. To simply say "regret" in the expedience of the moment that requires an expression of regret, means that the box can be ticked. Contrition is much deeper and much more personal. If someone is contrite, you would expect third parties to be able to say that, for years, that person has been in deep remorse, what that person did has been burning them up, and they can testify to the fact that the person is contrite about the matter. That is very different from a situation in which someone applies for a job, and they tick a box that states "I regret" in the context that is being expounded.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the Member accept that older Members of the House who lived through the entire period of the Troubles saw, night after night, Sinn Féin representatives on TV and radio saying that they regretted all deaths but then were apologists for further murders, bombings and acts of terrorism? They ticked the SDLP box: they had regret for everything, but it was utterly meaningless because they continued to support rampant terrorism for 40 years.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member's point is well made. The issue is the sincerity that can be teased out of the remorse, regret and contrition of the aspiring or sitting SpAd. I think that contrition imports a necessity for remorse that is personalised and demonstrable. It is not a creation of the moment; it is something real and abiding.

The problem with the SDLP amendment is that it is a box-ticking exercise that can carried out, personal to the offence, but in a context that all crime is wrong. That sanitising context robs it of its essence. The SDLP amendment would have been better had it used the word "remorse" rather than "regret". I think that it has gone to the bottom end to find the language of the situation, and it falls well short of what one would look for when appointing someone to such a position.

I will move on to amendment No 9, which seeks to replace the important and testing requirement that all reasonable steps should have been taken to assist or advance a police investigation. It seeks to substitute a mere commitment to non-violence. That is a box of easy believism. It is a box easily ticked that someone is committed to non-violence. Never mind that, 10 or 20 years ago, they committed a most vile, vicious, vindictive, murderous attack. Today, they are committed to non-violence, and we are expected to say, "That is all right, then. Come in and hold one of the highest offices in administration as a special adviser."

Remember that this Bill is about affording to victims something real, tangible and meaningful. It is about demonstrating to them that they matter in this society, and that what was done to them matters in this society. That is why, when we talk about someone being remorseful, regretful and contrite about what happened, you would expect that there would be the follow-through of having tangibly done something about it, instead of a situation where someone can pick up a gun after a murder, be convicted of that, and never help the police to solve who gave them the gun, what they knew about it in advance, or any of that.

Yet that person, be it Mary McArdle or someone else, could tick that second SDLP box and say, "I now abhor all violence". How is that helping the victim they left, who feels that it was the actions of that person that robbed them of their sister, father, brother or whoever? That is not helping at all. In fact, it is rubbing salt into the wound by making that so easy.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a powerful point on this.

Let us consider this amendment along with the previous amendment. We could accept the previous amendment and interpret "regret" in the generous way that Mr Attwood did in his intervention but we would then rob that regret of any specific action that might have proved it. The two amendments together indicate that almost anyone could pass the test. Whether it is the SDLP's intention or not, if the two amendments go through, that is how they will be interpreted. We saw the great wrong that was done when Mary McArdle was appointed. The Assembly is not really prepared to deal with that if the threshold for accepting someone into the role of special adviser is as low as those two amendments together present.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister is absolutely right: the criteria hang together. There is a natural flow to them: contrition, helping to advance the police prosecution and persuading the victims that it is appropriate that the person should be appointed. Inserting into the middle of that something as meaningless as an affirmation now of belief in non-violence neither informs the regret nor positions the victims where they can feel at ease with that appointment. So, amendment No 9 significantly hollows out that key issue and leaves the Bill meaningless in terms of the hurdles that have to be crossed by the aspiring SpAd.

It is interesting that amendment No 9 from the SDLP has no expectation of the non-terrorist criminal — the fraudster who may have been convicted and given five years for fraud. He does not have to do anything under the SDLP's proposed paragraph (b), nothing whatsoever. He just gets a bye ball in terms of having helped anyone with anything in the investigation or showing any adherence to non-criminality. The only thing that he has to declare under SDLP amendment No 9 — it would not be relevant to him — is an abhorrence of violence. So, the non-terrorist criminal is put in an enhanced and better position by the SDLP's amendment No 9.

Amendment Nos 8 and 9 in particular are not worthy of support. The House, after rational, reasonable and prolonged debate at Consideration Stage, accepted the three criteria. I respectfully suggest that now is not the time to water them down and interpose an easy believe-ism into the hurdles. That, of itself, is so incompatible with the starting point of the requirement for exceptional circumstances. You cannot talk in the Bill at the beginning of clause 3 about "exceptional circumstances" and then make the hurdles utterly meaningless.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

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

May I first of all acknowledge that, in respect of the amendment to clause 3, page 2, line 17, the Member indicated that, to use his words, he accepted that our amendment touched on words that were personal to the offence? He had not indicated that previously. In all his other contributions, the Member said that those were globalised words. He has now accepted that the words that we use are personal to the offence. That is a positive development. That is why I think that, if he thinks further about our words instead of the word "contrition", he may think again that they actually move the Bill in a positive way.

The second point is that I am at a loss to understand why the Member believes that amendment No 9 is, to use his word, meaningless. Those are words that all of us have endorsed in political documents and to which, subject to correction, we subscribe when we stand for MLA elections. Subject to correction, we all stand in the middle of the Floor after an MLA election and sign a book in which we commit ourselves to those concepts. So, those words are not meaningless. Indeed, far from being meaningless, they are part of the law of this land and part of the practice in this land. They are words that are valued by everybody in the Chamber, because we suffered for 40 years when those words were not honoured.

My point, however, is that the use of "consequences" in amendment No 8 is a reference to, among other things, the consequences of the offence, namely that there is a legal investigation and that that legal investigation requires co-operation from those who may have information in relation to it. That is why the three paragraphs — (a), (b) and (c) — that we have proposed go further, have much deeper impact and stand more in solidarity with victims and survivors than those outlined in the Bill.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

May I deal with the Member's points? He says that, in fact, amendment No 8, which talks about "consequences", acknowledges that there are legal consequences to regretting your actions. I have to say this to the Member: I would be astounded if any judge interpreting these cold words as they would appear in the statute would for a moment believe that it imposes a duty on the person relying on them to have assisted the police in the solving of the crime. If that is what it means, why take out clause 3(3)(b)? The Member cannot have it both ways. He cannot say, "Paragraph (a) really means you have to help the police, but, not that you'd know it, in case you did, we'll take out paragraph (b)". That is the position that the Member has adopted. I suggest to him that that is beyond credibility.

The Member makes the point that, in amendment No 8, there is a personal relationship to the offence committed. That may be, but, in the globalised context, which he has not disputed, someone could say, "I regret all the deaths of the Troubles. All the criminality of the Troubles was wrong, and, in that context, I have regret for and acknowledgement of etc, etc, my crime". It can be sanitised by putting it in that context. If, however, the requirement is for contrition, there is no wriggle room whatsoever. The problem with the SDLP amendments is that the SDLP wants to maximise the wriggle room, for whatever reason, and, in doing that, it diminishes the respect and rights for the victim.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member argues that amendment No 8 is globalised, but, in fact, that is far from the case. It is directed purely and solely at the offence that the person has committed, as is the wording of the amendment: "regret for", "acknowledgement" and "accepts the gravity and consequences" of the offence that the person committed. So, rather than the amendment being globalised, our belief is that it is very clearly directed at the individual and the offence that the individual has committed.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The problem with the Member's contention is this: all those fine words can be ditched and rendered meaningless by the applicant setting them in the globalised context and saying, "I regret all the deaths of the Troubles etc, and, in that context, I have regret for, acknowledgement of and acceptance of the gravity and consequences of the offence of which I was convicted". The fact that it could be done in that way renders it meaningless.

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

I thank the Member for giving way once again. He makes the point that the proposed appointee can globalise the offences and place his or her offence in that global situation, but it is the job of the adjudicating panel to judge whether a proposed appointee accepts the individuality of his or her offence or is globalising it. I suggest that any member of an adjudicating panel who is worth his or her salt would see through that and would adjudge on that basis.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

If the criterion was personal contrition, there would be no wriggle room whatsoever for an applicant or panel member to try to find a way through. They would require a context that was personalised contrition. Therefore, the opportunity to have regret in a globalised, sanitised context would be removed. Fundamental is this: no matter how much the SDLP might like to massage those words and say that they mean something that they do not, the reality is that, as drafted, they merely require regret. That can be regret couched in language that utterly undermines any suggestion of remorse, contrition or anything else.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. He would have to admit that "contrition" has to be interpreted. I realise that "contrition" is a very Catholic word. Perhaps the panel would have to draw on the services of an eminent Catholic theologian to define contrition and decide whether an applicant is contrite. Obviously, the panel will not go to that extent, but the point that I am making is that, at the end of the day, the interpretation of someone's contrition is objective. One person may decide that, yes, that person is fully and totally contrite. Another person might think the total opposite. So, Mr Allister's argument is not as nailed down and firm as he might think. All these things are open to interpretation, and, at the end of the day, all these things are objective.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I do not accept that Catholicism has a monopoly on contrition. I certainly think that contrition is something that we all can and, in appropriate circumstances, should experience and express. I do not think that it is sectarianised or anything else in its presentation.

The one thing about "contrition" is that it will not admit to a sanitising, globalised context; "regret" will. That is the real weakness in the SDLP amendment: it admits to that sanitising, globalised context of saying, "I am sorry, I regret, because all that happened was wrong". Contrition does not admit that; it admits that it is wrong. They personally know and feel that it is wrong, and they want to express that, No matter what else happened in the wider context, they are contrite for what they did. "Contrite" is an ordinary English word, and the panel will be able to grapple with it. It will know when it is being presented with contrition and when it is being presented with phoney regret. I think that it will know the difference all right.

I return to Mr Attwood's point about amendment No 9, which states:

"whether the person has demonstrated, where applicable, a commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means for political change".

He said, "That is what we all ascribe to, so what is wrong with that"? I would be so bold as to suggest that there might be people who subscribe to that in the here and now but have no regret for what they did — none whatsoever. So where does that take us? It certainly does not take us into the realm to which we need to go to show that there is something to match the remorse, as there is in clause 3(3)(b) at the moment, which is delivery by assisting the police or advancing the case. At a stroke, it utterly removes all that expectation and simply says, "All you have to do is repeat the mantra about being committed to non-violence, never mind whether you do or do not regret or feel remorseful for what you did in the past". It is just so easy and so porous that it is useless as a criterion.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

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

I repeat my earlier point. The Member referred to our clause in respect of a commitment to non-violence as meaningless, and my point was that those words are not meaningless. They have become an article of faith in politics in its most recent history in this part of the world. They are built into law, electoral practice and Assembly practice and, therefore, should not be portrayed as meaningless. If they were, do you know what would happen, Mr Allister? A message would be sent to the people who honour and have worked hard for those words that they did not add up to a puff of smoke. I dispute that and differ from the Member on it. Everybody in the House who holds those words dear should never, ever allow anybody to portray them as meaningless, because they would, therefore, be saying that the achievements on those concepts and practices, which have been struggled for and hard won over the past number of years, have all been somewhat meaningless. You have to dispute that.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Perhaps what the Member is really trying to convey without saying it, since you go to the genesis of these words, is that, pre-1998, you apply some sort of intellectual amnesty to those who did anything, provided they can now say, "We are committed to non-violence. Whatever happened in the past is OK". That is the problem. Take the Travers case, involving the vicious, vile murder of a young schoolteacher. The expectation would be that all that someone who murdered her would have to say is "I am committed to non-violence. I do not have to help in any way to identify who else was involved or say where the gun came from and where it went. I just happened to be caught with the gun. I was bang to rights on that, but I am not going to help this family to find out who pulled the trigger to kill their sister. I will not do any of that". In SDLP terms, that is all right. You have an effective amnesty for that because, today, you can say that you are committed to non-violence. That cannot be right.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that the form of words used here was used by people in the first Assembly who, at the same time, continued to support an organisation that ran guns from America, killed police officers, murdered drug dealers and continued to engage in criminal activity? Although some people may have meant what they said, the words can be used by others and not mean a thing. The important point is that the amendment would remove a condition that goes beyond the words and measures whether those words mean anything in practical terms, namely whether the person was so remorseful and regretful and showed so much contrition for their crime that they helped the police. That is better than some form of words that may be genuine in many cases — in fact, in most cases, they may be said with total sincerity and acted on — but still leave room for people who want to say them just because it is convenient to do so.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Member is absolutely right. The person who is genuinely contrite will have no difficulty with these words, but, equally, they will have absolutely no difficulties with the words that they try to replace. The person who is not genuinely contrite and simply mouths words for words' sake will have no difficulty with the amendment's words. They will have difficulty with the words that they try to replace. That is the real litmus test of what the SDLP amendment means. It and amendment No 8 seek to find a way through the protective hedge that is built into the Bill for victims. In that regard, they diminish the rights and expectation of victims. They do the very thing that some victims fear, which is that a nonsense could be made of the Bill.

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

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

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

The Member says that some people will have greater difficulty using the words in the Bill than the words that we submitted. I do not think that even very recent evidence suggests that. It was only three weeks ago that the leader of a political party on this island appeared on an RTÉ TV programme and, for the first time, said that the killings carried out by the IRA were murder. For the first time ever, they crossed that Rubicon — I will come back to that — and said that the more than 1,500 killings conducted by the IRA in the history of our conflict, which is more than any other organisation was culpable for, were murder. If the leader of a political party that was said to be close to the IRA can now casually refer to all those killings as murder, you invest in people far too much when you say that it will be harder for them to use your words than those in our amendment. That most recent example very eloquently demonstrates that.

This party worked very hard to derail a previous legislative proposal because it did not live up to the standards of good process, true prosecution, truth and accountability. It was what is known as the on-the-runs legislation, which was worked through by the Blair/Powell Government and the IRA. So do not pretend that, given that we worked so hard to derail legislation that was going to corrupt proper process and make it easy for those who were guilty of grave crimes to avoid full prosecution and punishment, that is what we are at in this case. Far, far from it. We have good authority and good form, whether through the abandonment of that process or through any other truth and accountability process that we think needs to be created, that, if there is evidence, people need to live with the consequences of that evidence, including prosecution.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will Mr Allister give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank Mr Allister for giving way. Mr Attwood made a point about the revelation from the leader of Sinn Féin or the new position that he has taken, where he acknowledges now that the 1,500 deaths were a big mistake that should not have happened. Does Mr Attwood agree that the natural next step is to start talking to the security forces about those who committed those crimes? That would be a very positive way forward. I think that then, and I hope that Mr Attwood agrees, those of us on this side of the House will start to have more confidence when we hear words of condemnation for what happened in the past. Does he agree with that?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I think that I will have to be the conduit for that intervention. I agree very strongly with Lord Morrow's point.

Mr Attwood says that my contention is that people would find my words in clause 3(3)(b) more difficult than his words, but that is not my contention at all. My clause 3(3)(b) is not words; my clause 3(3)(b) is action. That is the difference. It is a tangible test of the person's remorse, contrition, regret.

The SDLP's proposed new clause 3(3)(b) is mere words — you give an affirmation. As Lord Morrow points out, the real test of the affirmation of Mr Adams or anyone else that something was wrong is what they are going to do it. Are they going to help the police to solve that which was wrong? Or are they just playing with words to say that it was wrong? That is the real test. I am not attacking the SDLP's bona fides at all, but, sadly, its amendments take out of the Bill the tangible test of what the words, whether they are contrition, regret or anything else, might practically mean.

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

I thank the Member for giving way again. It is interesting that, in his last comments, earlier in his comments and previously in other comments, Mr Allister is interchanging the words "regret", "remorse" and "contrition". Indeed, his last contribution was, subject to Hansard, about "regret, contrition or whatever it might be". It seems to me that, in the course of the debate, Mr Allister has not only accepted that there is a personal culpability that falls both in his Bill and our amendment but is now moving to acknowledge that the words "contrition", "regret" and "remorse" are of a family of words, the meaning and ambition of which is always to be the same. In that context, the fact that we use the words "regret", "acknowledgement", "gravity" and "consequences" seems to me to move beyond the words "regret", "remorse" or "contrition".

The Member makes a point about action. After 40 years of denial, the leader of a political party can now refer to 1,500 deaths as murder. In my view, the same word applies to a lot of state killings and killings by other organisations over the past 40 years. If somebody can so casually now rewrite their history by referring to all those deaths as murder, how easy will it be for those people or for others in other organisation to say, "I do not know anything about any other persons connected with the commission of the offence for which I was convicted"? That is the reality. Our amendment captures all other requirements, including the consequences to the individual of their actions in assisting the state.

When you get down to it, all of this gets to the nub of the point. It is that, on the far side of the Bill, unless we have a comprehensive and ethical way of dealing with past — including the prosecutions that, in my view, should arise in respect of offences in the past — this Bill or this House will be letting down the victims and survivors who look for an ethical and comprehensive truth and accountability process. That is where our tension should primarily be, whilst noting the importance of this piece of legislation.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Just before Mr Allister gets to his feet again, I want to make a few points. I know that the debate is flowing extremely well. Mr Allister has also been very generous with his time, and I think that I have counted about 15 interventions that he has taken. However, I am slightly worried that we are going slightly outside the amendments: we are talking about what a party leader might have said on a particular programme and how we should deal with the past.

I hope that Members will realise that I have been fairly fair in allowing the debate to flow extremely well in the Chamber, but I remind Members that they should not totally and absolutely go outside the amendments that we are trying to achieve in the House. However, that is not meant to stifle the flow of debate in any shape, form or fashion.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you. I want to make two points on Mr Attwood's intervention. He misunderstands clause 3(3)(b) if he thinks that it is just a matter of the applicant making an affirmation that they have helped. I anticipate that proposed new clause 3(3)(b) will impose an expectation on the panel to seek to investigate, through the authorities, how far that person has assisted. So, it is a tangible demonstration and not a subjective affirmation that one is looking for. Secondly, he sought to draw some comfort from the fact that, in the one sentence, I used the words "contrition", "regret" and "remorse". I am sorry to disappoint him. I was always taught that, when you are addressing a jury, you should use language that it understands. I was trying to be as flexible as I could in putting the argument in their terms, so to speak, and in the terms that the Members from the SDLP used. I still hold to the view that " contrition" is the right word for all the reasons that we have discussed. Mr Speaker, you will be glad to hear that I will not be tempted to revisit all of that.

I want to look for a moment at amendment No 10, which the SDLP has tabled. It seeks to add to clause 3(3)(c), which states:

"the views of any victim of the offence, or where a victim has died, the views of any close family member of the victim."

The SDLP wants to add the words:

", in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors."

If that wording had been:

"through the offices of the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors",

it would have conveyed to me that the commissioner was to be the conduit for taking the views of victims. However, as it is drafted — "in consultation with" — it is unclear to me whether this is an attempt to introduce a new and additional tier of consultation, whereby the commissioner herself is consulted with, or whether it is wording that is meant to convey that the commissioner would simply be a conduit. If it is an additional tier that might have the capacity, in some way, of undermining what the victims think, I would not be content with it. However, I am interested to hear what SDLP Members will say about that amendment and why they have couched it as they have.

Likewise, amendment No 11 adds a fourth criterion, which is:

"any information which the proposed appointee wishes to submit in writing."

I have a couple of points to make about that. If the SDLP is unsuccessful in its attempts to exempt sitting SpAds, that addition:

"any information which the proposed appointee wishes to submit in writing" —

would patently not apply to a sitting SpAd, because they are not a "proposed appointee". So the SDLP amendment would introduce into the Bill two levels of criteria: one for the sitting SpAd, who might have fewer rights, according to this SDLP amendment, in the context of other amendments not being successful; and another for the aspiring SpAd, who would have an additional right as a proposed appointee. That is my first point.

My second point is that this amendment would be much more palatable if it were couched as follows:

"any information relevant to (a) to (c) above which the appointee wishes to submit."

By couching it as widely as "any information", it introduces into three — now four — criteria, all of which have to be considered in their totality, a possible open-ended ground of appeal, so to speak. That generality is bad because it does not link itself to the three criteria that obviously hang together: (a), (b) and (c). It is simply a case of, "Well, whatever else you want to rely on, you can rely on it with the same thrust as if it were an (a), (b), (c) point". That is unfortunate because it is unspecific.

On the other hand, if the amendment is simply directed at the ability to submit character references, for example, I do not see anything in clause 3 as presently drafted that would not permit the panel, of its own volition — it has to set its own rules — to determine that it is happy to accept character references. There is nothing in the Bill to prohibit that. To do that is one thing, but to put into the Bill something as open-ended as "any information", without any specificity at all, is not, I think, the road to head down, particularly if it affords itself to only one category of applicant to the panel, namely those who have not yet been appointed. I will be interested to hear what the SDLP has to say about amendment Nos 10 and 11, but they seem questionable in that respect.

I apologise for having taken so long. I will plead that it was not entirely my fault, although I suppose that I did not have to give way. Overall, the SDLP amendments, sadly, would substantially weaken the Bill. They would diminish the protection for victims in direct proportion to the degree to which they make the appointment of a serious criminal easier. The easier you make the appointment of a serious criminal, the more you diminish the rights of the victims. If the Bill passes, I want it to be seen as a landmark piece of legislation that is amongst the first to demonstrate that victims have a right to be heard, a right to have a say and a right to be heeded. I fear that the SDLP amendments, in diminishing those rights, do not do justice to the Bill and will, in fact, do it despite. Those are my remarks for now.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I support Mr Allister's amendments to include the setting up of a panel, albeit reluctantly, on the basis that I believe that the body that should have been looking at this — the Civil Service Commissioners — has basically decided that it does not want to dirty its hands by being involved in making any issue. Until such a body is devolved to this Assembly, so that we can instruct it to take that on, this is the only route that we can go down.

Mention was made in the last comment that the appointment of criminals will be easier if the SDLP's amendments are accepted. That harks back to what happened recently, when we debated the National Crime Agency. It seems to me that the SDLP wants to make it easier for those who have been involved in various different crimes, whether political or otherwise, to evade prosecution and to be appointed to positions in government — and probably not just lowly positions, but key positions. That has to be looked at.

I want to go back to the amendments put forward by the SDLP in relation to those who are actually in position. They want to just let that go. It was very well demonstrated by the Bill's sponsor that if this is accepted, anyone who wants to get in and who has a criminal conviction now has an amnesty. Get in there, get your position, and nothing can be done. Legislation must be put in place to ensure that that does not happen.

It is not necessarily only about crimes that are politically motivated, or those who are guilty of them. The Bill specifically mentions the five-year tariff and how that is not just those who have been involved in criminality associated with the Troubles in Northern Ireland, albeit it was a result of the intervention of Ann Travers in relation to the murder of her sister and the appointment of Mary McArdle that brought this Bill about. Unfortunately, we have to deal with that because there are those who have not seen how making such sensitive and difficult appointments have affected the wider community.

We have to accept that, if the SDLP wants those who are in post to remain so, we should just let it go irrespective of whether it demands legal costs associated with getting rid of those people. There is a mechanism in place to deal with that, and that process can and should be used.

I also have major concerns about amendment Nos 8 and 9. There has been a lot of discussion about those amendments. Now, I do feel that —

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

Will the Member give way?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Yes, I will.

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

I was just thinking over your initial remarks about the panel. You said that you had some problems with that. Are you saying that you have a problem with the mechanism of appeal, or is it just the fact that the panel now, according to the proposed amendment, would be established by the Minister or the Department?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I do not have concerns about the panel being appointed by the Minister of Finance and Personnel at present. My difficulty is that we are getting those who should have been dealing with this matter off the hook. I will have no problem with the panel when it is up and running, but the proper process was that the Civil Service Commissioners should have been dealing with this.

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

Your Minister proposed the panel.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I appreciate that. What is coming forward now is more reflective of the points that were made at the very early stages. The Minister brought that to the House last year in relation to this matter, I understand.

The other point that I wanted to make was in relation to amendment No 9 from the SDLP, which inserts a new paragraph (b) into clause 3. It makes reference to and includes only those who have:

"demonstrated ... non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means for political change".

The Bill does not make any reference to that. It is about:

"whether the person has taken all reasonable steps to assist in the investigation and prosecution of all other persons connected with the commission of the offence,"

The amendment bears no reflection to that. The amendment tries to tie it in with the political situation.

Each party possibly could appoint somebody. For the sake of argument, our party, which has the Department of Finance and Personnel ministry, could have sat down and said, "Who would be fantastic at doing this?" There is a gentleman called Nick Leeson, who was involved in the Barings Bank saga. That was not associated with criminality, the Troubles, political violence or anything else. Nick Leeson could probably aspire to all that is stated here, yet he was guilty of one of the greatest mismanagements of bank affairs and brought down Barings Bank. We just need to be very careful about what we include. As a consequence, that amendment should be thrown out in its entirety and we should just stick with what is there.

I see the SDLP's amendments as the SDLP trying to be more green than Sinn Féin on this matter and trying to protect some people in certain areas. It is quite evident to me that, if somebody is guilty of a crime, they should accept that they will not, and should not, take up the post.

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

Will the Member give way?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I will, Dominic.

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

I take exception to the Member's accusation that the SDLP is trying to out-green Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin has not put down any amendments in this debate. How can we be out-greening Sinn Féin if that party has not put down any amendments?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

From our side of the House, is seems as though your party is acting as a conduit for Sinn Féin.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I want to reflect on what the Member and other members of his party said at the previous stage of the Bill. It was considered then that this matter should be referred to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). Members of his party said that we cannot put this issue into a Department because that would put the matter back into a political forum as opposed to an independent mechanism. Does he now accept that bringing this into the Department of Finance and Personnel, which the proposer of the Bill proposes we do — and I notice that the flag-bearer for that Department is sitting behind the Member — would bring it into a political forum?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

It states that an independent panel should be appointed. I take comfort from the word "independent". It should be given sufficient resource to establish that, and what its independence is will have to be classified. I appreciate that our original idea was for this to be dealt with through the normal process of what is acceptable under the wider Civil Service appointment procedure, and that is covered in subsection 4 of clause 3.

A number of points are creating a bit of concern in my community. We have had a wide discussion about the words used. Whether those words have a Catholicism angle or not, they are part of the English language. Some want to remove the word "contrition" and install the word "regret". Mr Weir already alluded to contrition being personal and regret being a general approach.

We are in favour of all the amendments proposed by Mr Allister and oppose all the SDLP's amendments. I, too, have some confusion about amendment No 10.

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

Will the Member give way?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Yes.

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

I take it then that the Member's party has changed its view on Mr Allister since last week, when the Member's party leader described him as not having a positive bone in his body and of going to the bush to take a stick to beat people with.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. The Member will know that there has been quite a bit of latitude shown in the debate, but he is stretching the debate by raising that issue.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I did not realise that we had discussed that as part of what was put forward last week. The amendments were not included within that.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. We hear constantly from around this House that it is time to move on, it is time to do wonderful things and it is time that we moved into the new dispensation. We hear how much we all agree with that. Does the Member agree that the Bill before the House today and this debate are about moving on? Here we have amendments that seem to be designed — intentionally or unintentionally, I am not quite sure — to keep us in the past. Is it not time to let go, embrace the Bill as it is and demonstrate, not only to everyone sitting in this House but to everyone outside, that this Assembly is determined to move on and that, whatever has happened, we cannot keep dragging the past with us? This Bill is an honest attempt to take us into a new dispensation and go forward. I hope that the SDLP in particular will recognise that.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much for that intervention. If there is anything further that you want to say, feel free to go ahead.

We have a point about amendment No 10 to clause 3, which aims to insert the line:

"in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors."

As to the conduit approach: is it "through" or "the views of" or what? I just cannot accept opening another line of consultation on the matter. I appreciate that the victims are, and should be, the main focus.

Sinn Féin brought this about with — I am not sure how I should put this — the insensitive way that it dealt with the appointment of those who have blood on their hands and have been guilty of some of the most heinous crimes that we have seen in our generation. That is something that has to be considered and taken into account. Any party doing that should consider those points. That is why we are in this position.

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

I thank the Member for giving way; he has been very generous. Surely, it is logical and reasonable for the Victims' Commissioner, or their office, to be involved and to give the necessary professional help and support to victims in such situations. That does not damage in any way an individual victim expressing his or her own views; it simply assists in those circumstances. It is a very reasonable and logical proposal.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

The Victims' Commissioner has a key role to play with victims and survivors, but I believe that —

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

Yes.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not know why this amendment has been tabled in the name of the SDLP. The Bill, as it stands, does not preclude a victim who, for whatever reason, does not wish to contact the panel or feels too inadequate to communicate with the panel, from going through the Victims' Commissioner. The amendment does not add anything. I cannot get into the mind of the SDLP on this one, but I suspect that the only reason for amendment No 10 is that it knows that victims will be very unhappy with its amendments, especially amendment Nos 8 and 9, and it is trying to push forward its credentials with the victims. The Victims' Commissioner could be used, even under the existing Bill, to make representation on behalf of people who feel that they have a particular interest in an appointment. If they want to make their views known but do not know how to do it or do not want to do it themselves, they can do it through the Victims' Commissioner. For that reason, I do not think that amendment No 10 adds anything to the Bill.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the comments.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

It was not the Minister; it was the Member.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I want to clarify the position: he is speaking as a private Member.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

He was not speaking as the Minister; he is speaking from the Back Bench.

I have concerns about the issue of special circumstances because you either rule yourself in or out simply because you have been convicted of a crime and served a tariff of five years or more in jail. I appreciate that, to try to bring as many people as possible on board, the opportunity was taken to bring in exceptional circumstances. People in that position will be given an opportunity to see whether they can present their case in a way that is accepted, and I believe that, with the inclusion of exceptional circumstances, those who wish to take up a post have an opportunity to do so by presenting their case to the relevant panel in a reasonable fashion. As it stands, we support Mr Allister's amendments and oppose those presented by the SDLP.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I am glad that it was not so far from your desk to here.

Sinn Féin has studied the amendments carefully, and we are no more convinced now of the merits of the Bill than we were at its introduction. We have made it clear that the issues at the heart of the Bill, even as amended, and its intent and purpose are quite clearly in direct conflict with the commitments that were entered into in the Good Friday Agreement, specifically about those who were known as prisoners of the conflict or, in the words of the agreement, "qualified prisoners".

That historical agreement — I recognise that not all the parties in the Assembly supported it — was ratified by referendum on this island and subsequently by the Oireachtas and the Westminster Parliament. So, notwithstanding individual opposition to the Good Friday Agreement, it is the authoritative and legal basis that governs and regulates the business of the Assembly, including this Bill, and is binding on all parties and MLAs, including those who supported it and are the champions of the Good Friday Agreement and those who are hostile to it.

The Bill will attempt to put in place a blanket prohibition that flatly contradicts the section of the agreement that relates to former prisoners. People voted for that at the time, and they negotiated and discussed with their eyes wide open. They knew exactly what they were signing up to, and there were certain very laudable and positive reasons and purposes for doing that.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Yes, of course.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I listened to what the Member is saying, and I want to pick up on two points. First, neither this Bill nor the previous system that was set up to deal with special advisers has a blanket prohibition on people who have been involved in crimes in the past. The Bill makes it quite clear that, for people to be able to take up a high-profile public appointment, regardless of the agreement, they have to meet certain criteria, as they do if they go to any part of the Civil Service. Part of those criteria are showing that they have left the life of crime in which they were involved in the past and demonstrated regret, remorse and contrition for it. The Member is wrong to try to paint this as something that it is not.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Yes, of course.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

I wish that the honourable Member for Antrim South would not keep saying that we signed up to it when we supported the Good Friday Agreement. Nobody on these Benches supported the Belfast Agreement. I voted no and was proud that I voted no, and I suspect that Mr Allister voted no as well. So it is no good saying to us that we should have accepted this when we signed up to the agreement. We opposed the agreement, and, therefore, that is quite a ridiculous argument.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I will take those points in reverse order, if I may. I acknowledged that not all parties supported the agreement. That was my opening comment, but you must not have heard me. The point that I made was that a democratic decision was taken here in the North, in this state, and in the South. It was then ratified by both the Oireachtas and Westminster. I said that, whether you were on the yes side or the nay side, the democratic decision is binding on us all, and we have to act on the basis of that. Go on and reiterate your point as often as you wish and feel that it is proper to do so, but it does not change the fact that we had a debate and an argument that you happened to lose. As a consequence, we have an agreement and an Assembly.

On the Minister's point, the blanket prohibition has to be taken as the sum of all of its parts when we deal with this Bill. For instance, the word "contrition" has been widely discussed, but it is not even in the agreement. I do not know whether anybody takes the trouble to check these things. This has been introduced post facto, and people have had their debate. You can remember, as I do because I was at the negotiations, the very intense discussions and disagreements that took place about the release of prisoners.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Yes, of course.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. We can argue about words that were in the agreement or not. As Jim Wells pointed out, that really does not concern us in this party. The Member knows that the community expressed anger at his party over some of the appointments that it made. So will he not accept that, as a very minimum, if someone who wishes to serve in a high-profile public post has been involved in criminal activity in the past, they ought to show contrition for it and have given evidence of that contrition, otherwise they are not fit to hold the post?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

We can shift the goalposts and refuse to acknowledge what was said at the time. Mary McArdle made a public statement and offered to meet the family. Does that not count? Does that not mean anything? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not debate across the Chamber.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Let us deal with contrition. I will take another example, but there are so many examples, and this is where we need to be careful about putting ourselves in a double bind or being downright hypocritical.

The Pat Finucane murder took place in February 1989. British Government agents, informers from the loyalist community named Nelson, Barrett and Stobie, procured the murder weapons, carried out the murder and, in fact, were involved in the planning, working with state agents. The British Government have investigated this, despite reneging on a very clear commitment at Weston Park to a full, public and independent inquiry. The latest episode was in December of last year, when the de Silva report was released. It confirmed that there was high-level collusion and that direct agencies of the British Government were involved in procuring the murder of a human rights lawyer.

What else did the British Government do? This is where I come to contrition: the British Government made it clear that no police or soldiers would go to court. Contrition? Regret? Sorry? What does it mean when people adopt the position that, when it comes to ex-prisoners, we require a standard that we will not apply to servants of the Crown? That contradiction runs through the disagreements that have bedevilled the Assembly in trying to do its business.

For me, we had, from the formation of this state right up to the late 1960s, a history of conflict — a low-level conflict, if you like — involving sporadic violence and sectarianism, discrimination and gerrymandering. We had a civil rights movement that sought to address the issues that the one-party unionist Government could not address, and we had a war. We had a war and everybody around here knows it. Nobody voted for that war, but it happened. My regret is that we seem— this is a serious point — to have had low-level conflict that led to a war. We found a way of ending the war, but we have returned to conflict. We have not moved on. I thought that the point was made earlier, and I thought that it would lead to a more constructive approach. However, we have returned to the conflict, and it trips us up right, left and centre. It is time that we all had a collective shake of our heads and got on with it.

I return to this particular issue and the stated purpose of the Bill. We all knew exactly what was involved in the price of peace. There are lots of people in our community who do not have the answers to which they are entitled. There are lots of people who hope that, eventually, there will be an adequate and effective truth recovery process. However, I will just make a passing reference to the point that I made about the Finucane case. How can that family have peace and reconciliation if it is being told by one of the sponsoring Governments that they are not going to —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

What about the McConville family?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I know that there are a whole lot of families, and I accept that the McConville family and all the others are affected. In this House, we all represent people who have suffered, or perhaps we have direct family connections with them. They are all entitled, and that is the point. Therefore, if we are to proceed on the basis that we deal only with one part of the story, we will never have peace and reconciliation. I know that that is a difficult concept —

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Yes, of course.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. I do want to digress from the issue before us. However, I will say this: the Member waxes about the past, and he is quite selective in how he does that. If he is serious and sincere that he wants to see the issue dealt with, maybe — just maybe — they could start with the like of the McConville case. The deputy First Minister tells us that he left the IRA in 1972 or 1973. Gerry Adams, Sinn Féin's president, says that he was never, ever in the IRA. Is there anybody but anybody who believes that? We need to start with the truth. That would be a good starting point, would it not?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let me say to the whole House that this is a fairly lively debate. I am slightly worried that we are going outside the debate on the Bill itself. I remind all Members that, as far as possible, we should focus on the Bill and the amendments before the House.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

All that I can do is reiterate our position. We would support and canvass in favour of a fully independent truth recovery process. I do not know at what point you would start. My view is that we might want to take a look at what happened in 1965, when a certain titled unionist politician met with members of the UVF and reinstated that organisation, which, within a year, was involved in a sectarian murder campaign. Should we start there, or with the campaigning of the party opposite against the civil rights movement and the very modest reforms that the O'Neill Government were prepared to introduce? We would have to decide where to start, and that would be a very challenging process.

However, I do not want to get locked into the past. This is my thesis: those who supported the Good Friday Agreement — I look to the parties on my left — need to stand by the commitments made in it. We have to agree that if we want to review and change it, we must do that in conjunction with the two Governments that sponsored it. Why do I say that? Think about the issue of contrition that has been developed in this discussion and the variations on that theme. Are we legislating for the British Government in that? I do not think that we are.

The sponsor of the Bill, the Member from North Antrim, introduced an amendment, supported by the SDLP, during the Bill's Consideration Stage, whereby he indicated that commissioners could be used.

That, in fact, was a decision that was not ours to make. Because of that, it tripped up and had to be yanked at the last minute. Now, we are back to the review panel, which was an argument that was advanced — I accept that it was advanced — and reflects the argument that was made by the Minister of Finance.

Our view is that, when we signed the agreement, when we went and canvassed for it and when we met people on the doorsteps, including victims and survivors, we explained the cost of peace, and people — I thought, at that time — supported it because they recognised that the prize was worth the cost. We need to remind ourselves of that occasionally, because, here, we are going to divide mainly, I think, on the basis of who is pro-Sinn Féin and who is anti-Sinn Féin. I think that that is how this is going to work out. I do not think that it will represent the settled opinion of the House, nor is it an authoritative or legitimate basis on which to proceed, because it means that parties such as the SDLP and Alliance will have to refine and change, on the basis of one appointment, what they had argued and campaigned for with regard to the Good Friday Agreement.

The question that those parties want to ask themselves is whether they want to risk being accused of being duplicitous at that time — that they had another agenda, which was about getting IRA decommissioning, and that they would have said anything that would have fed that and would have agreed to anything, but were reserving their right to change their minds afterwards. That was not the position that republicans entered into on this, and I do not think that it should be the basis of business in the House. I urge people to reconsider allowing the Bill to proceed.

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

I am grateful to the Member for giving way. He referred to the Good Friday Agreement. In some way, the tentative support that the Alliance and the SDLP gave to the Bill is now a point of criticism by the Member. However, if you look at the section that deals with reconciliation and victims of violence, it states:

"The participants believe that it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation."

That is something that the Member who spoke previously has not referred to at all. He seems to ignore the plight of victims. Furthermore, it continues:

"It is recognised that victims have a right to remember as well as to contribute to a changed society."

In that context, part of the Bill sits well, and it is up to the Member to acknowledge this, because he seems to completely ignore the plight of victims of violence.

Mitchel McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

I am not certain that I noticed whether the Member was in when I was speaking. However, Hansard will confirm that I made a very direct reference, and it was this: my party supports the establishment of an independent truth-recovery process.

We read the Good Friday Agreement on a regular basis just to remind ourselves of the commitments that we all entered into. You will not find the words that you claim are a specific term of reference. It is a term of reference that you got from an avowed enemy of the Good Friday Agreement, and it is interesting that the SDLP has allowed itself to be seduced into that position.

My view is that people, whoever they are and from whatever section of the community they come, are entitled to the full information that can be made available in respect of the circumstances. I know that there is a flat contradiction between the approach reflected in the Good Friday Agreement and that of the British Government, which refuse to release their side of the story and, therefore, render, at this stage so far, a sense of paralysis over the whole process. I think that we might be forced to examine the coupling of truth recovery with reconciliation processes, which, I think, would be accepted as borrowed from the South African peace process.

It may or may not have been an effective mechanism there, but it certainly provided some inspiration, hope and expectation for us. It was on that basis that we borrowed the phraseology. Perhaps we have to separate the two, because until such times as the British Government can be effectively engaged and will be part of bringing forward an independent truth recovery process, that aspect of truth and reconciliation just will not happen. Perhaps we can separate them, because this Assembly gets itself into binds at times and there are stand-offs, etc, but there are also times when we come together for a common purpose. I think that we could advance the whole issue of reconciliation at a quicker pace. However, I do not want to get distracted from this debate.

I say to the SDLP: take a look at paragraph 5 of the section of the agreement that deals with prisoners and reconciliation. You will find a very explicit commitment based on the equality and inclusion principles on which the agreement was founded. It is there in black and white. The SDLP campaigned on that along with us, and we got overwhelming endorsement and the support of the Oireachtas and Westminster. Why would we be bounced off that now? That involved hard decisions, and there are more to come. We are talking about one appointment, and we are going to turn away from what should be a position of principle. My remarks are addressed as much to the Alliance Party as the SDLP, because they put themselves in the position of being champions of the agreement. Unfortunately, the Ulster Unionist Party, having played what I thought was a very honourable and constructive role, has resiled from that position to a considerable extent. We very rarely hear any words in support of the agreement that made all the progress possible.

Let us not go into reverse. We have never done that. We have been stalled and we have been delayed, but we have never been reversed. This Bill represents a reversal from commitments: very clear principles of inclusivity, equality and non-discrimination. Let us not go back to that past, because that is what gave us the trouble in the first place.

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

Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tá áthas orm páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht seo, agus, chomh maith leis sin, labhairt ar na leasuithe atá ar an liosta inniu ón pháirtí s’againne. I am pleased to participate in what has been a good debate so far. Obviously, I will concentrate my comments on the amendments that the SDLP has tabled, but I will also comment on Mr Allister's amendments.

The SDLP approach has always been to stand with victims and to stand with the right principles. That has always been the SDLP way: to stand with victims of terror and to stand with the democratic way. We also stood with the victims of state violence by standing for radical reform of the policing and justice institutions and a rights-based approach. The SDLP way is to stand with victims and to stand with the right approach. That is what we did at Consideration Stage with amendments that were crafted to achieve that objective: to stand with victims and to stand for the right approach. Our amendments today have the same aim.

The amendments that we have tabled seek to remove the retrospective element of the Bill, the purpose of which is to remove from post current incumbents of special adviser positions who have serious criminal convictions as defined in clause 5, regardless of how long they have been in post or the circumstances under which they were appointed. Having given this aspect of the Bill further consideration, which is required by this stage of the legislative process, and having taken legal advice on the matter, we are not convinced that it is either fair or closed to legal challenge.

Regarding the political circumstances around the appointment of some special advisers, we must recognise that there was a desire and agreement politically to bring those previously involved in violence into the political process where they could make a positive contribution in a non-violent and exclusively democratic way.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Member for giving way. The Member referred to legal challenge. On almost all occasions, on almost anything you can think of, issues are, to some degree, susceptible to legal challenge, but, with regard to the proposal to remove the retrospective or present element in this Bill by way of the amendments it has put down, will the Member clarify whether the SDLP would have brought these amendments forward if Mary McArdle had still been in position?

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

I will move on to the point that I made earlier about the possibility of legal challenge when I finish what I have to say at the moment. We must remember that the DUP —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have debate across the Chamber.

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

The DUP, the UUP and the Alliance Party have worked with the people who are special advisers for Sinn Féin. In that context, they knew that they were special advisers employed by Sinn Féin Ministers, and that, in respect of clause 5 of the Bill, they had serious criminal convictions. I do not believe that any of those parties raised any objections to that in the St Andrews talks or in the Hillsborough talks. I do not think that Mr Weir has a very strong basis for attacking the SDLP.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I have already given way to you.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

You did not answer the question.

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

I did answer Mr Weir's point, so I will move on.

There was a phase of the process when issues were not addressed comprehensively, properly, ethically, or, perhaps, even at all. Guns, policing, criminality, a common future — there was a time when to move forward meant that type of approach. We should have listened more closely to John Hume, and, in particular, to his Nobel address, when he urged that we move decisively and grab the agreement fully with all our might. If we had done so, we would not have the loss of hope and the degradation of politics and the values of the agreement that we see in so many ways today. If we had moved decisively in the past to an ethical process of truth and accountability, we might have given to victims and survivors a greater sense of healing and a better answer to their pain.

The appointment of Mary McArdle was a watershed in the trauma imposed on the Travers family and in the way in which it outraged public sensitivity around the feelings of victims in general. After sustained media pressure, Sinn Féin saw the error of its ways and removed Mary McArdle from her post as special adviser to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, Carál Ní Chuilín. It was that appointment that led to this Bill and the introduction by the Minister of Finance and Personnel of regulations for the appointment of special advisers in line with Civil Service procedures.

Present incumbents were appointed in accordance with the procedures at the time. There is a danger in the retrospective aspects of the Bill, as outlined in the provisions that we hope to amend with the support of the House. That danger was highlighted —

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Could I try Mr Weir's question again? If Mary McArdle was still in post, would the SDLP be moving amendment Nos 2, 5, 6 and 7?

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

I thank the Member for his intervention. He presents us with a hypothetical situation — [Laughter.] — and we would do better to deal with the reality in front of us.

As I was saying, when the Attorney General gave evidence to the Committee for Finance and Personnel on 19 September 2012, he mentioned the dangerous nature of the retrospective aspects of the Bill. Mr Attwood, I believe, referred to that earlier. The Attorney General said, with reference to the European Convention on Human Rights:

"My concerns stem from article 7 of the convention. That does two things, one of which is relevant, potentially, to this Bill. First, article 7 of the convention prohibits retrospective penalisation, so one cannot retrospectively render criminal that which was not criminal at the time. Secondly, and, perhaps, more relevantly for this discussion, it prohibits an increase in penalty or the imposition of a heavier penalty than was available at the time. If the question is asked whether the disqualification that is introduced by clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill constitutes a penalty in domestic law terms, the answer is quite clearly that no, it does not, because our criminal law would not recognise that as a penalty. For the consideration of this issue, it is vital to recall that 'penalty', as used in article 7, has an autonomous convention meaning, and that has been clarified in a number of Strasbourg cases."

The Attorney General continued:

"It strikes me that in taking guidance as best one can from the Strasbourg authorities, one starts with the dominant question in seeing whether article 7 applies. Does the measure, to use a neutral term, follow on as a consequence from a criminal conviction? I think the answer here is that what happens in clauses 2 and 3 does follow on as a consequence of a criminal conviction. You also consider its classification as a matter of domestic law. Again that points the other way. However, you then look at a purpose and its severity. It strikes me that in the cases where retrospective measures have been imposed throughout Europe, in France and the UK — cases that have survived scrutiny at Strasbourg — have been measures that, although retrospective in their effect, have been typically for a public safety purpose."

The Attorney General concluded:

"So, there is a certain circularity. That is the point of the Bill and that is why, I think, there are dangers in relation to the competence of clauses 2 and 3 as they stand at present. It would be perfectly possible, for example, to have provisions that were regarded as harsh. There is an old Latin tag, dura lex sed lex, but if they are prospective and apply only in the future, no issue arises under article 7."

It is clear from what the Attorney General said at the Committee Stage of the Bill that there are issues about the retrospective nature of several clauses. Of course, we always have to be careful about legal advice, even if it comes from such an august person as the Attorney General, who took silk at the same time as Mr Allister, he claims, but, at the same time, we cannot ignore such advice; we have to take it on board.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Does the Member not misunderstand what the Attorney General was saying? If the Attorney General was saying that the fact that a conviction could, in future, be held against you with regard to employment, and that that breaches article 7, would that not equally breach it for some new applicant for a job, which was not banned to them when they were sentenced 10 or 15 years ago but would be now? If the Member is logically trying to follow through his view of what the Attorney General was saying, he should not be supporting any part of the Bill for aspiring or sitting SpAds. Is that not the case?

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

The Member raised that point with Mr Alex Attwood this morning, and the Member's argument was that the issue that the Attorney General was warning about or advising on was now mitigated by the fact that the Bill had introduced into it an appeal mechanism. That may be the case, but my argument, the argument of the SDLP and what these amendments are directed at is that the appeal mechanism is inherently unfair in so far as it does not give those who, potentially, would appeal a reasonable chance of success. Any appeal mechanism that can be properly called such should give those who use it some chance of success. We believe that that is far from the case with the appeal mechanism that Mr Allister has brought forward.

I will move on. I think that we should also take into account another dangerous precedent that the Bill might bring forward. If we were to change terms of appointment to employment so that they apply retrospectively, thus removing incumbents from their posts, as a general rule, it would be highly undesirable. In general, if changes to appointment procedures are implemented, they apply prospectively and do not result in incumbents being removed from post.

The debate stood suspended.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. Question 8 has been withdrawn.

Karen McKevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

1. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the Institute for Fiscal Studies report 'Child and Working-Age Poverty in Northern Ireland from 2010 to 2020'. (AQO 4054/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) on poverty forecasts until the end of the current decade is useful research. The report was commissioned by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) to assist in developing our understanding of the key trends and underlying factors that matter most as we continue to work out the targets set in the Programme for Government to address poverty and disadvantage. The report makes clear that the progress of the past number of years will continue to reduce the impact of poverty, particularly among children and young people, while the underlying trend may become more challenging as a result of major policy changes that are brought forward by the coalition Government at Westminster. However, it is important to note that such reports are, by their nature, speculative as the Executive continue with their efforts to improve the services that are available to children and particularly to bring about improvements in educational performance, health outcomes and developing greater opportunities for children and young people to lead successful and fulfilling lives. The wider economy will continue to face challenges as a result of the downturn in global economic performance.

In addition, we have driven forward the new Delivering Social Change agenda, which seeks to work across Departments to target and address social disadvantage. The second annual report on delivering the Executive's child poverty strategy was laid before the Assembly on 29 March. It indicated a significant further fall in child poverty, which was largely influenced by a fall in the UK median income, mainly in London and the south-east of England. However, it is also clear that our policies are producing results. The IFS report clearly points to the success of efforts that the Executive have made to address the factors that lead to poverty that lie within our control. Relative child poverty in Northern Ireland fell from 120,000 to 93,000 between 2009-2010 and 2010-11.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister's time is up.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It also highlights the potential for policies to impact on the levels moving forward, particularly with regard to social security benefits and taxation policy.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Minister's time is up.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The IFS report is a useful contribution to the ongoing discussion on child poverty.

Karen McKevitt (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Does the Minister accept the report's analysis that reaching the targets of the Child Poverty Act 2010 is virtually impossible? If he believes that, does OFMDFM not, in effect, accept failure by continuing to abide by the Act's targets rather than taking devolved responsibility for child poverty and creating their own individual targets?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I accept that meeting the 2020 target will be very challenging. However, it is not a case of picking and choosing on the matter. It is a legal requirement that is set down by United Kingdom law. We are, therefore, required to work towards meeting those challenges. No matter how much the Member may shake her head, it does not shake out of existence the legislation that is enacted. Nonetheless, I do not demur from the possibility of our looking at setting ourselves targets on those matters. Of course, to some extent, meeting the targets is, in many cases, outside our competence in that they are impacted, for instance, by taxation policies and welfare reform proposals that the United Kingdom Government might bring forward.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP, Belfast South)

As a member of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I was somewhat surprised this morning to hear the Deputy Chairperson, Chris Lyttle, indicating confusion as to where we were with the childcare process, given that the Committee has just looked at the consultation responses on the issue. Will the First Minister outline the next steps on childcare, which also goes into the area of poverty?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I have to say to my friend that I am not in any way surprised by an expression of confusion on the part of Mr Lyttle. I think that it may be worthwhile putting on record the background to why OFMDFM is dealing with the matter. In the previous Executive, there was a failure by the Education and Health Departments to take it up. The deputy First Minister and I, therefore, picked it up and said that we would deal with it in our Department. We put forward a strategy, which went out to the wider public for consultation. As I think that everybody knows,the consultation was announced in December and ended in March. Until last week, we were waiting for a response from the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, of which Mr Lyttle is the Deputy Chairperson. So I cannot understand why he was not aware that it was his Committee that held us back from taking a final decision on these matters and why he denied 'Good Morning Ulster' listeners the knowledge that that was the case.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

No one has indicated that they have another question, so we will move on.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline how the disability strategy addresses the needs of children with a disability. (AQO 4055/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer this question.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities place obligations on all Departments to promote, protect and ensure equality. We will meet our requirements through the Delivering Social Change framework, which is the main vehicle for the delivery of our 10-year strategy for children and young people, and the new disability strategy.

We support the social model of disability. It is not the disability that is limiting; rather, it is the physical, organisational and, in many cases, attitudinal barriers that society puts in the way of disabled people. It is those barriers that we have to remove.

We are responding to the recommendations from the UN's Committee on the Rights of the Child by taking a series of actions, such as implementing a disability strategy that covers all age groups, including children, young people and adults, and people with all types of disability.

We have raised awareness of the rights, capabilities and contributions of people with disabilities by supporting a project that raises awareness of the UN disability convention among children and young people in schools; by developing a resource pack for teachers to help them to teach about the rights of disabled people; by introducing and raising awareness of special educational needs legislation, which protects the rights of children with disabilities in education; and by taking action to improve speech and language therapy services and autism services for children and young people.

Rosaleen McCorley (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí. I thank the junior Minister for his answer. He referred to engagement with the sector to promote rights. How successful does he believe that that has been in promoting and raising awareness of the rights of children and, indeed, all people?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for that important question. OFMDFM has engaged extensively with the disability sector to raise awareness and hosted a number of awareness-raising events. The Department has supported a project that raises awareness of the convention in schools by working in partnership with Disability Action to develop a resource pack for teachers and youth workers to help them to teach pupils and young people about the rights of people with disabilities. The resource pack is due to issue to schools before September 2013. That, I think, directly answers your question in respect of young people,

Following the Executive's agreement to the disability strategy, officials continued to raise awareness by officially hosting an event to launch the disability strategy at Grosvenor Grammar School on 28 February 2013.

OFMDFM also organised and led a major inclusive conference on 2 May at Riddel Hall, to which we invited all service providers, together with representatives of the disability sector, to consider how the current arrangements meet the needs of people with disabilities in the context of equality.

We have also set up two subgroups, which include representation from the disability sector, to advise OFMDFM on the development of awareness-raising, advocacy and the monitoring framework of the strategy, and to develop the inputs to how other services could be modified to effect greater equality for disabled people.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the junior Minister give the House an update on the number of signature projects in the disability strategy?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

There are seven work-stream projects in the disability strategy. They aim to achieve early momentum on delivery. The work streams will deliver outcomes in disability awareness and advocacy; access, particularly access to transport and digital inclusion; housing; employment and the standard of living; tackling crime against people with disabilities; access to sports and leisure; and a monitoring and reporting framework.

I will try to go through some of the disability awareness and advocacy projects. I will obviously not get through all seven work streams in the two minutes allocated to me. The inclusive conference on 2 May invited all the service providers and the disability sector to look at how our current arrangements meet the needs of people with disabilities on the basis of equality. In particular, disabled people will be invited to develop the monitoring framework for the strategy to develop the inputs to how other services could be modified to effect that greater equality for people living with a disability.

The lead Department in the digital inclusion project will be the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP). It is all about providing people with a wider choice to empower themselves in major areas in their lives. It will ensure that disabled people have access to and the skills to use technologies such as computers, the internet, mobile web-enabled devices and digital TV. Digital inclusion opens up many of the social, financial and entertainment benefits of the internet. It also provides many disabled people with economic and employment opportunities.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

The disability strategy states that further plans are being developed through the Delivering Social Change framework. What specific actions are being targeted at young people with disabilities? Will the Minister inform the House of that programme of work?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The first thing is the work that we are doing with schools and teachers on resources to give young people the access to overcome the barriers that we place in their way. As I said, we are very clear: the barriers that we place in the way of disabled people cause the difficulties. As I began to outline in my previous answer, the use of digital inclusion, which DFP will take forward, will enable many young people who live with disability to access through their mobile web-enabled devices and internet-capacity phones the services that will give them the ability to overcome many of the entertainment, social and financial barriers that exist.

That plan will also specifically promote inclusion for young people with disabilities based on the Northern Ireland Direct assisted digital strategy. The strategy will help to ensure that we do not exclude anybody, whether young or old, from access to our government services. That may also include the development of a Delivering Social Change signature programme on digital inclusion.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

3. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the delivery of the minority ethnic development fund. (AQO 4056/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will ask junior Minister Jonathan Bell to answer this question.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am pleased to say that, even in this time of austerity, the budget for the minority ethnic development fund for the next two years will remain at £1·1 million per annum. The fund plays a very significant role in supporting minority ethnic communities and fostering their integration into our society. In line with the review of the fund, it is now more flexible and focused on the needs of the groups that apply and on the minority ethnic people. Funding under tiers 2 and 3 is for two years. I know that the extending funding has been welcomed in the ethnic minority sector.

A selection panel with knowledge of the sector and the funding process met on 26 March to consider the applications under tiers 2 and 3, as well as the applications under tier 1. A total of 27 applications have been successful to date. All applicants were informed by 29 March of the outcome of the selection process. The majority of the letters of offer have been issued, and officials continue to work with the remaining organisations to complete the pre-contract checks before their letters of offer are issued.

In addition, tier 1 applications for funding of up £15,000 are welcome until December 2014. That will allow groups to apply for funds in a timely fashion for projects that will enhance race relations.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the junior Minister for his response. I am aware that the funding has been welcomed by groups and organisations that work at the coalface of issues directly affecting minority ethnic groups. I welcome the fact that the funding has not been cut, but as is the case with any community organisation or community programme, people are always looking for additional money. The junior Minister said that 27 funding applications have been successful. Will he outline what appeal mechanism is in place for those whose applications have not been successful?

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister give the House an update on the current position of the racial equality strategy?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I am happy to do so. It is a priority for us to deliver a racial equality strategy that tackles racial inequalities and promotes good race relations in order to make our society a successful multicultural one. We welcome the discussions that we have had with minority ethnic representatives through various forums about how the fund should support the implementation of the strategy. However, it was essential to move forward with the fund now, without further delay, and I believe that that approach was warmly welcomed by the sector.

Consultation with the sector on the development of the strategy continues through the racial equality panel; the panel's most recent meeting was on 30 April. We remain committed to producing a document for public consultation as soon as possible.

Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)

The development of the racial equality strategy has been ongoing for years and years. Will the Minister give a commitment that it will be published this side of recess? There is only one more chapter to go. Given that the revised cohesion, sharing and integration (CSI) strategy will be published this week, what is the delay in publishing the racial equality strategy?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We are working together to have it published. I will give the commitment that we will deal with it with urgency and as a priority. It is our commitment in OFMDFM to tackle racial inequalities where they exist and to promote good race relations. We want to see — and I think that we are already seeing this in many cases — a very successful multicultural society in Northern Ireland. Although it is important, a strategy can sit on a shelf. The important thing for us with the fund was, first, to make sure that the money was there for the relevant groups and, secondly, to make sure that the money would allow those groups to do effective planning around staffing and carry forward their programmes over the two-year period. That is why we created the fund in the first place.

We will work together with minority ethic representatives and look at the implementation of the strategy. We will publish a document for public consultation as soon as we can.

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

4. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the latest peace monitoring report. (AQO 4057/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Our announcement on 9 May of a package of significant and strategic actions to build a united community is clear evidence of our commitment to this critical area for our society. The latest peace monitoring report recognises that we have come a long way as a society, and the collective effort at a political, community and individual level is to be commended.

Work such as this report is useful in measuring our progress. It highlights progress to date and the challenges for the way ahead. The deputy First Minister and I welcome the reassuring evidence that we now live in a community in which our citizens are less likely to be the victims of crime, in which racist hate crime has decreased and in which, for the first time in a generation, residential segregation has diminished.

We know that there is still work to do, and the publication of the report underlines areas where there continues to be challenges for us all at an individual, community and political level. We will not shy away from those challenges, and we remain committed to building a united community by continuing to improve good relations across our society.

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

I thank the First Minister for his reply. The First Minister acknowledged the value of the report as a measure of progress. Does he accept that it points out a failing in the lack of legislation that is coming from the Executive and going through the Assembly?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If, for a minute, I believed that the amount of legislation that goes through the Assembly would bring peace on our streets, I would pile it up. I do not regard the amount of legislation that goes through the Assembly as an indicator of anything. Indeed, there are many societies in which a reduction in the amount of legislation going through their legislative assemblies would be regarded as a very positive factor. I am sure that the Member would not disregard the part of the report that criticises Assembly Members for not being present in the Chamber and for not being present when they are listed to ask questions. There is a wider range of issues to consider.

I recognise that the report draws from research that was carried out by an individual. Therefore, where there is robust and empirical evidence, that is clearly convincing and worthwhile. However, where opinions are expressed, it becomes less valuable, particularly as I think there has been a simplicity in the conclusions that have been drawn from political facts.

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for his detailed response. Obviously, First Minister, there are a number of wide-ranging issues. Which 10 would you highlight?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The report is hugely positive, but it draws on indices, many of which have been collated from our Department and others that have come from the census, and so forth. From a hugely positive report, the author drew 10 conclusions. Most of those are positive, although the press coverage did not dwell on any of the positive elements in the indices, the report or the 10 key points that came out of it.

The indices that were provided are widely available. If we look at those and draw out some of the more positive aspects, we see that this has been the longest period of sustained stability for the devolved institutions, that the number of sectarian incidents and crimes are significantly down and that the number of incidents and crimes on the basis of religion reduced very dramatically from 148 in 2005-06 to 14 in 2011-12. I see that the number of attacks on Orange halls is down. The number of attacks on churches and chapels is down. The number of casualties per annum as a result of paramilitary-style shootings is dramatically down.

There is a significant increase in the number of young people who believe that relations are better between Protestants and Catholics. Ninety per cent of people believe that their neighbourhood is a shared neighbourhood. A consistently high percentage of people on all sides are indicating respect for each other's culture and identity in the Life and Times survey. No new peace walls since 2008; only one since devolution, and that was put up by the Northern Ireland Office. I could draw on literally hundreds of indices that are available to show the positive nature of the progress that has been made. However, I emphasise again that although progress has been made, there is still a long way for us to go.

Seán Rogers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

5. asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their recent meeting with the Tánaiste and the Secretary of State. (AQO 4058/11-15)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Our meeting with the Secretary of State and the Tánaiste on 29 April offered the opportunity to discuss a range of issues of mutual concern to us all, such as Peace IV funding. This was the latest in a series of informal quadrilaterals that provide a platform for discussions at ministerial level, and we anticipate a further meeting in this format in the autumn.

Seán Rogers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

My thanks to the First Minister for his response. Was the Narrow Water bridge flagship North/South project discussed?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Narrow Water bridge issue was raised by me at the meeting, yes. I pointed out to colleagues that this matter was being dealt with by the Department of Finance and Personnel, that it was undergoing a business case consideration and that I thought that the Minister was of a mind to endorse whatever its findings of that business case review as soon as it was available.

Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)

Will the First Minister outline his ongoing negotiations with the Secretary of State on the issue of the substantial financial package for Northern Ireland?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Secretary of State came to that meeting a little earlier than the Tánaiste, who I think was held back by press conferences. So the deputy First Minister and I had the opportunity to talk to her in some detail about the financial package and the Government's attitude to perhaps extending it. We have had discussions at both official and ministerial levels with Her Majesty's Government. They are of a mind to put together a package much on the same line as the City Deals in GB that one would be aware of. Clearly, because the whole of Northern Ireland would be involved, this would be a much larger context.

I am reluctant to go over the individual proposals because in some cases the deputy First Minister and I will be seeking to alter and extend those particular proposals. However, we are both of the view that we have been disadvantaged because of the overall climate of the Northern Ireland economy and we need to have an impetus and a momentum to move forward. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have indicated that they are prepared to respond to the level of ambition that we show with the proposals that we put forward. We have put forward extensive proposals in terms of a shared future. Those proposals went beyond what the Government had expected us to do, and we have a whole range of other announcements to make. So, having shown ambition, we are looking to see the reward for that ambition.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

Did the First Minister take the opportunity during his discussions to raise the issue of the G8 or Peace IV?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Yes, we discussed both during the course of the meeting. There was considerable enthusiasm for the benefit that will flow to both sides of the border from the G8. Because it is being held close to the border, the South is getting a very considerable benefit, even in terms of accommodation. I also understand that the Prime Minister has invited the Taoiseach to attend some part of the G8 discussions.

It has very significant benefits for Northern Ireland in that it allows us to showcase a Northern Ireland in a new era, moving forward, and we will take every opportunity to put the worldwide attention to our advantage.

The deputy First Minister and I have been to Brussels and we have spoken to the relevant commissioners about Peace IV. It is included in the draft proposals that are being considered, and €150 million has been set aside for that purpose. Indeed, our discussions with the United Kingdom Government, about which I did not give details earlier, included the possibility of there being a €50 million uplift on that from Her Majesty's Government.

We have discussed those issues but we are waiting for the endorsement of the draft financial package with the €150 million that has been set aside for Peace IV. We have our own views about how that can be linked to the overall shared future proposals that we have brought forward.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Questions 14 and 15 have been withdrawn. I call Mr Danny Kinahan.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how the number of nurses and nursing assistants employed at 1 May 2013 compared to the number employed at 1 May 2011. (AQO 4069/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The latest figures available are as at March 2013. At March 2013 there were 15,015 qualified nurses employed across health and social care, compared with 14,630 at March 2011.

The corresponding whole-time equivalent numbers were around 13,000 at March 2013 compared with around 12,600 at March 2011, and that represents a 3·3% increase. In addition, there were 1,320 qualified midwives employed at March 2013 compared with 1,315 employed at March 2011. There were also 4,558 nursing assistants employed at March 2013 compared with 4,481 at March 2011.

I commend the valuable work that our nurses and midwives carry out. I am proud of the services that they deliver, and I have been consistent in my message that staffing of front line services is vital to provide safe, effective and high-quality services.

Danny Kinahan (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure that he shares my concerns, but before I move on to my comments, I commend everyone who works in the health service.

Does he agree that the health service cannot cope at the moment, even with the increased numbers of staff? Last week, the 'Belfast Telegraph' told us that there are not enough consultants and that everyone is under too much stress.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not generally take my direction from the 'Belfast Telegraph'. I tend to listen to experts rather than read the newspapers, which very often have agendas. Of course the health service is under stress; that is the case throughout the United Kingdom, in the Republic of Ireland and many other places.

The truth is that we do not have more money to throw at it. Essentially, we have to do things better; we have to do things differently and we have to challenge the perceptions that exist in the health service and elsewhere that things cannot be changed.

I welcome the fact that we have more nurses on the front line. I know that the Member does not really want to talk about the question that he asked, because he probably did not get the answer that he wanted. We have more nurses on the front line, and if we require more nurses we will recruit them to carry out the job in hand.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I take this opportunity to welcome the increase in nursing staff throughout the health service. Minister, you stated a number of months ago that, to support doctors and consultants in our hospitals, nursing staff would be allowed to discharge patients. Is that happening? If so, in what hospitals? If not, when will it happen? You came forward with those proposals following another period in which A&Es were under pressure. It is important that we follow through on the proposals for nursing staff to be able to discharge patients.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not have the detail of that, but I will seek to ascertain it and have it sent to the Member in writing. That is certainly something that can support us in the appropriate discharge of patients without compromising quality or safety. Nursing staff, especially nurse specialists, have so much potential to support and assist us in what we are attempting to achieve; namely, to take care closer to the community without compromising quality and safety, which must always remain at the forefront of everything that we do.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Minister provide an update on the family nurse partnership programme and other intensive parenting support programmes?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The family nurse partnership programme, which we all know is an intensive, preventative home-visiting programme, is being introduced in Northern Ireland. It will improve antenatal and child health and develop parents' economic self-sufficiency. We think that the programme is of huge benefit. We have had our trials, and we now want to roll that programme out in every trust area. I welcome the support that we have received from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister through the identification of funding that will assist us and enable us to do it. Others are very quick to carp, criticise and complain, so it is good to put on record our gratitude and thanks for the additional funding that is coming from that source. It will assist us in making a difference to people's lives and, in particular, children's lives.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

2. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline the support available for children with autism in East Belfast. (AQO 4070/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Children with autism in east Belfast have access to the same range of support services that are available to all children in Northern Ireland, which are based on the assessed need of the child. ‘Six Steps of Autism Care’ and ‘Autism: A guide for Families’ were developed in late 2011 to standardise the process of diagnosis, assessment and support for children and young people with an autism spectrum condition. My Department is leading on the development of a cross-departmental autism strategy, which is being developed to help improve access to services and support for people with autism, their families and carers throughout their lives.

Sammy Douglas (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his response. I understand that he has been to Tullycarnet to meet the Helping Hands autism support group. It would certainly be very keen to find out when the strategy will be completed.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, I was there. I thank the Member for the invitation to visit Helping Hands. That group has also met Minister McCausland, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and other stakeholders and groups. I understand that Helping Hands provides really good support and advice to children and families living with autism in east Belfast, Castlereagh and north Down. There is the potential for Helping Hands to develop in Ballybeen; that is very worthwhile, and the Member is pressing for it.

The aim of the cross-departmental autism strategy for Northern Ireland is to improve services and support for people with autism, their families and carers throughout their lives. The board was established in December 2011. The draft strategy was launched for public consultation on 3 December 2012. The consultation closed on 15 March 2013, and the responses are now being collated. We hope to complete the strategy and action plan in September or October of this year.

Maeve McLaughlin (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat. How often does the Minister meet the Education Minister about autism?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I seek meetings with the Education Minister quite frequently on a range of issues. Obviously, my Department leads on the development of the new autism strategy and action plan, so it is important that we work closely with representatives from all Departments, the key voluntary sector organisations and people affected by autism with the aim of improving services and support for those with autism. I do not have a list of the dates on which we met the Education Minister on those issues, but our offices are in regular contact on a range of issues on which we, as Ministers, meet to discuss.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his answers and his update on the autism strategy. Will he detail any findings that have been reported to his Department?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A course of work has been carried out on the autism strategy, and we are part of the consultation. We need to identify the needs of people with autism and how we address those needs. Bringing all the groups together to enable us to have those discussions will give us considerably more information by working closely with the voluntary sector in the delivery of the strategy. We will continue with that course of work.

We had a recent conference on autism. As part of that, experts from other parts of the world were in Northern Ireland, and they appreciate the work that we are doing. They recognise that the private Member's Bill that was passed in the Building to deliver the Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 is an important step in the right direction, and our Department is co-operating fully with the spirit of the Act.

Samuel Gardiner (UUP, Upper Bann)

Autistic children often require a range of professional assistance. When will the multiagency support teams, which are in the schools that received a favourable assessment last summer, be available to the children who need support in every school?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The education sector will lead on the issue, and the Department of Health will co-operate fully. As the Member rightly points out, a multidisciplinary approach can deliver much better outcomes for children who have autism. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to seek to provide such services to maximise the opportunities for those young people, and to ensure that they achieve as much educationally as they should be able to and are not held back by autism because we are not providing the appropriate support.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

3. asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for an update on the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust's proposals to centralise acute mental health services at the Ulster Hospital. (AQO 4071/11-15)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust presented its proposals for the location of a single acute mental health inpatient unit to the trust board meeting on 28 November 2012. The trust proposed that a single acute mental health inpatient unit be located on the Tor Bank site adjacent to the Ulster Hospital. The trust embarked on a formal public consultation process, which ran for 13 weeks from 16 January 2013 until 17 April 2013. The trust is analysing responses to the consultation exercise.

Christopher Hazzard (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for his answer. He will probably agree that for the people of south Down to have confidence and trust in these plans, there needs to be adequate transport provision for patients and their relatives, who will be faced with travelling from various parts of south Down to the Ulster Hospital if this proposal goes ahead. Will the Minister give a commitment that transport provision will be taken up in the near future to make sure that that happens?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Transportation is an interesting issue, because the Department of Health spends around £20 million on transportation. That budget would be better spent directly on healthcare, but if people are not there, you cannot provide the care for them.

More work needs to be done on that area. The trust needs to engage more closely with the Department for Regional Development and organisations such as Translink, which are specialists in transport, to ensure that we have appropriate routes in order for people to receive care. The issue of transportation to the Downe Hospital was raised with me recently and the potential for an agreement with Translink to ensure that people could visit the GP facility there. So I recognise the importance of transportation in all of that. Whether the general public are travelling from the south Down, Lagan valley, Strangford or north Down part of the South Eastern Trust, we will ensure that that is available to them.

Seán Rogers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Will the Minister elaborate on the recommendation to provide at Downpatrick:

"low secure services at a single site ... with minor reconfiguration"?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That probably means what it says: the more severe psychiatric episodes are dealt with at the Ulster Hospital, so the more intensive care and treatment will be provided at that centre. That is in line with all previous recommendations and with Transforming Your Care, in that psychiatric facilities should be developed alongside hospitals that have all services available.

Sadly, many people who have psychiatric conditions and mental health conditions self-harm. They have other ailments and conditions, which is why it is believed that the unit is best suited to being beside a major hospital. Aside from that, Bamford was very clear that we should reduce stigma, and there will be less stigma if the centre is incorporated in a major hospital as opposed to having stand-alone mental health units.

Pam Brown (DUP, South Antrim)

What actions have been taken to improve child and adolescent services in Northern Ireland?