Northern Ireland Assembly, 16 June 2014
410 contributions from 63 members. The official report.
Assembly Business
Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 31 May, an interview with the deputy First Minister was broadcast by RTÉ, during which he said that he was in prison at the time of the murder and secret burial of Patrick Duffy. In fact, it transpires that he was not in prison during this period, and he now claims that this was a lapse of memory. I find it hard to believe, as I am sure the House does, that someone would forget where they were at the time of a murder, especially when they were accused of being involved in it.
Mr Speaker, if RTÉ was misled, and it appears that it was, can you review Hansard and establish whether the House was misled by the deputy First Minister?
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
I hear what Lord Morrow has said. Lord Morrow, there is no doubt that you now have that on the record. Certainly, let me review Hansard, and I will come back either to the Member directly or to the House.
Executive Committee Business
David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)
I beg to introduce the Justice Bill [NIA Bill 37/11-15], which is a Bill to provide for a single jurisdiction for County Courts and Magistrates' Courts; to amend the law on committal for trial; to provide for prosecutorial fines; to make provision in relation to victims and witnesses in criminal proceedings and investigations; to amend the law on criminal records and live links; to provide for violent offences prevention orders; to make other amendments relating to the administration of civil and criminal justice; and for connected purposes.
Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
No amendments have been tabled. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to group the seven clauses for the Question on stand part, followed by the three schedules and the long title.
Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Budget (No. 2) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.
Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)
I beg to move
That the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.
The regulations further amend the principal regulations, which set out the arrangements for automatic enrolment, to ensure that they give effect to the original policy intention.
As I have said before to the House, I am conscious when dealing with pensions that it is easy to get lost in the maze of technical provisions and pensions jargon. However, the rule we are considering is somewhat technical. Whilst I will try to keep my comments at a fairly high level, some jargon is inevitable, but I will do my best to keep that to a minimum.
First, to be used as a qualifying scheme for automatic enrolment, in addition to satisfying the quality requirements for defined benefits schemes, a career average pension scheme is required to revalue accrued benefits by at least a minimum level while the member is in employment. This is so that the value of the benefits is given a degree of protection against the effect of inflation. Final salary schemes do not need that revaluation in service because, historically, salaries have tended to at least keep pace with, if not outstrip, inflation.
The regulations provide for schemes that revalue by a change in average earnings or potentially by reference to another measure not to be excluded from being a qualifying scheme, so long as the scheme's funding and statement of funding principles assume that revaluation will be at or above the minimum in the long term. That is consistent with schemes that are allowed to revalue by reference to a discretionary power, where funding assumptions can be considered under the principal regulations. It also allows schemes maximum flexibility over the period of revaluation they use, so long as it can be assumed from the scheme's funding that the minimum level will be provided.
In addition, the regulations provide for new public service career average schemes that revalue by reference to the annual order under section 9 of the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014. If they revalue at the rate specified in the order, they will not be prevented from being a qualifying scheme. Explicit reference is made in this way as such schemes are not able to consider funding assumptions in the same way as funded private sector schemes, which are required to have a statement of funding principles or an equivalent.
The regulations also restore the policy intention to allow hybrid schemes that certify money purchase benefits under alternative requirements set out in the principal regulations to phase in contributions under the transitional provisions for money purchase schemes.
In summary, the regulations ensure that employers using good career average pension schemes are able to do so without any unnecessary impediments and that all employers using hybrid pension schemes under automatic enrolment are treated alike in phasing in minimum contributions.
Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee first considered the original SL1 pertaining to this legislation at its meeting on 6 March 2014 and was content for the rule to be made. The Committee subsequently considered the rule on 3 April and agreed that it should be confirmed by the Assembly.
The Department advised the Committee that the rule allows greater flexibility for certain pension schemes to meet minimum revaluation requirements while ensuring that the benefits of those types of schemes remain protected. The rule also restores a positive policy intention to allow all schemes to phase in contributions under the transitional provisions for money purchase schemes.
The outcome of the rule is therefore a positive one, and the Committee recommends that it be confirmed by the Assembly.
Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)
I am pleased that there is a consensus across the Assembly for the regulations. Again, I thank the Social Development Committee and its Chair for the positive way in which they have dealt with them. As I said in the opening comments, this is simply to ensure that good quality career average schemes are not prevented from being used as qualifying schemes for automatic enrolment.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014 be approved.
Committee Business
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 March 2015, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 35/11-15].
On Tuesday 27 May 2014, the Assembly referred the Local Government Bill to the Committee for the Environment for scrutiny. Sorry, my notes are wrong: it referred the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill to the Committee for the Environment for scrutiny.
The Bill will amend provisions in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the Road Traffic (New Drivers)(Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Those amendments will make major changes to the processes for new and learner drivers, lower the limits for drink-driving and make the wearing of protective headgear mandatory for riders and drivers of quadricycles.
The Committee agreed to call for written submissions from interested organisations and individuals, and, in addition to signposting notices in the local press, stakeholders have been contacted directly. The Environment Committee firmly believes that it is essential that all stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment on this Bill.
This is an important Bill that will save lives and make our roads safer for everyone in Northern Ireland. It is clear, however, following Second Stage, that the process will not be easy, as many issues were raised and need to be given due consideration by the Committee.
The Committee’s public call for evidence does not close until 21 August 2014, and we anticipate a high volume of submissions. After considering those submissions, the Committee plans to invite respondents to take part in a stakeholder event so that members have a wider opportunity to explore the views expressed. The Committee also wishes to bring its concerns to the Department for its response.
The Committee believes that it is essential that it is afforded the time to fully exercise its scrutiny powers on this highly significant legislation. I ask, therefore, that the House supports this motion to extend the Committee Stage of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill to 27 March 2015, and I can assure Members that, following discussions with the Department, this extended date will not delay the progress of the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 March 2015, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 35/11-15].
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Mr Kelly will have 10 minutes to make his contribution. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. I inform Members that a valid petition of concern was presented today in relation to the motion — [Interruption.]
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)
Shame.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. The vote, therefore, will be on a cross-community basis and postponed until tomorrow, when it will be taken as the first item of business.
Before we begin the debate, I remind the House that the motion relates only to the Committee's report and recommendations following complaints about an incident that took place in the Carrick Hill area of north Belfast on 21 June 2013. I would like Members to be very clear about the rules of the debate from the outset so that, if Members stray into another area, for whatever reason, they are well warned. I will not allow reference to any other incidents, convictions or allegations — [Interruption.] Order. Members must keep their remarks to matters dealt with in the report and sanctions recommended by the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Members who disregard the ruling will be asked to resume their seats and we will move on.
I remind Members to be mindful of the dignity of the Chamber and to treat each other with courtesy and respect. I remind Members of the authority of the Chair. Members have been well warned. Sometimes, Members feel that they can rise to their feet and weave in and out of a particular debate. When the Chair rises in his place to calm the Member down or warn the Member to be careful in where he is going, the Member looks at you, as much as to say that they did not know that they could not do that. All sides of the House are well warned in this debate.
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
I beg to move
That this Assembly, in consideration of the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges [NIA183/11-15], imposes upon Mr Gerry Kelly MLA the sanction of exclusion from proceedings of the Assembly for a period of five days beginning on the Monday after the resolution.
I move the motion on behalf of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. In doing so, I ask the Assembly to agree to impose upon Mr Kelly the sanction of exclusion from proceedings of the Assembly for a period of five days. However, given that a valid petition of concern was lodged this morning, I suggest that that is incredibly unlikely.
All Members should have already received a copy of the Committee's report on the four complaints about the conduct of Mr Kelly on the evening of 21 June 2013 in the Carrick Hill area of north Belfast. The Tour of the North parade took place that evening. Mr Kelly had been in attendance but departed when it appeared that the area was calm. However, tensions in the Carrick Hill area were subsequently raised, and Mr Kelly was asked to return. Upon returning, Mr Kelly learned that a young man from the area had been arrested. Mr Kelly approached a police Land Rover and spoke to one of the officers in the vehicle in relation to that youth. It was what subsequently happened that formed the basis for the allegations in the four complaints.
Our Commissioner for Standards investigated the complaints and, having watched a number of videos of the incident, sought further information from the four complainants; obtained information from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Police Ombudsman and the Official Report; and interviewed Mr Kelly under oath. He made certain findings and established a number of facts.
First, the commissioner was satisfied that, at the relevant time in this case, Mr Kelly was acting, in part at least, in his capacity as a Member of this House. Mr Kelly accepted that. That is important because it meant that Mr Kelly was required to act in accordance with the requirements of the Assembly's code of conduct. The commissioner then went on to establish that Mr Kelly made his way to the location, having been advised of the situation that was developing, and became aware that a youth had been arrested. Mr Kelly approached the first in a line of police Land Rovers and spoke with the passenger. As a result of that exchange, he believed that the vehicle would move forward a short distance and then pull in to facilitate further discussion.
Mr Kelly asked the small crowd that had assembled to clear the way so that the vehicle could move forward, and the crowd complied with his request. The first vehicle did move forward, but did not stop; the second and third Land Rovers in the line of vehicles followed the first vehicle. The fourth vehicle in the line moved forward slowly with its blue lights and headlights flashing. Mr Kelly walked directly in front of the moving vehicle and shouted at the driver to pull in. The vehicle continued to move forward very slowly. The siren was sounded once, and Mr Kelly took hold of the grille on the bonnet of the vehicle and was carried forward slowly for a short distance before the vehicle stopped.
The commissioner also pointed out that, whilst Mr Kelly was being carried on the bonnet of the vehicle, and for a short time after it happened, a number of the crowd struck the vehicle. Following this, Mr Kelly challenged the senior officer at the scene. Mr Kelly claimed, and the officer accepted, that he was trying to defuse the situation. Mr Kelly then asked the crowd to stand back from the vehicle to allow it to move away, and the crowd complied with this request.
The driver of the vehicle and Mr Kelly later accepted informed warnings for their part in the confrontation. Mr Kelly accepted his warning for impeding the police. It is important to note that impeding a constable in the execution of his duty is a criminal offence, contrary to section 66 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. Mr Kelly signed the certificate of informed warning immediately below text, which read:
"I admit the offence outlined and understand the meaning of an informed warning".
This is an important point. In accepting his informed warning, Mr Kelly admitted the offence of impeding the police. Although Mr Kelly has described his acceptance of this warning as a technical admission, made only after he had taken legal advice, the acceptance of it was a clear admission of guilt of criminal conduct. The public duty principle of the code of conduct provides that Members have a duty to uphold the law. It follows that, in committing the offence of impeding a constable in the execution of his duty, Mr Kelly failed to uphold the law as required by the Members' code of conduct.
The principle of leadership in the code of conduct states that Members should promote and support the other principles:
"by leadership and example in order to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of the people of Northern Ireland, and to ensure the integrity of the Assembly and its Members in conducting business.".
The Committee acknowledges that Mr Kelly did seek to demonstrate positive leadership on the evening in question. His intention had been to defuse a tense situation, and he used his influence positively to direct the crowd and facilitate the passage of the police. However, despite this, Mr Kelly failed to demonstrate leadership when he obstructed the police vehicle. His actions set a poor example and resulted in a number of the crowd striking the police vehicle.
The Committee believes that the unlawful behaviour of a Member is a serious matter and that Mr Kelly should, therefore, apologise in the Assembly for his conduct. Notwithstanding any such apology the Committee believes that, in this particular case, it would be fully justifiable to impose a sanction upon Mr Kelly. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Assembly imposes upon Mr Kelly the sanction of exclusion from proceedings of the Assembly for a period of five days.
In coming to the conclusion that this sanction would be appropriate, the Committee has taken into consideration the following factors identified by the commissioner. First, that Mr Kelly was an experienced leader; secondly, that he attended the scene with good intentions to try to defuse a tense situation; thirdly, that the poor example he gave by breaking the criminal law resulted in others striking a police vehicle; fourthly, that his criminal conduct was undertaken on the spur of the moment without due regard to the consequences; fifthly, that the illegal conduct received widespread media coverage at the time; sixthly, that before and after that conduct Mr Kelly used his influence to calm the situation; and, finally, that, as a result of his conduct, Mr Kelly received an informed warning.
Members of the Assembly are influential leaders to whom the public often look to provide an example. The Committee, therefore, recognises that Members can play a constructive and welcome role in lowering community tensions. The Committee accepts that Mr Kelly had intended to make a positive contribution on the evening of 21 June 2013 and that some of his actions assisted in defusing a tense situation. It is, however, most regrettable that Mr Kelly undermined his positive actions when he obstructed the police. While Mr Kelly acted on the spur of the moment, his conduct was, nevertheless, unlawful. The Assembly’s code of conduct requires that Members uphold the law through their actions, and any failure to do so should be dealt with seriously by the Assembly.
I will now make a few personal comments before opening up the wider debate.
I am surprised by the actions, particularly of the SDLP this morning, in signing a petition of concern, not least because of a number of factors. First, nobody on the Committee, including Sinn Féin members, argued that this was not a breach of the code of conduct. Therefore, it follows that there should be some degree of sanction. By its actions this morning, the SDLP has decided that no sanction should follow Mr Kelly's actions. The SDLP had the opportunity to put down an amendment to the motion on the Floor of the House. It could have argued that perhaps a lesser sanction is appropriate in this case, but the SDLP chose not to do so. The only conclusion that one can reach is that that party has decided that Mr Kelly's illegal actions should not be punished by the House. I find that disappointing and surprising.
William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)
I thank the Member for giving way. When his Committee debated that particular incident, what actions did the SDLP take when it came to the vote?
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
From recollection, I do not think that the SDLP representative remained at the Committee for the discussion with the Commissioner for Standards. The SDLP member did not take the opportunity to ask the commissioner any questions on the report and did not vote in any way after that discussion.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
I will give way to Mr Allister.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)
Picking up on what the Member is telling the House, is it then the case that the SDLP representative on the Committee absented himself, took no opportunity to oppose or question what was being discussed, took no opportunity to vote against or even to abstain and, in fact, acted as spinelessly on the Committee as that party is acting today in supporting this petition of concern?
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
Mr Allister's observations are correct. The Member could have chosen to ask the commissioner questions if his party was concerned about the report and could have stayed in the Committee to discuss with other Committee members the sort of sanction that would be appropriate to bring to the Floor of the House. The Member chose not to do either of those things.
I am also disappointed that one of the signatories to the petition of concern is a member of the Policing Board because I believe that the issue we are talking about today is one of the most serious breaches of the code of conduct that we have had, given that a Member of the House has broken the criminal law. I am surprised that a member of the Policing Board does not believe that that would merit a sanction from the House.
Patsy McGlone (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Mid Ulster)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will the Member clarify whether he is speaking as Chair of the Committee or in a personal capacity? [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. The Member made it clear that he was speaking as the Chairperson to start with, but indicated that he wanted to make a few personal comments, which he is now doing.
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad that everybody else in the Assembly was listening to my comments.
I look forward to listening to the contributions from other Members, particularly those from the SDLP, who have taken the decision to support a petition of concern. I am disappointed. It is regrettable, particularly given that they left it until the last minute before making any utterance of their view on the issue.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
The Member's time is up.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt in aghaidh an rúin seo. I rise to speak against the motion. I just want to pick up a couple of points from the point of view of the Committee. At the very outset of the debate, I heard people shouting, "Shame" when the petition of concern was mentioned. It is not that long since a petition of concern was brought forward here in respect of another Member who had come to the Committee — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
The main issue for me is how we actually go ahead with the Committee on Standards and Privileges and how it conducts business in future. As in the case of the previous Member Mr Wells, it seems to me that the Committee is getting to the point where it will be heavily politicised in terms of vote management and what it brings to the Chamber, as opposed to undertaking the role for which it and that of the commissioner were designed.
The Chair mentioned the actual debate that took place. On a number of occasions, I sought clarity from the commissioner about a few issues relating to the technical admission and technical breach. It is not as though we ran away from it in the Committee.
I want to pick up on a few points in the report itself. I refer to one person who wrote to the commissioner to complain about the matter. On pages 57 and 59 of the report, the person states that Mr Kelly had been involved in other incidents of that type way back in the 1970s and 1980s. Mr Kelly could not have been involved in those incidents, because he was not out and about to be involved in them. Clearly, you are looking at the level —
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)
Maybe it is a memory lapse.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
There goes the heckler again. The heckler will no doubt have his say in due course.
The people who wrote to complain about the case refer to matters that clearly Mr Kelly could not have been involved in at that time.
I also want —
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
Yes.
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
The Member makes a point about someone's recollection of Mr Kelly's involvement in events. Is the Member then disputing what we saw broadcast on television, which was Mr Kelly standing in front of and obstructing the police in the line of duty?
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
I will say this in response to the Member: when Mr Kelly got up that morning, he did not decide, all blasé, to go out on to the street with the intention of affronting anybody. He was there in a leadership role, trying —
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
Obstruct the law.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
— to resolve issues and calm a situation down.
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
[Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
It is funny that the Member should say that, because I can quote a number of incidents that have come to the Committee. Some of those are not admissible, but maybe after we get through this process on the code of conduct —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. I am listening to all Members very carefully. Let us not stray into other incidents or other areas. It is vital that we deal, as far as is possible, with the motion before us. I am trying to help the Member.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
I accept your point, Mr Speaker. The only point that I was trying to make is that we are going through a process at the minute, and, as part of today's debate, we have to learn to take the process forward. I was only trying to make the point that Members are quick to get up to ask questions about this matter, but there are a number of other similar issues.
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
It does not matter what —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
I just want to —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Members who want to contribute to the debate can do so, but let us not have a debate across the Chamber. The Member has the Floor.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Thank you.
The reason that I brought up the issue of one of the complainants is that it was the same person who notified the commissioner of the section 66 ruling, which was raised in this matter.
I want to make another point. We are all saying that Mr Kelly did this and Mr Kelly did that. If you look at the report on what happened on the day, you will see that there were three informed warnings given — three. Those were given to Mr Kelly, a PSNI officer and a young man. Mr Kelly set about doing his duty to try to find out exactly why the young man was arrested. He was there with his local community trying to assist. Not one person throughout the whole process, even in Committee, said anything. Unfortunately, I am up to speak first, but I would like to hear some other Members talk about the actual conduct of the PSNI officer, because —
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
Yes.
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
It may be useful to remind —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. The motion has absolutely nothing to do with a police officer. Let us not stray into areas that are not in the Committee report. Let us be very careful here. I am trying to manage a very difficult debate. I will allow the Member to continue.
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
I thank the Member for giving way. I was also hoping to help the House by reminding it that only one of the three individuals who received an informed warning is a Member of the House, so the House has the remit to propose a sanction against only one of those individuals.
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
Mr Speaker, I am trying to put into context what happened on the day and to bring it back to my colleague who was acting in a leadership role. That is what this is about, and it is actually in the report, but I take your guidance.
Like I say, some Committee members never said anything when this came up. With that mind, I do not intend to support the motion.
Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)
Will the Member give way?
Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)
No. Go raibh míle maith agat.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
I oppose the motion.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Just hear me out before you —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. I have already warned the Member. The Member has the Floor. Allow him to make his contribution.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
I invite Members to listen to what I say before arriving at a premature judgement in relation to what I am going to say. I recall the events of 21 June 2013. I was there. I was there when this particular incident took place. It was in the aftermath of a very heightened situation arising out of the Tour of the North in north Belfast in the Carrick Hill area. It was a very tense situation and people were getting very aggrieved about what was happening in the Carrick Hill area.
There was an attempt by me, by Carál Ní Chuilín, by members of the concerned residents committee of Carrick Hill, who are a very good, outstanding body of people, and by Gerry Kelly to try to defuse what was becoming an extremely difficult situation. That situation was inflamed — I have to say "inflamed" — by the premature arrest of a young man. That young man was taken away in a police vehicle, and the problem arose out of his arrest at that point in time. Yes, he may well have — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Yes, he may well have needed to be arrested but not at that particular point in time when there were many people about and there was an extremely difficult situation.
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
No, I will not give way. Just hear me out and listen to me, please. I believe that Gerry Kelly's intervention was well intentioned and was an attempt to defuse the situation, which the Committee has accepted. So, we get to the nub of the situation, which is that Gerry Kelly accepted an informed warning. That technically means — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
That technically means that he breached the code, but what are the consequences that flow from that? We have to be mindful in this House that any sanction imposed on a Member of this House should be proportionate. Given the circumstances in which Mr Kelly made his intervention in order to try to defuse the situation, does that not mean that that technical breach of the law that took place should, in fact, be looked at in a different light and that the penalty being imposed —
Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)
Will the Member give way?
Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)
Will the Member give way?
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Just give me a moment. The penalty being imposed by the Standards and Privileges Committee of this House is, in my view, disproportionate to whatever breach took place. I further add this: Ms Lo proposed at the Committee that an opportunity be given to Mr Kelly to apologise. The Committee rejected that opportunity. So, Mr Kelly did not have an opportunity to apologise to the House or to the Committee for what happened. I believe that that was a poor decision by the Committee —
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
— and what the Committee wanted to do in circumstances was to impose an excessive and disproportionate penalty on Mr Kelly.
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
I thank the Member for giving way. It is a very simple point. If that is the view of the SDLP, why did the SDLP not bring an amendment to the motion this morning as opposed to blocking it altogether?
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
The Member has an added minute on to his time.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Thank you very much. The point that has to be made is — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
The point has to be made in terms of this particular motion and report coming to the Committee. It is not possible to do that. You have to accept the package. You cannot amend the report. This is a Committee report. It comes to the House. The House has to make a decision.
The House is, in a way, a court of appeal, and, therefore, all Members have to listen to the report as delivered by your good self.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
I am sorry; I really have to finish off the points that I am making.
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
Mr Speaker, will you clarify for the House whether it was possible for a Member to table an amendment today that would have changed the sanction? Mr Maginness is claiming that that was not possible.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. I will clarify the situation: any party could have brought an amendment to the motion — not to the report but to the motion. [Interruption.] Order. I hope that that clarifies the situation. [Interruption.] Order. Allow the Member to continue.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
I accept the advice from the Speaker on that. The report coming to the House clearly states that there was a breach, and it highlights and underlines that the penalty for that should be five days' suspension. My party and I believe that that is excessive.
You criticise the SDLP for signing a petition of concern. A petition of concern was signed by you, the DUP, in relation to Jim Wells. [Interruption.] You did.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Address your remarks through the Chair. Order.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
So you cannot criticise the SDLP for signing a petition of concern on this. I say to you — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Will the Member bring his remarks to a close? [Interruption.] Order.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
My final point is this: any —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
The Member's time has gone.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Any sanction should be proportionate. The sanction recommended by the Committee is not proportionate.
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
From the outset, I would like to express my exasperation with the SDLP, and Pat Ramsey, Colum Eastwood and Dolores Kelly in particular, for the disregard for law and order that they have shown today. I am not sure whether they somehow believe that Gerry Kelly is innocent or have publicly buckled under political pressure from Sinn Féin. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
Sadly, it leaves me once again questioning whether the values of the SDLP are the same now as when the party first entered the Assembly.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. This debate is not about the values of any political party. It is clearly about the report. [Interruption.] Order. Let us not get into the values of parties in the House.
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
It brings me no pleasure that a Member of the Assembly has breached the code of conduct and broken the law in the way described by the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee. It brings me no pleasure that video footage of an Assembly Member, showing him taking hold off the grill of the bonnet of a PSNI Land Rover and being carried on that bonnet for some time in an attempt to stop the police officers while a number of people in the crowd violently struck the sides of the vehicle, was transmitted via the airwaves to news channels worldwide. It brings me no pleasure, just embarrassment, that such actions could be taken by a Member of the Assembly.
What Mr Kelly was thinking when engaging in such thuggish behaviour is beyond me. He should be ashamed of himself. It is 2014, and there are ways and means of engaging with police officers. Gerry Kelly, in obstructing a PSNI Land Rover, impeded the police and broke the law, specifically, section 66 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. His actions had the potential to escalate the situation and further provoke the crowd, which was clearly demonstrated when the police Land Rover, which he impeded, was then attacked by those present.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Will the Member give way?
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
Yes.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
You say that his actions would have provoked the crowd or escalated the situation. In fact, the crowd was not provoked; the crowd calmed down. In other words, the opposite happened.
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
The report, as I read it, said that his actions meant that others hit the side of the Land Rover.
Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)
I thank the Member for giving way. I know that there must be embarrassment about the issue amongst those in the SDLP. Will the Member not agree with me that, first, whether or not the crowd was provoked, the act was illegal, and, secondly, the aftermath showed that the crowd attacked the Land Rover as a result of the actions of Gerry Kelly?
Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
It is true. That is what the reports says.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. The Member has an added minute.
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
I thank the Member for his intervention. No matter what was happening that night, I do not think that there is any excuse for being on the bonnet of a PSNI Land Rover. There are ways and means of dealing with the PSNI. You certainly would not catch me on the bonnet of a Land Rover.
The subsequent decision to take legal action against the Chief Constable was, similarly, seriously misguided. It again demonstrated contempt for the rule of law, but that is hardly surprising. It was rightfully withdrawn. Gerry Kelly and Sinn Féin are not above the rule of law. They cannot pick and choose when to obey it.
For once, the Commissioner for Standards was unequivocal in a ruling. He found that Mr Kelly had breached the code of conduct. When the Standards and Privileges Committee met to discuss his report, I proposed that Mr Kelly should apologise to the Assembly and that a motion be put forward to exclude him from proceedings for five days. I am pleased that the Committee agreed that proposal.
When each of us was elected to the House, we signed up to a code of conduct, which states:
"Members have a duty to uphold the law and to act on all occasions in accordance with the public trust placed in them."
Mr Kelly has clearly failed in that regard. Members also have a duty to show leadership; again, Mr Kelly has clearly been found to be in breach of that duty.
I also question, as others have, what respect Gerry Kelly showed for the police and the rule of law in his actions, and how those actions could be seen to be promoting good relations.
In his accepting an informed warning, in January of this year, I welcome the fact that Mr Kelly admitted his guilt. However he chooses to term it, it does not change the fact that he broke the law, and, by breaking the law, he failed in his duty as a Member to uphold the law.
Today's motion is not about point scoring but about holding Members to the standards that they should adhere to when they are elected to the House. It is about protecting the integrity of our devolved institutions. It is a shame that this is far from the only incident that Gerry Kelly should apologise to the House for; it is a shame that this is far from the most serious incident that Gerry Kelly should apologise for. Unfortunately, however, the Commissioner for Standards has been found wanting on many other instances, in my opinion.
If Gerry Kelly and his party are serious about reconciliation, I urge them to apologise for their part in the 30-year terror campaign that cost this country countless lives. Only last week, Gerry Kelly's refusal to appear before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee showed disdain for those victims who questioned —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. I have warned Members many times. We are straying into an area that has nothing to do with the report. I beg the Member to come back to the report and the specifics within it.
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I reiterate my disappointment that a petition of concern has been used by Sinn Féin and supported by the SDLP Members. The Sinn Féin Member across the way complained of the DUP's misuse of the petition of concern, but two wrongs do not make a right. What a terrible place Northern Ireland would be if all MLAs were to set their standard —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
The Member's time is up.
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
— by the actions of Gerry Kelly MLA. I support the motion.
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
As Mr Maginness alluded to, during the debate in the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I proposed that the Committee should establish if the Member would apologise to the Assembly for breaching the code of conduct and, if so, that the Committee should report that it considered the matter to be resolved. If not —
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
Will the Member give way?
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
Yes.
Sandra Overend (UUP, Mid Ulster)
Does the Member accept that the report asks for Gerry Kelly to make an apology to the House, that today's motion is on his being withdrawn from the proceedings of this place and that he should still make an apology?
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
I thank the Member for her intervention, but I ask her to listen to the rest of my speech. I said that he should come, first, to the Assembly to apologise, but if he would not, that the Committee should consider the issue of seeking to impose a sanction. There was certainly a precedent in using that approach in relation to the complaint against Mr Wells, last year, regarding his negative comments towards a DCAL special adviser.
Steven Agnew (Green, North Down)
I thank the Member for giving way. I may not get an opportunity to speak later. Does the she agree that the conduct in the House today contradicts the conduct in Committee, where the discussion of these matters was often very civil, and that the DUP and Sinn Féin, in bringing petitions of concern when their members are sanctioned, disrespect the Committee, including their members on it?
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
The Member has an added minute.
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
Thank you. I absolutely agree with that. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
However, my proposal was not agreed to. The proposed exclusion we are discussing today was backed by unionist MLAs on the Committee, but it was opposed by Sinn Féin. I abstained from the vote.
The Alliance Party firmly believes that elected representatives should lead by example in terms of their actions and behaviours. That is essential to encourage high standards of behaviour in others and to help to build public trust and confidence in the integrity of the public office or institution. The fact that Mr Kelly accepted the reprimand is an acknowledgement that he broke the law. The Alliance Party supports sanctions, but I agree with Mr Maginness that the proposed sanction is excessive.
Whilst we are discussing the issue — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)
Will the Member give way?
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
No. I am sorry.
Whilst we are discussing the issue of the conduct of MLAs, I feel it is necessary to put on record my grave disappointment at the level of DUP hypocrisy today. When Ruth Patterson, a councillor —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Once again, we are straying away from the report. Let us deal with what is in the report; nothing more and nothing less.
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
Mr Speaker, it is about consistency in relation to today's debate. When Ruth Patterson, a DUP councillor, was charged — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Once again, the Member will know that this will be a very difficult debate. Help me to manage this debate. I say that to all Members. The Member is straying into a different issue and a different incident. We really must come back to the report. I am really trying to help the Member.
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
Mr Speaker, I believe that this is relevant to us debating this issue. At that time, her party was very quick to support her. Similarly, it is beyond my comprehension — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
— that Mr Wells and Mr Givan, also from the DUP —
Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
I almost know what the point of order might be.
Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)
It is a genuine point of order. This is the third time that the Member has ignored your ruling as to whether what she is saying is relevant to the debate. Are you going to put her out for five days, or are you going to impose some other sanction on her so that she comes back into line?
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. This goes for all Members: the Chair will decide what is appropriate and what is not in any debate. Let us please move on. That goes for all Members from all sides of the House.
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
Mr Speaker, thank you for your guidance.
It is beyond my comprehension that Mr Wells and Mr Givan, also from the DUP, were allowed to interrogate a sex-worker representative during a Justice Committee — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. I really must warn the Member now — [Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] Order. This goes for all sides of the House. A number of Members from all sides of the House will make their contribution later, so this ruling goes for all sides. We have some Members who think that rules are for them and them alone. They are for all Members. This is a final warning to the Member: she needs to get back to the report.
Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member named me and Jim Wells about an incident to do with the Justice Committee. The Member is fully aware that the Commissioner for Standards investigated and indeed exonerated Mr Wells and me, but she abused her position to pursue us on that Committee. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Even points of order and interventions should be on the motion before the House. I ask the Member to continue.
Anna Lo (Alliance, Belfast South)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly respect your authority on the matter.
Now is a sensitive time, as we try to heal from our past and come to terms with a changing and more diverse society. Tensions are undeniably heightened. Now is the time for strong leadership, not for pettiness. Now is the time for uncompromising respect, not just for the rule of law, but for each other.
Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I respect the efforts that you are making to try to get order in the House for this debate. I obviously oppose the motion.
When you look at and listen to the demeanour and attitudes of the Members opposite, you see that this is a farce, this is a charade, a pantomime. The laughs, the faces, the guffaws and the interventions show that, not only do the Members know that it is a farce, but they are demonstrating that it is. I am tempted to say that, rather than Mr Kelly offering any notion of apology, he is a bit confused, as he is more used to the back of a Land Rover than the front of one and much more experienced in that regard.
On the seriousness of this business, the way in which the matter has been taken to the House by the Committee is nothing short of a disgrace. If you look at the facts found during the inquiry, Mr Kelly has been, in my view, almost entirely exonerated. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)
In his earlier contribution, Mr McGuinness made very clear the scenario on the day in question and the environment in which he, Carál Ní Chuilín, Gerry Kelly and many others including the residents' association and the local clergy were in. Those people were working very hard and in a very determined way to maintain order in that area against a very negative backdrop.
We know that, unfortunately and tragically, so to speak, that particular area of Belfast has now become one of the more dangerous flashpoints and has seen a lot of public disorder. A lot of people have ended up in court, a lot of people have ended up being charged, convicted and fined and have had other, serious custodial sentences implemented. If I recall correctly, none of the Members opposite, many of whom have been involved in those activities, have ever seen the inside of a court, and I have to say that there remains a big question mark over the consistency.
It is all very well for Members opposite doing what they are doing here, which is trying to rabble-rouse or to showboat — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)
Will the Member give way?
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)
I think that I touched a raw nerve there, Mr Speaker. No, I will not give way, because the Member will have ample opportunity to speak.
The fact of the matter is that the environment that Mr Alban Maginness referred to earlier on was created, for the most part, by Members opposite. Some of the Members opposite who were involved in rabble-rousing, who are trying to do the same thing here today, who brought people out on to the streets, who brought people out into protest scenarios and activities and parades —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Once again, I say to the Member that, as far as possible, he should come back to the report. Let us not discuss any other issue that may have happened now or may do in the future. Let us get back and deal with the recommendations in the report that are before us this afternoon.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)
Thank you for your direction, a Cheann Comhairle. I respect that entirely.
I just wanted to make the point that the environment in which Mr Kelly found himself on that particular occasion was a very negative and polluted one because of the political environment on the ground at the time and that has already been testified to.
David McNarry (UKIP, Strangford)
Will the Member give way?
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)
No, I am sorry. I have already refused to give way, so I want to be impartial in that.
For me, when you read the report, the facts found and established were that, very shortly after the vehicle stopped, Mr Kelly engaged in a robust way with a senior police officer present.
During that exchange, Mr Kelly asserted that his actions had been an attempt to calm things down, and the officer accepted that as being correct.
So, at no time did Mr Kelly decide to go out that day — I think Cathal Boylan made this point — and create trouble. In fact, his only and exclusive intention on that day, as it was before and has been since that day, was to maintain calm to the best of his ability. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order, order.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)
Most objective observers, including the police officers involved, have recognised that the activities of Mr Kelly brought calm to the situation, rather than inflaming the situation and making it worse than it had been. I make the point that Mr Kelly has consistently continued to maintain calm in that area against a very difficult background, with Members on the opposite side of the House — I make the point again — continuing to cause problems in that area, which people, including Mr Maginness, Carál Ní Chuilín, Gerry Kelly and many others, have to try to pick up the pieces from.
As far as I am concerned, the Committee has taken a partisan and unfair decision. It is not acceptable to us as a party, which is why we wanted to trigger the petition of concern and we are pleased to have got support for that. Mr Kelly was at all times trying to maintain calm. The Committee has abused its position in trying to impose an arbitrary five-day sanction on the Member.
Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
I think it is about time we got back to what we are here to debate. There are some facts that some Members are overlooking. The fact is that we are here today to debate a Committee on Standards and Privileges decision following a report and investigation by the commissioner in respect of the actions of Mr Kelly. That is something that no one in the House can try to change, as it is a fact. It is also a fact that Gerry Kelly, following the event where he took a spin on the front of a Land Rover, accepted an informed warning on 21 June. That is another fact. It is also a fact that, in speaking to the commissioner, he accepted that the informed warning was an admission of breaking the law. That is another fact.
Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)
Will the Member give way?
Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
I will.
John McCallister (UUP, South Down)
Does the Member agree with me that a powerful message is being sent out here today by both Sinn Féin and the SDLP that criminality is OK on occasions?
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
The Member has a minute added on to his time.
Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
Thank you, and I thank my colleague for raising that point. I think that does unfortunately set a precedent for Members who break the law while serving in their duty as an MLA. That is a debate we are having in another part, but we will not stray into that. In essence, that is one of the issues that we have difficulties with. I have to say that I am disappointed in the members of the SDLP who have signed the petition of concern because that is exactly what they are accepting. They are saying: "It is OK to break the law; we'll cover you. If it's Sinn Féin, we'll cover you. We'll sign the petition of concern and give you the cover so that no sanctions will be held on you."
William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)
I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I take on board what he has just said, but can we really be surprised? The SDLP has aligned itself with Sinn Féin in refusing to have the National Crime Agency fully extended to Northern Ireland to deal with crime and criminality.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Once again, let us not go down a road that we are not debating this afternoon. Let us get back to the motion.
Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
I would certainly agree, but I will try to stay in the sense of the debate. It certainly will not be lost on anyone who is watching or listening to this debate, or, indeed, reading it in the press tomorrow, that the SDLP is supporting those who break the law. I think that is a shameful position.
Cathal Boylan tried to use the excuse that what we did previously in respect of petitions of concern on other Members is the reason why they did it in this case.
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
I have given way, and I want to just make a couple of other points. I will come back to you.
Mr Boylan is correct. He did raise the issue that that this was a technical breach with the commissioner. However, the commissioner, given the discussions he had with Mr Kelly, accepted that there was an admission that an informed warning was a breach of the law . I cannot see how we can look at it in any other way in today's debate. The facts are that Mr Kelly broke the law and we are here today based on a decision of the Committee to sanction a Member. If the Assembly cannot see its way to sanctioning a Member who has admitted breaking the law, I am not sure of the point in having the Committee in the first place. I will give way to Mr Clarke.
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
I thank the Member for giving way; I think he went on to qualify his point. The admission of guilt is key. Whilst Sinn Féin Members tried to draw parallels with others who have been before the Committee, the fact is that, in this case, an illegal act was admitted by the Member whose party is trying to block the sanction.
Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
That is the entirety of what we are here to debate today. I have said it in Committee before and I will say it again: if something is right, I will vote yes, and I will vote no if it is not. As the Chair said, not one Committee member denied that there was a breach of the code of conduct. So, we have to accept —
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Will the Member give way?
Ian McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)
With respect, I heard enough from you earlier. I do not think that you made anything other than a pathetic attempt to try to encourage this side of the House to understand your point.
It is an absolute disgrace that the House will not sanction a Member for breaking the law. I think that we are sending out a very serious negative message to Northern Ireland. People have made their decisions already on the good and bad of the House, but I think that they will be disgusted today.
Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)
I am one of those who put in an official complaint in the first place. Unfortunately, my party colleague has got it right: this is a day that will go down in infamy because this is a day when it has been made clear to the Assembly that any Member can breach the law without consequence. That is very telling.
Have a look at the history of all this: Gerry Kelly MLA, Policing Board member and former Minister of the Crown, broke the law while acting, as it was proved, as a Member of the House. That behaviour is the zenith of hypocrisy. As an MLA, you sit here and allegedly write the law in the first place. You also sit as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board and allegedly scrutinise those who implement the laws that are passed in the House. You are Sinn Féin's representative for policing and justice, telling others to obey the law, yet, by your actions, you have breached that law. If you ever had any credibility as a representative of the House, it is now down the drain. Your disregard for the law in this situation encouraged others and will encourage others, unfortunately, to impede the police and break the law. That, in itself, is deeply regrettable.
There were other —
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)
I will.
Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)
Given that you and the Member we are discussing today are members of the Policing Board, is it not also regrettable that, if someone follows the line of actions that Mr Kelly has followed, they may see the rigours of the law falling hard on them, yet Mr Kelly seems to have gotten off with the light-glove touch with the sanction and the informed warning?
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
The Member has an added minute.
Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I accept that intervention. What is happening in the House today contrasts very poorly with a young loyalist who stood on top of a Land Rover and ended up getting a three-month sentence from the court. What is going on here today with the pan-nationalist front is an absolute disgrace, and it is sending out the wrong message.
I ask a very serious question, because Mr Kelly was not the only public representative at the scene on the day. Mr Alban Maginness tried to explain away the actions of Mr Kelly to the House. I will ask him this very simple question: Alban, why did you not jump on the bonnet of that same Land Rover and try to impede its progress? Is the simple truth that you knew from day one that that was illegal?
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Let us have remarks through the Chair.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Will the Member give way?
Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)
The Member will give way.
Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)
Let me explain the circumstances. Mr Kelly was at the side of the vehicle. He then approached the front of the vehicle when it was starting to move off. In those circumstances, as the vehicle was building up speed, he had to hold on to the grille; otherwise, he would have been crushed and seriously injured. There is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind. That is an entirely different circumstance from mine, in which I was standing at the side of the vehicle and attempting, with others, to communicate with the police officers inside. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Jonathan Craig (DUP, Lagan Valley)
Again, I have heard nothing that tells me why Mr Maginness did not impede the movement of the vehicle. I think that that is because it is very simple. With your legal background, you knew that it was illegal to do so.
The other question that arises is this: was the individual who was arrested actually in that vehicle? We all know from the facts that have since come out that the answer to that is no, so why was that vehicle being impeded in the first place?
The commissioner decided, and the Committee agreed, that there was significant evidence to say that Mr Kelly broke the leadership principle of the House. When Members try to make the argument that there is no real evidence, that the report does not really tell you what happened and that there was not really a breach of the code, it reminds me of Sinn Féin's attempts to rewrite the history of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Now it is trying to rewrite this report, and I am not going into any other outside issue. It is trying to rewrite the report. It cannot be done. It is there in black and white. It is very clear. The commissioner was very clear that this was a clear breach of the code of conduct for Members. When others are using their petition of concern to bring down the report and stop the sanctions in it, they are sending out a message to the public that it is OK for a Member to break the law and breach the codes of the House, because no sanctions will be applied. What a message. Is it any wonder that we have issues and problems on our streets in this country?
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
Ba mhaith liom labhairt in éadan an rúin seo. I will be speaking against the motion.
Two things strike me about most of the contributions made to date, particularly those from the unionist Benches. It is striking how many Members who have contributed have not, in my opinion, read the report but are coming at the issue from a purely political and partisan view. Their mind is made up, and they are coming in to turn what Alex Maskey has already described as a farce into a farce in reality.
The second thing that strikes me is that none of them is taking any account of people who were there on the day. Alban Maginness, when he spoke, gave an account. If people read the report, they will see that the report states very clearly that Gerry Kelly did exercise leadership at Carrick Hill on the day in question. It states:
"I do not doubt that Mr Kelly’s intention when attending at Carrick Hill was to diffuse [sic] a tense situation and to calm things down."
Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)
Will the Member give way?
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
Yes, I will.
Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)
Will the Member acknowledge that Douglas Bain, in his report, goes on to state:
"Overall his actions reflect that intention but his obstruction of the police had the opposite effect albeit only for a short period."?
His actions had the opposite effect, and the situation could have deteriorated significantly and endangered the lives of police officers.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
And then, let the Member say, "But it didn't". It did not deteriorate. As a matter of fact, Alban Maginness — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Let us have debate through the Chair. Order.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
Through the Chair, as Alban Maginness, who was on the ground, pointed out, it did not deteriorate, and it did not deteriorate, in my opinion, because of the type of leadership that Gerry Kelly has shown. I listened to —
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
No, I gave way once, and my time is short enough. I listened on a number of occasions to television interviews, and I heard members at Committees that I attended saying that the police have phoned them to come to the site of illegal roadblocks, and they said that they have stood on the road to try to defuse the situation. In anybody's book, that is breaking the law, but for a lot of people, perhaps at the right time, it is the right thing to do. I think that the people who have come in here today have totally and absolutely ignored that.
A number of months ago, in relation to the debate around Jim Wells, I said that we were turning the Committee into a farce. There was a petition of concern, Jim Wells was deemed guilty of being intimidating and using abusive language, and the DUP put in a petition of concern. I will ask the Ulster Unionists what way they voted on that day. In many ways, we have the outworking of that today, which is that we are not coming to these Committees with the proper intention. People are coming with a made-up position, and they are trying to maximise political gain, because nobody who spoke today, including the Chair, through you, a Cheann Comhairle, has explained why they wanted it to be five days. No explanation has been given to the rest of us as to how the Committee decided that it would be five days. I will give way to the Chair, if the Chair wants to give us an explanation as to why your Committee decided that it would be five days.
Alastair Ross (DUP, East Antrim)
It is very simple. The Committee came to the decision that five days would be a proportionate response to the breach of the code of conduct in the same way that it comes to determinations on every issue that comes before it, which is that it gives a proportionate response, including, I should add, when members of his own party are judged to have been involved in bad behaviour and complaints have been received and the Committee decides that it was not a breach of the code of conduct. That is how we do all business in the Committee.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
I do not see why, in the case of Jim Wells, you voted against a particular sanction, but in this case —
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
— you decided that you were going to give five days. I think that you have to try to provide an explanation. In my opinion, the explanation is very, very simple: it is political partisanship. The DUP saw an opportunity to get at Gerry Kelly because of the leadership that he was showing. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
I have heard people come to the House and defend people for doing a jig outside a Catholic church, and the DUP Benches were not only silent, but, that day, they were rabble-rousing and cheerleaders.
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order. Once again, let us not stray outside the motion before us this afternoon. [Interruption.] Order. Let us get back to the motion.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)
Therefore, our use of the petition of concern is to ensure that we will not allow people to be partisan in their approach. When the report set the context very clearly, and when you listen to people like Alban Maginness, who was there on the ground, you get some sense of the environment in which this took place, and it is for that reason that we put in the petition of concern.
A Cheann Comhairle, today is my first opportunity to offer my apologies — not for any actions of Gerry Kelly — for not being in my place when the Minister for Employment and Learning was answering questions.
Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not envy you today. This is one of those debates where the Back-Benchers seem to be lined out to try to continue whatever debates were going on outside the House over the last number of months. We have to recognise the context of all this. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
We have to recognise the context of this, Mr Speaker, if they would maybe give me a chance to speak. We are facing into another very long and hot summer. In the constituency — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
The constituency where this event took place will be at the forefront of all that, and it is incumbent on all of us — every single one of us — to try to ensure that tensions are calmed and that the heat is taken out of this summer.
Just for the record, because I know that there will be a number of hecklers, I am the SDLP member on the Committee for Standards and Privileges. I left the meeting, but not because I was "spineless", as Mr Allister said. If I were spineless, I would not be standing here talking right now. People know that I have no problem taking difficult positions. I had to leave the meeting. There was a very good reason for that, and it was unavoidable.
Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)
Will the Member give way?
Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
No, I will not.
I also have no problem giving way in most debates, but I think that we have a duty to try to keep this as calm as possible. I know — [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
I know that it is your day out or whatever, you are allowed off the leash, and it is "Let the DUP Back-Benchers get their heckles up" day. That is fine, but our bigger responsibility is to what is going on outside the House. We have to do our best to ensure that we can calm tensions, particularly in the constituency that we are speaking about, because lives are at stake, and we have had far too much of this stuff in the last couple of years. The world looks at the North of Ireland in a very different way than it did a couple of years ago, when it thought that we had moved on. We have, at times, really been a bit of an embarrassment. We, as leaders in here, need to do everything that we can to calm those types of situations.
Mr Maginness is a political opponent of Mr Kelly. They look for the same votes in that constituency. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.
Colum Eastwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)
They will fight each other in an election in two years' time. I do not see what benefit Mr Maginness would get from coming here to support Mr Kelly if he did not think that it was the right thing to do. I know Mr Maginness very well. He is a very honourable person. He has come and given us — none of us was there — his account of the situation. I have been in situations like that before, and it is not easy. People are there trying their best to calm the situation. Mr Kelly, and it has been recognised, came to that situation to try to prevent a riot. Sometimes, that is a difficult role, but people need to understand that people do that work every single day — people on the opposite side of the House, on this side of the House and even people whom I am a political opponent of. Sometimes, you have to be big enough to recognise when people are doing that kind of work.
Our difficulty with the motion is the proportionality element. When Mr Wells was found to be in breach of the code — it is important to put it on the record because I spoke in that debate as well — he was offered the opportunity to apologise. He did not take up that opportunity. Why was the same opportunity not afforded to Mr Kelly? That is our difficulty. [Interruption.]
William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)
Order.