Second Stage
Executive Committee Business
Northern Ireland Assembly debates, 22 September 2009, 10:45 am
Peter Robinson (DUP)
I beg to move.
That the Second Stage of the Department of Justice Bill [NIA 1/09] be agreed.
Last November, following our attendance at a meeting of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, the deputy First Minister and I announced that we had reached agreement on a number of key issues relating to the devolution of policing and justice matters.
The arrangements that we proposed will apply on an interim basis until 2012 and will be subject to review before permanent arrangements are put in place. Following that meeting in November 2008, we made public a paper that set out the process by which devolution can be achieved and the clear steps that will need to be taken to achieve devolution without undue delay.
One of those steps was the drafting and introduction of Assembly legislation. That legislation is the Department of Justice Bill, which we are debating today. The Bill flows from the Assembly’s approval on 20 January 2009 of the report of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee on the arrangements for devolution of policing and justice matters and is not the result of any subsequent negotiations. The report and the Assembly endorsed our view that there should be a single justice Department with a single Minister who is elected by the Assembly.
Earlier this year, legislation was enacted at Westminster to make the necessary legislative amendments that arose from the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s report and from our decisions, which were announced on 18 November 2008. That legislation was the Northern Ireland Act 2009, and it provides the essential framework for the present Bill. The Act includes a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause that will dissolve the new Department of justice in 2012 if the Assembly has not extended the arrangements in the Bill or adopted new arrangements by that time.
The Secretary of State has also made an Order to increase the maximum permitted number of ministerial offices to accommodate a Minister of justice. That Westminster legislation was also among the steps that were identified in our November process paper.
Another step is now being taken with the introduction of this Bill. The Bill itself does not seek to give effect to devolution. That can happen only when the Assembly passes a specific resolution requesting that the Secretary of State transfer the relevant responsibilities and when the necessary legislation has been passed at Westminster. However, the Bill makes preparations in advance of those final stages so that the process at that time is as straightforward as possible. It is, therefore, enabling legislation.
Its purpose is to facilitate the creation of a future Department of justice, which will assume most of the responsibilities that are planned to transfer. The Bill will also establish a legislative basis through which the Assembly can appoint a Minister of justice. The Bill reflects the arrangements that were proposed by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, endorsed by the Assembly and legislated for at Westminster by the Northern Ireland Act 2009.
The Bill is quite succinct. Clause 1 establishes the Department of justice, and clause 2 sets out a process for the appointment of a Minister of justice by vote of the Assembly, requiring that not only a majority of Members vote on the resolution, but that a majority of designated nationalists and designated unionists vote.
That condition ensures cross-community support for the new Minister. The deputy First Minister and I have already stated that, initially, neither of our parties would nominate one of its own members for the post of Minister of justice.
Significantly, the third clause ensures that the preceding clauses, which are the operative parts of the Bill, will not come into operation until the deputy First Minister and I jointly make a commencement order. That would take place in the final stages before devolution and, as I said, would happen only after a cross-community vote in the Assembly.
There is also a technical schedule to the Bill, which will tidy up a number of references to the future Department in existing legislation by amending them to use the new title of Department of justice. The content of the Bill and its introduction have been agreed by the Executive. The OFMDFM Committee has been briefed on the Bill’s contents, and I look forward to its further engagement during the Committee Stage.
This enabling Bill gives legislative authority to put in place the arrangements that the Assembly has already agreed are necessary for the future devolution of policing and justice. The Bill’s passage will enable us to act decisively, once the Assembly resolves that the time is right to request the transfer of those powers. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
As the Chairperson of the OFMDFM Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about the Bill. I will then add my own party political views.
At its meeting on Wednesday 9 September, the Committee received a briefing from departmental officials. A number of questions were asked and answers given; officials undertook to send further information to the Committee, which was provided in a reply dated 21 September and circulated to all members of the Committee.
It was proposed in the Committee that the Bill should not proceed in the Assembly until the publication of the next report of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. That proposal was defeated, and the Committee agreed to place a public notice in newspapers after the First Stage of the Bill to advertise a closing date — a fortnight later — for receipt of submissions. I can confirm that that notice was published on Friday 18 September, and it indicates a closing date of 12 noon on 2 October. At its meeting on 7 October, the OFMDFM Committee will consider likely oral evidence sessions and whether to extend the Committee Stage of the Bill. That is an accurate reflection of how the OFMDFM Committee has dealt with the Bill in its statutory role.
As a member of the Ulster Unionist Party, I will now address some issues raised by the potential devolution of policing and justice to the Assembly. I declare an interest as a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee.
In principle, the Ulster Unionist Party is not opposed to the devolution of policing and justice at a proper point in time. However, that point has not yet been reached, so we will oppose the Bill’s passage today.
We are consistently told that we are part of a four-party mandatory coalition. However, the Ulster Unionist Party has not been consulted on, or involved in any way in, the ongoing negotiations at Downing Street and with senior Treasury figures. We are not, therefore, involved in briefings and meetings with officials.
Peter Robinson (DUP)
That would be useful. Is the Member telling the House that his party leader has not had any discussions with the Northern Ireland Office on the devolution of policing and justice powers?
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
That is altogether different. There may well have been discussions and conversations with the Secretary of State and others; however, we have not been involved in the ongoing, detailed negotiations, and, therefore, our fingers are not in this pie. The First Minister will have to explain to his own party, and to the wider community, how and when decisions are to be made.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
Sorry, I have progress to make.
I simply reiterate that we feel that we have no ownership of the process. It is a bit rich for the First Minister, who often reminds us that this is allegedly a four-party mandatory coalition, to expect the blind support of other parties, particularly the Ulster Unionist Party, for the early devolution of policing and justice powers.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
I am sorry, but I will not give way.
We need to consider community confidence. In the wider community, the prevailing view is that the Assembly and Executive have not yet substantially proved themselves before the people of Northern Ireland. Devolution is not all that it was cracked up to be or what was promised, and we see that in the business of the Assembly. For example, the issue of education is in deadlock.
William Hay (Speaker)
Order. I remind the House that, at Second Stage, Members must speak to the principles of the Bill. If Members decide to wander outside the principles of the Bill, I will very quickly bring them back. In Committee and at Consideration Stage, Members will have an opportunity to discuss all the issues. However, today’s debate concerns the principles of the Bill, and only the principles of the Bill.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
I am happy to bear that in mind, Mr Speaker. I was attempting to allude to the wider perceptions that affect the conditions under which this enabling legislation could be progressed. I am striving to make the point that there is no community confidence in the Assembly or the Executive to permit the early enactment and realisation of the devolution of policing and justice powers.
Community confidence has been shaken by recent events, and by the ongoing serious threat from republican dissidents. That is a matter that concerns us all and, in the context of devolving policing and justice powers, is surely an important consideration. I detect a very strong concern in the unionist community, which believes that republicans, even those in the House who are directly involved in the negotiations for the possible devolution of policing and justice powers, are not doing enough to bring the necessary information to the PSNI so that it can deal with those republican dissidents, as they are called. We need to see information that details the activities of some of the erstwhile colleagues of those in the mainstream republican movement.
Edwin Poots (DUP)
Mr O’Dowd will get his chance to speak later.
I hear what the Member says, and I am at somewhat of a loss to understand him. In 2005, when republicans had not signed up to policing and justice, the Member’s party wanted to rush headlong into the devolution of those powers. Now that republicans have signed up to the devolution of policing and justice powers, he wants to delay the process. I am somewhat confused by his stance.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
I am happy to confirm that the Member seems to be confused permanently. The situation that he described was not the case; therefore, his comments are not relevant to today’s debate.
Given past performance, serious questions must be asked about the ability of DUP/Sinn Féin to negotiate a proper financial package to support the devolution of policing and justice. Any financial package for the transfer of policing and justice powers needs to be tested rigorously for financial sustainability, risk management and contingency planning against potential shortfalls. Only then, and only after a period of time, should powers be transferred fully. Clear, robust guarantees must be given that Westminster will not allow the Northern Ireland Budget to suffer in the event of additional demands being made on policing, such as those that are created by civil disorder. Only on that basis can we consider the devolution of policing and justice powers responsibly.
For well over a year, my party has been saying that the time is not right to devolve those powers unless and until this place steps up to the mark on other issues. A year later, there has been no movement; we have had only more paralysis from the DUP/Sinn Féin axis. Simply adding the Alliance Party to that axis is hardly a recipe that inspires confidence. Therefore, we oppose the Bill, not because we oppose the principle of the Northern Ireland Assembly having charge of the powers, as is the plan, but because we do not believe that the community has confidence in devolution at this point. Moreover, given that the Executive cannot sort out the mess in education and other areas, how on earth can they be expected to deal effectively and efficiently with policing and justice? The Ulster Unionist Party will, therefore, oppose the motion.
(Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair)
Jimmy Spratt (DUP)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak during today’s debate. I declare an interest as Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I clarify that I am not speaking in my capacity as Chairperson of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee.
As Members are aware, the issue of the devolution of policing and justice has been in the political arena for some time. I support the Bill, the creation of a Department of justice and the appointment of a justice Minister when the necessary conditions are met. However, as Members are aware, the purpose of the Bill is merely to create a Department of justice and to enable the appointment of a justice Minister. It does not state when devolution will happen or, indeed, what powers will be devolved. It is simply a stepping stone along the way. However, we are making progress and are moving in the right direction.
Before policing and justice functions can be devolved, two things need to happen. First, we need to ensure that appropriate funding is in place, and I know that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have been lobbying the Prime Minister and the Treasury to ensure that that happens. Secondly, we need to safeguard the continuity of the justice Department beyond 2012. To do so, we must ensure that community confidence exists. If devolution is to be sustainable, all sections of the community must have confidence in it.
The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has made a number of practical recommendations about devolution, which begin with suggesting that there should, in fact, be an additional and separate Department for policing and justice, which should be known as the Department of justice. Following on from that, the Committee recommended a number of control measures for the removal and replacement of a Minister, which would apply until 2012. Those measures would be contained in what is known as a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause, which means that the Department would dissolve in 2012 if the Assembly did not agree on a more permanent arrangement. In the interim, it was also agreed that neither the DUP nor Sinn Féin will nominate a Member from their respective parties to be justice Minister.
Bearing in mind what I said about community confidence, it is important that any future justice Minister ultimately be appointed by a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists, as well as an overall majority of Members. To those Members who are concerned that that is a departure from d’Hondt, and it is, I can say that the Assembly will have an opportunity to revisit the proposal before 2012.
The Assembly and Executive Review Committee —
In confirming that that measure is a departure from d’Hondt, and, therefore, a departure from the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, does the Member agree that Sinn Féin has conceded that veto to the DUP?
Edwin Poots (DUP)
Does the Member agree that that measure would be part of the dismantling of the “ugly scaffolding” of the Good Friday Agreement, a phrase which was used by the soon-to-be former leader of the lady’s party?
Jimmy Spratt (DUP)
I am happy to agree with that. [Laughter.] I am also happy to hear what Mrs Kelly said; I have heard it many times before, not only from her, but from her colleague Mr Attwood, who is sitting beside her.
The Assembly and Executive Review Committee still has work to do before the devolution of policing and justice can take place. I mentioned earlier that finance is key; I want to commend the work of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in their negotiations with the Prime Minister and the Treasury. Those talks have taken place against the background of particularly difficult economic times, and it is certainly not an easy task.
The Assembly and Executive Review Committee will continue to consider the non-modality issues, and will finalise its second report soon. There was some discussion about that in the Committee’s meeting earlier this morning. The Committee aims to present its second report to the Assembly before the end of 2009. I commend the Bill to the House.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Obviously, on behalf of Sinn Féin, I support the Bill. As the First Minister said, it is a succinct Bill, which contains three clauses that simply provide for the establishment of a justice Department and the appointment of a justice Minister. The Bill, in my view, ably and simply speaks for itself.
I heard some of the comments that Danny Kennedy made when he was speaking as a member of the Ulster Unionist Party. Although I wish it were different, the Bill does not specify when the Department will be established. That is something that we are working on. I welcome the fact that Jimmy Spratt mentioned that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are engaged in ongoing discussions with the British Government and others to try to ensure that we make the necessary progress on issues such as the budget, and that we can move speedily towards the establishment of a justice Department in the near future.
Members will have become familiar with the phrase “revolving justice”. We have all heard members of the public, particularly victims’ families and others, who have regularly and routinely complained to us about the revolving nature of the justice system, whereby repeat offenders are in and out of the courts. Most members of the public feel that the levels of justice that are meted out are inappropriate or not balanced.
What we have heard from Danny Kennedy this morning is an example not only of a revolving policy, but of the UUP going round in circles. He finished his remarks by saying that the UUP would oppose the Bill, not because it is against the principle of the transfer of policing and justice powers, but because it does not think that the time is right. That is a familiar unionist phrase; we often hear that the time is not right or that the Assembly has not stepped up to the mark.
Although I wish that it did, the Bill does not provide a date for the transfer of powers. Therefore, there is no reason —
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
Does the Member accept that the Bill’s passage through the various Stages in the Assembly raises an expectation that the date for the devolution of policing and justice is not far off and is not a political lifetime away, as some people once predicted?
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
The Member needs to make up his mind whether he wishes to be mischievous or whether he wishes to contribute to the debate. In my view, much of what he said this morning has done neither.
The fact is that the Ulster Unionist Party signed up to the Good Friday Agreement. The St Andrews Agreement was an add-on to that. Further discussions took place; some of the topics we supported and some we were not so happy about. Nevertheless, the Ulster Unionist Party has two Ministers in the Executive as a result of the Good Friday and St Andrews Agreements.
Fred Cobain (UUP)
As the Ulster Unionist Party is represented on the Executive, has it been in detailed discussions with the First Minister and deputy First Minister about the devolution of policing and justice?
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Had the Member been in the House earlier, he would have heard reference to the fact that his party leader has already been part of a number of discussions. [Interruption.] I must also point out that members of his party sit on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. In fact, Danny Kennedy chairs the relevant scrutiny Committee, so the UUP has had ample opportunities to be involved in discussions.
The difficulty for the Ulster Unionist Party — and Mr Kennedy alluded to it earlier, possibly inadvertently — is that it did not get the mandate to be among the leadership of those negotiations. That is a problem that the party has to square in its own mind. I do not believe that it has squared that circle just yet. Other parties suffer from the same problem. As a result of the choice of the electorate, the DUP and Sinn Féin are the two lead parties, in that they are the holders of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. They are mandated and obligated to take those discussions and negotiations forward.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
No, I am sorry, but I have already done so. The Member will have plenty of time to speak later on if he wishes to. He has stated that he will deal with that in the later stages of the Bill, and I look forward to that.
The reality for the Ulster Unionist Party is that it did not get that mandate. It is free to seek a new mandate later on, but, for the time being, the current First Minister and deputy First Minister are leading the discussions with the British Government on a budget. They are not doing that in isolation. Members of all parties, with the exception of the Alliance Party, sit on the Policing Board, which has also been routinely involved in discussions on the necessary budget for policing — and I should declare an interest as a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and as a member of the Policing Board. I am sure that members of Mr Kennedy’s party have made representations directly to the NIO on budgetary and other matters. Indeed, I think that that has already been acknowledged.
The Ulster Unionist Party still has ample opportunity to input into this very important debate. What it has not shown, in my opinion, is any sense of leadership whatsoever. I am not a unionist, but I can tell the Member that Policing Board members who are here today would acknowledge that the board frequently meets people from every community across the North who routinely complain that the system is not joined up and that good aspects of police work fall foul of the Magistrate’s Court or the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). Those disputes are taking place. People from all communities want a justice system that is joined up, effective and solves problems collectively. They, and members of all parties, including the Ulster Unionist Party, routinely make representations to the Policing Board about the need to ensure that the system is joined up more effectively so that the general public, whom we serve collectively, get the justice system that they are entitled to, that they want and, more importantly, that they can shape in the future.
The only real opportunities for many people to have an input into important justice matters are through current affairs programmes or the letters pages of newspapers. Everyone here will acknowledge and accept that it is simply not good enough that the public have no real input into how the criminal justice system works. Some people want to have legislation introduced on a whole range of matters, others want to change Government policies. However, they do not have a local Minister whom they can hold to account for the rights and wrongs of the system or to whom they can suggest changes that would benefit the community.
The legislation is necessary simply to ensure the realisation of the agreement that I hope is imminent. The vast majority of the public welcome that and, indeed, want it to happen sooner rather than later. Considerable community confidence will be built if members of the parties represented in the Chamber today come together to establish the justice Department and to appoint a Minister and a scrutiny Committee. That will also help the budget process. I do not accept that there is not widespread community support. However, other parties have made that argument, and so be it. Along with the vast majority of the public, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I look forward to the transfer of power on justice matters: that is very important to all the people whom we serve collectively from the Chamber.
Mr Spratt referred to the fact that the appointment will be made outside of the d’Hondt procedures, and I accept that. However, I make it clear on the record yet again that the arrangements are temporary. The DUP and Sinn Féin have generously abstained from taking the post for the first period.
Why is Sinn Féin so spooked by the prospect of an SDLP justice Minister? Will the Member and his party support an SDLP nomination?
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
The Member might want to refer to the former leader of his party, or is he still the leader? I am not quite sure of the leadership situation in that party. Nevertheless, the former, or current, or putative in/out leader, has had discussions on the matter. We are on public record as saying that our preference is for an SDLP Minister of justice, although I must say that I would not have a lot of confidence in many of the SDLP Members on the Benches to be competent Ministers.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Our preference is an SDLP Minister of justice, and we would support that nomination. I am not sure what part of that the Member cannot understand. We have said that repeatedly, and I repeat it again today.
The Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement contain an absolute requirement that we establish the institutions and maximise devolution and the transfer of powers. It is not a cherry-picking exercise: it is an absolute requirement. Policing and justice is an essential element of what was agreed in both the Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent St Andrews talks.
The purpose of the Bill, a LeasCheann Comhairle, is to ensure that a Department will be established as soon as possible. I have already said that the DUP and Sinn Féin have generously abstained from nominating a Minister of justice at this point. Given the difficult circumstances in which we all find ourselves, we have made an accommodation to ensure that a Department of justice will be established and that a Member of the House will be appointed as Minister of justice. That will also ensure that the general public are given a sense of the justice system’s twin pillars of accountability and independence. The people whom we represent collectively will have a say over how those matters are delivered in the time ahead.
As Mr Jimmy Spratt said, the Bill contains a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause that means that the interim arrangements have to come to an end by May 2012. There is no fallback position. If we wish to continue with the devolution of policing and justice powers after 1 May 2012, it is up to any Member or any party to make alternative proposals prior to that date. As I said, the current arrangements are temporary and are merely an accommodation.
If policing and justice powers are transferred in the near future, I imagine that the practical outworkings and the experience that will be gained by the parties between that time and May 2012 will be important. Danny Kennedy said that power sharing is not working. However, that practical experience, along with other work, will inform us by May 2012 of whether it is appropriate to continue with the arrangements beyond that time. If it is not appropriate to do so, we will make other arrangements. Any such alternative arrangements will be discussed and will have to be in place by 1 May 2012. That is important.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
The Member has been involved in politics for a few years — he did say, though, that he is only 49, so I will take that as an indication of his political experience — and as he has said in the past, we do not know what will happen. His former deputy leader, Seamus Mallon, was on record as saying that we can only legislate for what we can legislate for ourselves. We cannot legislate into the future. I do not know what the situation will be in 2012. I do not know what the situation will be next week; I have a fair idea, and I am working on that basis, but who knows?
The fact is that the arrangements are in place, and I hope that they will get the support of the parties in the Assembly, because those arrangements provide for the establishment of a Department of justice and the appointment of a Minister of justice. By 1 May 2012, alternative arrangements will have to be in place. The Bill does not provide for a fallback position. Therefore, if such arrangements are not in place, there will not be a Department of justice. If an impasse — [Interruption.]
Mr Durkan may wish to hear himself talking, but I do not want to hear him. I want to get on with the debate.
If we reach an impasse at that time, one would presume that there are other political difficulties, and we will have to deal with those in the round.
I will make one simple point in response to Mr Durkan: at no time during his leadership of his party, or during Seamus Mallon’s leadership in the Assembly, did they make any specific proposals to the House for the delivery of policing and justice powers, nor indeed, if I recall correctly, did they even publicly put forward such a strategy. It is all very well to say that it was in the Good Friday Agreement. Sinn Féin supported the Good Friday Agreement, and I remind the Member, although he does not like to acknowledge it very often, that we were involved in the negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. It was not solely the SDLP that tidied up that bit of business; a number of people, including those from Sinn Féin, were involved in those talks. At no time did the SDLP put forward any strategy for the delivery of policing and justice powers. Its members can criticise Sinn Féin —
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
I have already given way a number of times. The Member will have ample opportunity to state her case.
People can state that they want something to happen; however, the general public want their political leaders to deliver. How can we do that? This Bill, as an accommodation between Sinn Féin, the Democratic Unionist Party and OFMDFM, sets out the means for the establishment of a Department of justice.
I want the SDLP to tell people whether it supports the Bill. When Mark Durkan spoke against the Westminster Bill on the matter, he got his party into quite a kerfuffle by leaving — he did not stay for the vote. Therefore, we must be clear about our positions. The SDLP must tell the general public whether it supports the transfer of policing and justice powers and whether it will support the current legislation to enable that transfer.
Earlier, in answer to Pat Ramsey, I stated that Sinn Féin would prefer a member of the SDLP to be the justice Minister; that may or not happen. However, our priority is to facilitate the transfer of powers on policing and justice to ensure that the general public whom we represent receive the best policing and criminal justice system that we can deliver.
That means putting our shoulder to the wheel, establishing the Department and taking responsibility for delivering those matters into the hands of locally elected people who are accountable to the public and who will be able to answer those families who ask why they have not received justice. Instead of people having to run headline campaigns in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ or having to appear on ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’, perhaps the Assembly will take responsibility by passing the relevant and appropriate laws and by developing a policy for the wider criminal justice system that will help to prevent crime and enable the police to detect more crime. That would enable the judicial system to deal appropriately with offenders while being respectful of, and responsive to, the victims.
I conclude by reiterating that the arrangement is temporary, based on an accommodation reached by the DUP and Sinn Féin through OFMDFM. I have no difficulty with that because as part of the ongoing negotiations on the budget and other matters, Sinn Féin is determined that a Department be established. Sinn Féin and the DUP have absented themselves from consideration for the ministerial post. That demonstrates that Sinn Féin’s priority, through the establishment of the Department, is to meet not our narrower party political interests, important as those may be, but the wider public interest, whoever the Minister may be and to whichever party he or she belongs.
Others who want to contest the Bill must tell the public how they intend to meet their need. Communities are experiencing problems with crime, and there is a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system and in many aspects of its delivery. Other parties may criticise Sinn Féin and the DUP as much as they wish. However, they must tell the public how they intend to achieve the establishment of the Department and the appointment of a Minister, so that, collectively, we can get on with the job of delivering and servicing the needs of the people whom we are all supposed to represent. Go raibh míle maith agat.
I am interested in what Mr Maskey said about the “temporary” arrangement with the DUP. I recall that Lloyd George described partition as temporary; the term, therefore, has some historical resonance.
I want to make it clear that the SDLP supports fully the devolution of justice and policing powers to the House and to Northern Ireland. However, we do not support it on the basis of the Bill. The Bill is defective and flawed because it does not permit a stable and inclusive method by which justice and policing powers can be transferred.
Let us take an example —
No; the Member may intervene all he wants after allowing me to develop my argument.
All Members should be aware that a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause builds into any transfer of justice and policing powers a continuous instability in the Department and in its future. The temporary arrangement to which Mr Alex Maskey referred will create all sorts of political difficulties throughout the life of the Department, if it comes about. Therefore, the Bill is defective at least on that basis. That is a fundamental flaw in relation to this legislation.
Another point, which was made very openly by Mr Spratt in his observations of the Bill, is that the process is a departure from the d’Hondt mechanism. Mr Alex Maskey endorsed that and openly admitted that it was a departure from d’Hondt. Of course, the d’Hondt system is central to the Good Friday Agreement. Once one starts to chip away at a fundamental aspect of the agreement, one undermines the entire agreement.
I hear some echoes from the DUP Benches that are in support of that proposition. Of course, Sinn Féin has sold the pass in relation to the Good Friday Agreement. By accepting that there should be a departure from d’Hondt in relation to the justice and policing Ministry, the party is accepting that the principle of d’Hondt is expendable. That is what Sinn Féin is doing by accepting the departure that the DUP has welcomed. Of course, this is a DUP agenda and not a Sinn Féin agenda. It is an agenda to which Sinn Féin has acquiesced. In fact, the party has betrayed a basic principle of the Good Friday Agreement.
The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party called —
The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, outside this House, is on record as referring to the arrangement as a gerrymander. It is a gerrymander by the DUP and Sinn Féin. They have agreed to all sorts of carve-ups, but they cannot agree on this one. They are implacably deadlocked in relation to this issue, so the alternative that they have used is a gerrymander of the office. It is a crucial office in government; one that is very contentious and is very important for the future of justice and security here in Northern Ireland. Their agreement is quite wrong indeed.
What is required is to adhere to the method of selecting Ministers, which is a basic principle of the Good Friday Agreement. The d’Hondt mechanism is to be preferred because it is fair. It allows parties, in a fair manner, to select the Departments in which they wish to involve themselves.
Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin)
For the purposes of this debate, will the Member outline for the Assembly one occasion when the SDLP proposed that policing and justice powers should be transferred to the Assembly and the Executive under the d’Hondt mechanism during the time when Séamus Mallon and Mark Durkan were in the lead in regard to the nationalist community and respectively held the position of deputy First Minister alongside David Trimble?
I am answering that question. The principle of d’Hondt is central to the Good Friday Agreement, because it is a fair system by which to appoint Ministers and distribute offices — [Interruption.]
Just listen to me: d’Hondt establishes a reasonable and fair pecking order, and that is why that system was adopted. What Mr McGuinness is doing — [Interruption.]
David McClarty (UUP)
Order. Members must not make references or statements from a sedentary position.
The deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, in leading his party in the Assembly, has departed from a fundamental principle of the Good Friday Agreement. Therefore, he has undermined that principle itself. The next time we form an Administration, the DUP may decide to get rid of d’Hondt altogether and have Ministers based — [Interruption.]
That is the response that one gets. They have sold the past in relation to d’Hondt, and I emphasise that.
I have already given way to the deputy First Minister. I will not give way again. Let me develop my argument. The point — [Interruption.]
Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, the deputy First Minister is very exercised by this issue, because he realises that he has sold the past in relation to d’Hondt and that that is a betrayal — [Interruption.]
David McClarty (UUP)
Order. Which part of not making comments from a sedentary position does the deputy First Minister not understand?
The record shows that when I was deputy First Minister, I advocated beginning to work towards the devolution of justice and policing powers. The record also shows that the First Minister at that time did not agree with that position. The record further shows that Sinn Féin was completely opposed to the Policing Board at that time and was attacking and criticising those of us who were on it and who were trying to make the Patten Commission’s reforms work.
I thank the Member for his intervention. I go back to the point about the cross-community election of a Minister, which, in reality, in contrast with d’Hondt, allows a veto over the appointment. That is reflected in the statement of the Ulster Unionist leader, Sir Reg Empey, who said that the process would be a gerrymander because it would permit a veto.
Sinn Féin and Alex Maskey in particular have generously decided not to seek the justice Ministry: some generosity. Sinn Féin also said, very disingenuously, that it would support an SDLP appointment to the justice Ministry. That is so generous — [Interruption.]
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. How can the Member refer to the fact that we “disingenuously” said that we would support an SDLP Member being appointed Minister of justice? That is a negative inference, which I reject absolutely. My party put it clearly on the record, and I have repeated during the debate, that Sinn Féin’s preference was for an SDLP Member to be appointed Minister for justice. I resent Alban Maginness describing that offer as disingenuous; it was far from it.
I am not sure whether that was, in fact, a point of order. It was more of an intervention. Nonetheless, Sinn Féin has professed support for the SDLP taking the justice Ministry, but that is a disingenuous position to adopt because it knows well that, some months ago, outside 10 Downing Street, the First Minister said that he would veto any SDLP nomination for the justice Ministry. So, Sinn Féin claimed to be supporting the SDLP, knowing quite well that there would be a veto from the First Minister. Of course, that is the veto to which Sinn Féin agreed by openly departing from d’Hondt.
In one moment. If d’Hondt had remained in place, the SDLP would certainly have had a claim on that Department, except in circumstances in which d’Hondt were rerun completely. If there were a topping-up according to d’Hondt, the SDLP would certainly have that position. However, whether or not the SDLP gets the justice Ministry is immaterial. The important thing is to preserve d’Hondt, because it guarantees fairness to everyone in the House, and that is central to the Good Friday Agreement. I am sure that most parties, apart from the DUP and Sinn Féin, would agree.
On the question of whether Sinn Féin was being disingenuous, it is a matter of public record that Martina Anderson said that the Alliance Party would be entitled to the justice Ministry. In fact, in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, did it not fall to Alex Attwood to point out to Sinn Féin what, in a letter from the OFMDFM to the Committee, “at all times” meant in relation to a cross-community vote for the justice Ministry?
I am grateful to my friend for raising that issue because when Martina Anderson said that she was accepting the position “at all times”, she certainly sold the pass on this issue. Of course, Sinn Féin hastily unscrambled that position, by which it was deeply embarrassed, and from which it had to resile as quickly as possible.
However, my point is that once one departs from d’Hondt for exceptional reasons — and Mr Maskey has attempted to make the best of a bad case — one undermines the basic principle and the mandate of everyone in the House.
Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP)
Does the Member recognise that the spectacle between nationalism and republicanism that we are witnessing from this side of the House is the clearest possible manifestation of the fact that, no matter which party is in the lead position in this place for nationalism, those parties have collectively failed to deliver their republican agenda on policing and justice? That is what we are witnessing today.
If the Member wants me to go through the SDLP’s history with respect to policing and justice and the way in which it brought about a new departure on policing by creating a new Police Service in Northern Ireland, I will do so. However, the speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker would probably stop me. In answer to the Member’s intervention, the SDLP has a proud record on policing, justice and human rights, and it will stand by that record and commit itself to justice, policing and human rights, which have been ignored by the party to my right.
I was interrupted while speaking about mandates. Mr Maskey has a peculiar attitude to them. He maintains that there are superior and inferior mandates. He does not accept that mandates are equal in this House. He does not accept that my mandate is equal to his. He maintains that, as he is a Sinn Féin member, he has a mandate plus; DUP members have a mandate plus; and, perhaps, SDLP members have a mandate minus.
In fact, all Members of the House have an equal mandate. We all have a right to be consulted and a right to inclusive decision-making in relation to important and contentious matters such as justice and policing. The SDLP has been excluded from that process, and it is excluded from consideration of which party should head that Department.
I remind Mr Paisley Jnr of the ‘Hearts and Minds’ programme in February 2009, on which he stated:
“I do believe that, if the SDLP had more people here, we certainly would not have been able to get away with some of the things that we have been able to get away with.”
That means that the nationalists on these Benches did not fail, and I thank him for his words. [Interruption.]
David McClarty (UUP)
You are in this Chamber and on this planet, so please, Mr Paisley. Mr Maginness may continue.
I find it strange that Mr Paisley should talk about failure, because there have been certain failures in respect of Mr Paisley and his party in recent days.
I return to the subject of mandates. Mandates are equal in this House. The Assembly is inclusive, not exclusive. However, the two major parties have adopted a position of exclusion. They are inclusive to one another, but they exclude other parties. They exclude the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP, and they would exclude anyone who does not suit their purposes.
My party believes that every Member has a mandate and a right to be included in decision-making. The Assembly was established on a power-sharing basis. Every Assembly Committee is constructed proportionately. That is the spirit of partnership, and the DUP and Sinn Féin are forgetting that. Partnership involves a coming together of all parties. That is reflected in the d’Hondt system but not in the Bill.
The Sinn Féin attitude to the SDLP is difficult to fathom. During the long argument over decommissioning, when there was great pressure on the SDLP in relation to the exclusion of Sinn Féin, the SDLP remained firm to the principle of inclusion in Government, because it wanted everyone to be involved in decision-making. This fractured society demands that everyone be included in decision-making. That spirit of partnership and inclusivity is important. I hope —
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
I respond to Mr Alban Maginness’s last point. It is not that long since the SDLP joined unionist parties on Belfast City Council to exclude Bobby Lavery from the chairmanship of a relatively minor council committee. Mr Maginness knows that his colleague Alex Attwood has tried to defend that publicly. Bobby Lavery was an elected member of the council who had secured exactly the same mandate as Mr Maginness. Mr Lavery’s brother and son had been shot dead by loyalists. Yet the SDLP unseated Mr Lavery from the chairmanship of a silly committee in Belfast City Council. That is an example of the SDLP’s inclusivity.
If that is Mr Maskey’s strongest point, it is not really a point at all.
The SDLP’s involvement in Government has been to include people, not to exclude them, and we are committed to that process, which is based and founded on the Good Friday Agreement.
I wish to refer to the financing of the Department. There are indications that progress has been made on the financing of policing, in particular, and justice, which is to be welcomed. However, I warn the House that the prospect of a Labour or Conservative Government taking power over the next months means that very firm guarantees are needed. Either of those parties, individually, or in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, could bring about severe public sector cuts that could affect policing and justice in Northern Ireland. There must be guarantees to prevent that happening.
In conclusion, I am pleased to see that there is a better attitude towards the whole issue of devolution. At some stages, it was felt in the House that the DUP was not intrinsically in favour of the devolution of justice and policing. I remind Members that the last Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Brian Faulkner, resigned over the taking away of policing and justice powers from the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government, so serious did he view that. Therefore, I sometimes have difficulty with unionists being reluctant to see the transfer of justice and policing. Clearly, it is an important power and something that all of us want to see happening sooner rather than later.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
The Alliance Party will be supporting the second reading of this important legislation, and — [Interruption.]
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
As I hear the heckling coming from both my left and my right, I will express my extreme disappointment that two parties in the Chamber are intent on opposing the legislation. Mr Maginness has just praised the DUP for getting us this far down the road to devolution, and yet the SDLP will vote against the Second Stage of the Bill today: that is a very confused message.
I am under no illusions: this is not the perfect way to deliver the devolution of policing and justice. However, we have to be realistic about where we are coming from. We do not have devolution of policing and justice at present. The history of the Northern Ireland peace process over the past years has been about making arrangements that may seem to be unusual, but that is what we have had to do to get over the various humps in the road and to ensure that we keep the journey going. Clearly, devolution is at a critical stage, and it is a critical step that has to be taken for confidence in the wider political process. Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Let us accept what is before us in a pragmatic manner and recognise that this is a means to an end, and that that end is the devolution of policing and justice.
Devolution is important for three reasons. First, it is a critical step in our peace process. Policing and justice have been held back; they should be part of the devolution settlement. Secondly, it brings important accountability in relation to control over policymaking and resource considerations, which is something that the House should have. Thirdly, and perhaps most critically, it gives us opportunities for joined-up government. Policing and justice do not sit by themselves in a silo. The issues that they deal with cut across boundaries. For instance, levels of offending involves the areas of health, education and housing, and requires co-operation by different Departments. Devolution provides opportunities for enhanced joined-up government and better solutions for the people of Northern Ireland.
A lot of reference has been made to the issue of confidence. I want to say a few words on that.
The confidence needed for the devolution of policing and justice does exist. When I go round the doors, I do not hear people say that we should hold it back; they are ready for it to happen. Reference has been made to the problems in the Executive. Let me be clear: the devolution of policing and justice is part of the solution for overcoming those difficulties in the Executive, given that the lack of progress on devolution until now has been a source of discontent. Therefore, the logic follows that if policing and justice is devolved and there is agreement between the main parties in the Executive, we will be in a much better position.
Developing confidence has to be seen as a process; it will not be achieved by devolution happening on a certain day. It will be an ongoing process, even after devolution happens, and it is about showing the people of Northern Ireland that the devolution of policing and justice can make a real difference to people’s lives and will result in tangible differences.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
The Member is aware of what the Alliance Party has been saying about its frustrations with the performance of the Executive, but devolution will help overcome the existing problems rather than add to them. I thought that the SDLP was in favour of devolution and not against it, as its members seem to be arguing today.
Wider points have been made about confidence. At the outset, Danny Kennedy stressed that his party is opposed to the devolution of policing and justice at this stage. In particular, he raised the spectre of the problems of dissident republicans and said that it would be unwise to devolve policing and justice at the moment. Holding back the devolution of policing and justice plays into the hands of dissident republicans. The Ulster Unionists need to reflect seriously on why they find themselves in common cause with the dissident republicans on that agenda. That is a sobering reality that they have to face up to. Dissident republicans will feed propaganda about devolution not being in local hands and being under the control of the British state. It is important that we undermine any arguments that are being used by dissident republicans and allow the security forces to deal with the continued threat that they pose.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
In an earlier media broadcast, Dr Farry described the Ulster Unionist Party as a “can’t do” party. It seems that the Alliance Party cannot do enough to please the DUP and Sinn Féin in order to get the feet of one of its Members — not necessarily Dr Farry’s — under the ministerial table. Any linkage, or suggestion of there being common cause, between us and republican dissidents or paramilitaries is offensive. The Member has made a foolish and regrettable statement against the Ulster Unionist Party on his own behalf and on behalf of his party. He should be ashamed of himself.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
It may not be a deliberate and co-ordinated agenda, but the two parties share a common objective, which is to frustrate the devolution of policing and justice. It is clear that that is what the dissident republicans want to achieve, and the Ulster Unionist Party has said here today that it wants to frustrate the devolution of policing and justice. Therefore, they are working to the same objective.
Danny Kennedy (UUP)
For the avoidance of doubt, the Ulster Unionist Party’s position is that, in principle, we favour devolution. We have worked hard to create the right conditions in which to devolve policing and justice. We are different from the Alliance Party in that it wants to rush the devolution of policing and justice before it is dealt with properly, and we are significantly different from the dissident republicans because they do not want it under any conditions. Those are the clear differences between the Ulster Unionist Party and the Alliance Party and republican dissidents.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
It is over 10 years since the Good Friday Agreement, so we are hardly rushing the devolution of policing and justice; it has been a long-standing objective for many people. The Ulster Unionist Party says that it supports the devolution of policing and justice, but when does it want it to happen? The issue is a dot on the horizon that seems to be going further and further away rather than coming closer to us. They have to reflect upon that.
With regard to confidence and coalitions, I remind Mr Kennedy that not only is the Ulster Unionist Party a part of the four-party mandatory coalition; it is also a member of another coalition with the Conservative Party, as part of UCUNF.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
Indeed, and you are welcome to him — [Interruption.]
The central point with that arrangement is that the Conservative Party is committed to devolving policing and justice powers to Northern Ireland today — as of now. Indeed, I have spoken to Owen Paterson about that issue and he has assured me that that is the case. Therefore, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Conservative Party are in coalition, yet on one of the most significant issues facing the devolution settlement, they are at odds with each other. If Danny Kennedy has said that the Alliance Party is naive for championing the devolution of policing and justice, what has he said to David Cameron and Owen Paterson, whose position is the same as ours?
I have a number of comments to make in relation to the method of electing the new justice Minister, which is at the heart of the Bill. The Alliance Party welcomes the fact that a cross-community vote will be used to elect the new Minister. Indeed, my party has been advocating that approach for some time. That approach sends out a powerful signal, because a cross-community vote demonstrates that all sections of the House have given their assent to whoever is appointed to the post, and that backing from all quarters of the Chamber also sends out an important signal of legitimacy for any Minister. “All quarters” may be a step too far given some of the comments that have been made during the debate today, and “two sides of the Chamber” may be more apt, but cross-community support is something that we should all welcome.
The opposite of that cross-community support for the new Minister would be the continued use of the d’Hondt methodology, which allows Ministers to essentially pick their portfolios based on a randomly generated list. That process does not add to power sharing or legitimacy; rather, it leads to a system of carve-up whereby the spoils of office are handed out to different parties. Furthermore, the connectivity in the system is weak at best, and, as a result, Ministers are very powerful in their own fiefdoms, and are able to impose their own party political agendas on policies, rather than reflecting the consensus of the House. One example of that non-consensus is demonstrated in our education system. At least four parties in the House have called on the Department to avoid the current anarchical situation in relation to the 11-plus by introducing some form of interim testing. However, the Sinn Féin Minister of Education has her own ideas, which prevail over the overwhelming democratic wish of the Chamber, and thus of our society. Similarly, four parties also supported the creation of an independent environmental protection agency, but the DUP, the party that controls the Department of the Environment, did not support that view, and that agency was not created.
That is not democratic, and it does not reflect power sharing. Power sharing means parties coming together to compromise and work through difficult issues and produce shared outcomes. That is not what we have at the moment, and the d’Hondt system contributes to that.
The d’Hondt system is not an underlying principle of the Good Friday Agreement, which is about power sharing and proportionality. There is a whole host of means of achieving proportionality, and d’Hondt is only one method. D’Hondt produces many anomalies, and, in fact, produces a very strange system of proportionality —
Gregory Campbell (DUP)
I thank the Member for giving way, and I am glad that he has raised that issue. In some areas of Northern Ireland, district policing partnerships were appointed on the basis of d’Hondt, and in Londonderry, where the unionist community make up 22% of the elected members of the council, unionist members received only 10% of the seats because d’Hondt was used. Does the Member agree with me that d’Hondt is not the precise mechanism that some try to make it out to be?
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
I agree entirely with the Member’s comment; it is a very good example. I will also refer to the elections to the Northern Ireland Forum in 1996 in which no unionists were returned in the Foyle constituency. The mirror image of that was the Lagan Valley constituency, where there is a considerable non-unionist population. In the same election, five unionists were returned in that constituency, which was not a proportional outcome.
Let us look at the central example. Due to the way in which the first mandate of the Assembly worked out mathematically, the d’Hondt system produced an equal number of unionists and nationalists in the Executive. In subsequent elections, the overall number of nationalist seats in the Chamber has increased. However, using the d’Hondt method of so-called proportionality, the ratio in the Executive is 60:40, unionist and nationalist. How can a so-called proportional system produce such a bizarre result?
The anomalies that Mr Campbell referred to, and that I have mentioned, appear when the d’Hondt method is used right across the system. When it is applied to a small number of individuals, it produces very bizarre results: therefore, we need to be acutely aware of the limitations of that system.
If we were to run the d’Hondt system for the justice Ministry, the notion that it would be left to the last pick and that the party that qualified next for a seat would automatically get that Ministry is a major fallacy. We must recognise that policing and justice will be one of the most important Departments for this society, and I would be stunned if it were left to the end. If we were to use the d’Hondt system, we would have to rerun it completely, and I imagine that policing and justice would be one of the first Departments to be chosen, if not the first.
I welcome a move away from using the d’Hondt system. A useful message can be sent out that there is a different way of providing power sharing and legitimacy in this society. I have ambitions to see a voluntary coalition established in the Chamber. A voluntary coalition is consistent with power sharing under the Good Friday Agreement, and any party would be eligible to be part of such a voluntary coalition, including Sinn Féin. However, it would provide greater coherence of policymaking in advance and greater collectivity. Having said that, I realise that this is not a Trojan Horse for a voluntary coalition, and I reassure Sinn Féin on that point. I wish that it were otherwise, but it is not. We will have to have that debate on another day. I am aware that a number of parties are interested in having such discussions. I stress that different methods are consistent with the underlying principles of the Good Friday Agreement: it is not a threat to that agreement. What happened in 1998 was never meant to be set in stone for perpetuity; we must evolve with the times to meet the needs of a changing society.
The Alliance Party has been referred to a lot in relation to the post, and we have heard the speculation in the media. However, we had not heard the comment from Martina Anderson, and we will let her off the hook on that one.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
I accept what Martina Anderson says about it being untrue, for different perspectives, and we probably share that analysis.
The Alliance Party wants to see the devolution of policing and justice, irrespective of who takes the post, as it is important for our society. The Alliance Party has always looked to the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland and has always tried to be constructive. The Alliance Party does not look to its own internal interests only: it has a wider concern. However, in the event that the post is offered to a member of the Alliance Party, or if one of its members is proposed for the post, it will need to reflect on whether what is being put forward is in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I want to make it clear that that is far from automatic.
The Alliance Party has a number of concerns about the way in which the issue is being taken forward. Although we support the legislation and the methodology put forward for the election of a Minister, a number of implications arise as a result of that and it is right that they are put on the record. We feel that those concerns should be addressed between the point of the legislation being passed in the House and devolution eventually coming.
First, the method of electing a Minister is the mirror image of the method for the removal of a Minister; it is done by a cross-community vote in the Chamber, as established by the Westminster legislation. At present, the terms of removal of any Minister are left wide open and are not defined. No criteria have to be met for the removal of a Minister. That would leave a potential Minister somewhat exposed and open to being removed from office by a cross-community vote in the Chamber, although parties might come to that vote from entirely different angles.
It is important to respect that any justice Minister will have to take a number of very tough decisions, particularly over sensitive matters. That Minister must have the freedom to do that. No Minister should be given a blank cheque and allowed to do things without accountability, but there must be some protection against a situation wherein Ministers are routinely removed from office through a cross-community vote. Although some might say that a Minister from the same party may well be reappointed, a situation involving a series of mini crises is not in the interest of stability. A stop/start situation is never in the interest of any Department. In the context of policing and justice, where important decisions have to be taken, it is important to have stability.
I also want to stress the point that I made earlier about confidence being an ongoing issue. Building confidence is not something that happens in a day; it is an ongoing process. It is important that, when devolution does happen, irrespective of which party holds the post, there is an active agenda for the Minister of justice, the Executive and Assembly in relation to what they do on the different issues. Confidence will come when the Assembly is able to prove to the people of Northern Ireland that justice can make a real difference to their lives. We cannot have a situation in which devolution happens and we are then in an almost free situation until the 2012 deadline comes along, at which stage we try to renegotiate a different way of doing things. That first number of months and years will be critical to how the issue is going to be moved forward.
Similarly, returning to the issue of confidence and the ability of a Minister to deliver, I take on board Dolores Kelly’s point about the problems in the Executive. It is important that any Minister is not pulled in a number of different directions by the big parties in the Executive and there is an understanding of the need for a Minister to move ahead with actions.
The Member raised an interesting point about accountability to the Assembly on a cross-community basis and the possibility of removing a Minister through a cross-community vote. That situation would not arise were the Minister appointed under d’Hondt. That reinforces the value of d’Hondt, because d’Hondt prevents vetoes.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
My point is that the system outlined in the Bill is, to our minds, the lesser of two evils. The d’Hondt system, as I have already outlined, is completely flawed and creates a situation in which Ministers have no accountability whatsoever. A lot of the anomalies that I have mentioned so far in my critique of the methods set out in the Bill would be addressed and removed if there were a purely voluntary coalition. However, we do not have such a coalition; that is not on the table at this stage and I accept that. While recognising that a cross-community vote is the better way of doing things, we are also quite right to point out the potential drawbacks and negative implications of that. It is then important that we turn our minds to overcoming those potential pitfalls.
The Alliance Party’s conclusion is that it is important that parties discuss policy issues regarding policing and justice as far in advance of devolution as possible. The greater consensus there is in the House on what should be done on policing and justice in those critical initial months and years, the better placed we will be and the less likely it will be that there are crises and political fallouts.
I fully accept that events will happen that will create major difficulties for any Minister, the Executive and the Assembly, but the more planning that is done in advance and the greater the policy discussions that take place on what can be done under devolution, the greater the chance of minimising the risks of those things happening. Our party leader, David Ford, has written to the other party leaders in the Chamber to seek discussions on those issues, notwithstanding who the Minister will be. I stress that that issue is open to the House. Given our concern that devolution must happen and that it must be done right so that it delivers, the discussions regarding policy are critical and they need to start as soon as possible, if not now.
Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin)
Will the Member agree that the point that was raised about d’Hondt is an interesting one, specifically because it came from the SDLP? The SDLP has argued that, in the interests of inclusivity, a proposal should be put to the Executive and the Assembly that a justice Minister be appointed under the d’Hondt mechanisms. Is the Member aware of any occasion during Seamus Mallon’s or Mark Durkan’s time as deputy First Minister when any such proposal was put to the Alliance Party? No such proposal was made to Sinn Féin.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
I am certainly not aware of that happening. Much progress was made on the reform of policing under Patten, but devolution was always the big issue that was left. I welcome the progress on the issue, and we are now on the brink of the critical moment when devolution is agreed.
Alban Maginness stressed the importance of inclusivity. The system of designations in the Chamber requires the Alliance Party to designate as “other” because it is not a unionist party or a nationalist party. Our votes, therefore, count for less when a cross-community vote is taken. How is that voting system inclusive? Is the SDLP saying that it is in favour of inclusivity but that the votes of unionists and nationalists are more inclusive than those of the Alliance Party, the Green Party, Kieran Deeny and the people who we represent? The subject of inclusivity must be considered from a wider perspective to ensure that all voices in the Chamber count equally, because, at present, they do not.
Gregory Campbell (DUP)
A considerable amount of effort has been expended in discussing the timing of the devolution of policing and justice. I am somewhat surprised by the pronouncements from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party, because no matter when the devolution of policing and justice occurs, the step that is being taken today must be taken, whether it is taken this year, next year or the year after that. It is necessary that a set of stages be undertaken, and the Second Stage of the Bill is one of them. I would have thought that everyone who supports the devolution of policing and justice would support a necessary stage in the Justice Bill being enacted. There is no serious opposition to the principle of devolving powers, as Mr Kennedy and others said.
For the DUP’s part, we have stated that both cash and confidence is needed for the powers to be devolved. The fact is that neither of those is currently in place. The physical act of proceeding to accomplish devolution receives setbacks when Sinn Féin and others keep trying to bring the date forward when neither of the two criteria has been met. The public have not been made aware of the possible additional resources that would be required if the dissident threat were to continue at the present level or if the situation were to worsen. That is in addition to what the public are only too well aware of: the less than adequate Sinn Féin response over the summer to, for example, the closing of Mountpottinger police station; its attitude and response to the burning of Orange Halls in rural areas; and its attitude to Loyal Order parades. All those issues set back community confidence rather than bring it forward.
That is not to say that progress has not been made; we must keep reiterating that: progress has been made. Sinn Fein is in a different place now than it was five, 10 or 20 years ago. The key is to ensure that it continues to make progress. My party intends to do that.
During the past few months, Sinn Féin has allowed the briefing of journalists to continue, which indicates that it will raise the stakes on policing and justice in the autumn. In the short term, it would be disadvantageous for that party to pursue the dangerous game of edging the Assembly towards the so-called political abyss, as it did in 2008. Sinn Féin, and everyone else, knows what happened then.
Sinn Féin’s pursuit of that agenda, in the mistaken belief that it might force another impasse that, this time, will be followed by an Assembly election, could have the doubly negative effect for that party of precipitating the required change that is needed in the designation and underlying system in the Assembly before it could resume.
Let no one be under any illusion: the political realities in Northern Ireland in autumn 2009 are similar to how they will be in 18 months’ time. Therefore, my party sees no big distinction in facing an Assembly election in autumn 2009 or in 18 months’ time.
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. Although it might be interesting to explore the dark recesses of Gregory Campbell’s mind, I am at a loss as to what any of that has to do with the Bill’s principles.
David McClarty (UUP)
Thank you for that point of order, Mr O’Dowd. I remind Members to stick to the subject, which is the Department of Justice Bill.
Gregory Campbell (DUP)
Thank you, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. I note the total irrelevance of that point of order. However —
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
Further to that point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. Does the Member suggest that your ruling was incorrect and that my point of order was not a point of order at all? I am sure that I would not rely on a ruling from him, the muppet.
Gregory Campbell (DUP)
As I said, the facts are what they are. People who believe that those facts will change will find that they are mistaken.
The changes to which I have referred are necessary. It would be deeply unfortunate if the wider community had to go through another impasse in order to arrive at a destination that will have to be reached in any case.
It is pointless and counterproductive to keep falsely raising people’s hopes and expectations that the criteria for the devolution of policing and justice will be met soon, when everyone in the Chamber knows that that simply will not happen in the immediate future. However much we might like it to be the case, and must work towards its being the case, it is not the case at present.
In the past, in the wider political realm of requiring Sinn Féin’s support for the police and courts before proceeding to establish a system of government, it has been proven that insisting on such criteria is better for everyone in the long run. Even if that necessitates those of us who want to do the right thing and get the right deal being lambasted yet again, we intend to keep doing that.
If Sinn Féin is serious, the job of Martin McGuinness and other senior representatives in that party is to convince me and hundreds of thousands of others by their actions, not by their words, that they can agree and deal with the perfectly reasonable and legitimate criteria that we have set out. At that point, the Assembly can move forward with the entire community’s confidence. I support the Bill.
David McClarty (UUP)
The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.
The sitting was suspended at 12.31 pm.
On resuming (Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) —
Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board.
Arrangements are in place for the process to deliver policing and justice powers into the hands of locally elected politicians. The Bill represents the fact that the process is moving forward. Key stages in that process have already been implemented, including the Assembly and Executive Review Committee’s report and legislation that has passed through the Executive and on to the Assembly. Undoubtedly, there is more work to be done, and we heard reference to that today, not least the securing of a suitable financial package and arrangements post-2012. I note the First Minister’s positive comments last night, when he said that significant progress had been made on the financial package, and I wish him and his deputy, Martin McGuinness, well in their efforts to secure a financial package.
A clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause makes it imperative for all of us to secure agreement post-2012, particularly as a local Minister would do a better job than a British Minister. Many in our society would concur with that. The SDLP flagged up the issue of the clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause; I remind its members that they said that the clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause in the St Andrew’s Agreement was a success and claimed credit for it. Whatever the truth about that claim, the SDLP’s 2007 manifesto stated:
“Above all, we have ensured a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause – so that the DUP will not get any of the changes conceded by others to the workings of the Agreement if they do not go into Government by 26 March 2007.”
So, the SDLP does agree, in principle, to sunset clauses. If a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause is the mechanism that we need to secure the devolution of policing and justice, there is no more important time than now to support it. However, the SDLP may have changed its mind, because after that manifesto assertion, the former, or current, leader — whatever sort of leader the SDLP has — talked about the ugly scaffolding of the Good Friday Agreement and how it should be dismantled. That was news to me, and it was news to the Alliance Party.
I see Dolores Kelly coming into the Chamber. Earlier, she claimed that I said that the Alliance Party should get the policing and justice ministerial position. I want to make my position clear. I took part in a radio interview with the leader of the Alliance Party in which I said that his party should not assume that it will get the ministerial post. I have also stated that Sinn Féin supports the allocation of the ministerial post to the SDLP.
At this juncture, it is important to remind all the parties that supported the 1998 Act, which emanated from the Good Friday Agreement, of its detail. Section 17(4) of that Act states:
“The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide.”
Section 17(5) states:
“A determination under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.”
That was agreed by all the nationalist parties in the Assembly and some of the unionist parties.
I understand that some parties have difficulties with the arrangements for appointing a Minister. However, what is proposed is a temporary measure, necessary to move the process forward. It is Sinn Féin’s position that, post-2012, the process should refer to d’Hondt.
That notwithstanding, Sinn Féin and the DUP have shown great leadership by saying that we do not intend to nominate at this point. In taking that position, we are prepared to set aside our party interests in the interests of all the people of the North.
Will the Member agree that those two parties are being generous in setting aside not only their own selfish party interests but in setting aside nationalists’ interests, because the Member is saying that under the procedures of this legislation, no nationalist need apply for the ministry of justice?
Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin)
No; that is totally wrong. The Member was not in the Chamber when I quoted the SDLP manifesto with regard to the principle of a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause, so it is worth repeating:
“Above all, we have ensured a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause — so that the DUP will not get any of the changes conceded by others to the workings of the Agreement if they do not go into Government by 26 March 2007.”
The SDLP was quite prepared to accept and support the principle of a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause in those circumstances.
We should not forget that some of the parties that criticised the process are the same parties that said that the transfer of policing and justice could never happen. They did nothing to bring it about, and now that it is happening, they prefer to snipe from the sidelines rather than admit to their failures. Whatever they say, however, the transfer of policing and justice powers from London into the hands of locally elected politicians is part of the St Andrews Agreement. It is not an optional extra; it is a British Government obligation.
The people are demanding a justice system that delivers for everyone in the North regardless of religious denomination or political affiliation. They are sick and tired of the revolving-door justice system that allows hoods and thugs back onto the street hours after being arrested. [Laughter.] Members may find that funny, but people in the North are very concerned about the judiciary and the kind of sentences that are being meted out.
It strikes me as odd, when one considers what has happened in our society, that some parties oppose a statutory framework being put in place as a result of the transfer of policing and justice powers to allow people access to a local Minister. That is crucial. I would like the SDLP to clarify — because I was a little confused about their contribution — whether it supports the Bill. I know that Dolores Kelly will speak on the debate, and I am sure that Alex Attwood will clarify the situation, because when the OFMDFM Committee dealt with the issue last Wednesday, the SDLP member voted with the rest of us. The only Committee members who did not vote for this crucial Bill were from the UUP, although I thought that they indicated this morning that they opposed the Bill. Therefore it would be extremely helpful if the SDLP provided clarification.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Perhaps the parties that oppose the Bill could explain to the rest of us how they intend to bring about the transfer of policing and justice powers. It is all very well criticising us on those matters, but it would be more relevant if those parties told us how they would seek to do that rather than just talk about it.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
Does the Member agree that more than just a two-party coalition should be talking about these issues and that all parties should be involved, that all parties should be aware of any deals that are on offer, and that if we had open and transparent discussions in this place, we might get somewhere?
Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin)
The Member should talk to his party leader about that. If he had been here earlier — [Interruption.] I would say to you that UUP members are on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and on the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which the Bill has been proceeding through. It is our role to scrutinise the Bill.
Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin)
I am sorry about that. The Member knows that there is UUP representation in the forums that I listed.
People have had enough. They have had enough of seeing death drivers walk free on bail, able to continue to attack our communities, whether that happens in the Shankill, the Falls, the Bogside or anywhere else. A lot of people are very sickened by the revolving-door sentencing policy of the type of judiciary that has been in place for a long time. Following the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Assembly, the statutory framework governing what constitutes a crime and what appropriate penalties should be put in place will become the responsibility of the Assembly’s justice Minister. Sexual offences, for example, could be dealt with more appropriately in that framework. That is what people in our society want.
We accept, without doubt, that there are issues that we still need to resolve, discuss and engage with each other on. We must use the time ahead to secure the consensus that is needed. The process is moving ahead. That is the reality, and I think that people will be very grateful for that. In common with many other things, the process will move on with or without the UUP or the SDLP. That will happen, regardless of whether they vote against the motion; however, as I said earlier, I was a bit confused by what happened in the OFMDFM Committee last week. Those parties now face a choice.
I was going to respond at the end of the debate. However, given that the Member has raised the matter for a second time, I must interrupt. I know that she is quite new to politics, especially legislative politics, and, therefore, perhaps does not quite understand Committee procedures. The procedures are simply that a Committee decides to vote in favour of consideration of a Bill, and it then votes in favour of consulting and taking evidence on that Bill. Voting in favour of a discussion of a Bill is very different from voting in the Assembly to reject a Bill.
If the Member cannot understand that difference, I refer her to the Committee on Procedures, to any of the Committee Clerks, or to anybody else in the Assembly who knows fully the difference between a vote in the Assembly and a procedural vote at a Committee to allow legislation to be considered. If the Member has not learned that much in two and a half years, that says a lot.
Peter Robinson (DUP)
It seems that even those who have been around for more than two and a half years do not quite understand the purpose of the debate. This is a Second Stage debate, which is the equivalent of a Second Reading debate in the House of Commons. The purpose of the debate is to consider the general principles of the Bill, not the details of the Bill, which can be amended at Committee Stage. The principles that we are dealing with is whether a Department of justice should be set up and whether a mechanism should be in place in to appoint a justice Minister. Those are the two principles of the Bill; the mechanisms can be dealt with, if necessary, by amendment at the Committee Stage. It is the Committee that has to deal with the detail; this debate deals with the principles. On the basis of what the SDLP said, I thought that it agreed with the principles of the Bill.
Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin)
I thank the First Minister for his intervention, and I agree with him. Those of us who sit on the OFMDFM Committee with the SDLP would have expected to hear opposition or concerns raised about the Department of Justice Bill. However, there was no utterance whatever from the SDLP.
Those parties opposing the Bill now face a choice. They can either continue to ignore the political reality or they can become involved in the process and play a constructive and meaningful role in building the sort of justice system that people are demanding and that they deserve. Go raibh míle maith agat.
Stephen Moutray (DUP)
I welcome the opportunity to speak during the Second Stage of the Department of Justice Bill. The devolution of policing and justice powers is a prevalent issue, and I welcome the fact that the Bill is before the House today.
The Department of Justice Bill puts in place the framework to progress towards the transfer of policing and justice powers. It goes without saying that policing and justice is one of the most important issues that our society faces. If devolved, we will have responsibility for several issues that we do not currently have responsibility for, many of which are of particular concern to people in our community.
At this stage, it is important to note that my party’s position on the devolution of policing and justice powers has been very clear. We, as a party, will insist that there be no devolution of policing and justice powers until all our conditions have been met, particularly on community confidence, Treasury financing and other issues. Although, owing to the complexity of its architecture and structure, massive issues have been overcome, the Bill will serve two purposes: first, it will allow, at some stage, for the creation of a Department of justice; and, secondly, it will make arrangements to enable the appointment of a justice Minister. However, both elements will not happen until the conditions laid out by my party have been met. Furthermore, I welcome the fact that the Bill in no way states a specific time frame for devolution. Its three clauses are a result of work carried out by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee and by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister.
The content of clause 1 is logical. If the conditions that the DUP has outlined are met, I will welcome the establishment of a Department of justice, which will be responsible mainly for the devolvement of policing and justice powers. Devolution is a long-term requirement, as it was for all the other Northern Ireland Departments.
I have heard others in the Chamber complain about an issue in clause 2, and, to be honest, their argument is flawed. Quite simply, the arrangements in the Bill for appointing a Minister of justice are clearly different from those used to appoint other Executive Ministers. I have heard much reference to the Belfast Agreement, which envisaged that all ministerial portfolios would be allocated under d’Hondt and that a cross-community vote would be used to elect the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Those Members who have complained must realise that what was negotiated as part of the Belfast Agreement was rewritten in the St Andrews Agreement, which ensured that the DUP had a veto over when devolution of policing and justice powers would take place. The party also ensured a veto over who the Minister would be, by virtue of the fact that the appointment of a justice Minister will require cross-community support.
On clause 3, some Members are obsessed with setting a date for the devolution of policing and justice powers. Again, my party’s view is that, for the institutions to succeed, it is essential that the financial resources be made available and that the public have confidence in how the institutions will operate. It is, therefore, important that the necessary safeguards be put in place to ensure that cross-community support exists. That is why our party leader has stated that he will seek discussions on the confidence issue with the leaders of all the parties in the House.
Finally, much work must be done on the issue, and it is not a case of setting dates. The Bill is an important element in the devolution process. However, it will not give effect to devolution. It will, in essence, pave a path for other essential legislation in the process towards the implementation of devolution. Our party believes that conditions need to be fulfilled before any devolution; the triple lock will inhibit that end until they are fulfilled. The Bill in no way expedites the process to devolve policing and justice powers but is merely one of several essential pieces of legislation that are needed to give effect to devolution.
It is my position, and that of my party, that devolution should be accompanied by adequate resources and community confidence. Today is a demonstration of how we are working in good faith towards that goal. I support the Bill’s being granted its Second Stage.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
I declare an interest as a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee.
Before I put these matters in context, it is worth pointing out that colleagues talked earlier about how important it is to devolve policing. However, policing has been devolved to the Assembly and to Northern Ireland since 2001; it has been here for eight years. We should remind ourselves that the Policing Board looks after the buildings, finance and personnel for policing in Northern Ireland, while the Chief Constable is independent and responsible for operational matters. That is all here and has been in place for eight years.
The Court Service is being turned into an agency before its responsibilities are devolved, and the judiciary is independent and makes its own rules according to United Kingdom-wide norms. Despite what Ms Anderson might wish, the thought that a justice Minister — from the Alliance Party or otherwise — would be able to interfere with the judicial system when policing and justice are devolved, is a serious proposal even from Sinn Féin.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
At no time did Martina Anderson, or anyone else, suggest that. The Member should reflect on what Martina Anderson actually said. Earlier, I made it clear that the twin pillars of the justice system were democratic accountability and the independence of the judiciary. That is the clear position of our members. With all due respect to Alan McFarland, what Martina Anderson was reflecting on was that, in the context of the transfer of powers, the Assembly and the wider public would have an opportunity to input into those matters; it was not that they would be able to take away from the independence of the judiciary.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
The Member has heard what he has heard; no doubt the Hansard report will reflect what I suggested.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I am not sure that I heard Ms Anderson’s point properly, but I think that I heard her talk about the sentencing of sex offenders and how the justice Minister would have an input into that. I wonder whether Mr McFarland finds that surprising, given the independence of the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland, which is the sentencing review body. In reference to Alex Maskey’s intervention, how can there be input without it affecting independence?
Alan McFarland (UUP)
My colleague has made good points; Members will be able to reflect on those issues in due course. I will move on.
The Minister, therefore, is left with making policy. As we know, the law can only be changed by bringing forward new legislation to the Assembly. In the end, the Assembly has a say in what the Minister can bring into law. The Bill paves the way for the devolution of policing and justice, but the key question, which my colleagues have referred to today, is whether we are ready. Are the Assembly and the Executive ready for the devolution of policing and justice? At the moment we have a DUP/Sinn Féin axis in the Executive that is not inclusive, despite what they say. Two parties in the Executive are left out of most decisions, and the DUP and Sinn Féin go into a huddle before Executive meetings to decide how they are going to operate. There is no consultation in the Executive.
Those of us who are members of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee know that when the time came to make moves, they were driven through by Sinn Féin and the DUP against the opposition of other parties here. However, such moves only happen when that axis can reach an agreement. Mostly, of course, the relationship is totally dysfunctional. We had over 150 days of paralysis. Just to refresh Member’s memories as to why that happened, the DUP would not do as it was told on policing, so Sinn Féin called the whole thing to a halt until November 2008, when the DUP agreed to do what it was told on policing. It was then that we had the famous Robinson/McGuinness letter.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
What other evidence does the Assembly need that this edifice that we have is unstable?
Let us examine those policing and justice issues that have been pushed through the Executive. The method of selection of the justice Minister is a corruption of a system that has stood us well since the formation of the Assembly. We may not like it, but it is our system. It is called d’Hondt, and under that system, each party gets a turn at choosing which ministry it wants and the party leader gets to choose how long that person stays in that job. The d’Hondt system stops other parties interfering with what is going on. It is a tried-and-tested method, and we mess around with it at our peril.
If we want to devolve policing and justice and create a new Department, we should use a system that works: we should run d’Hondt again. The justice Department will be very important, and colleagues made the point that some parties may want to choose that Department ahead of others.
Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin)
I remind the Member that his party supported the 1998 Act. He was not in the Chamber earlier when I quoted directly from section 17, subsections 4 and 5 of the 1998 Act, which state:
“(4) The number of Ministerial offices shall not exceed 10 or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order provide.
(5) A determination under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support.”
That is what the Member, and others, agreed to, and he should reflect on that. It was in the 1998 Act, and it is relevant.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
I pride myself on being fairly astute, but I am completely baffled as to what that was about. [Laughter.]
Alan McFarland (UUP)
An additional Department is being created. Logically, d’Hondt should be run again, and each party, according to its strength, will get to nominate to the Department that it wants. That is the standard system. We disagree with the SDLP: just because it is next in line to make a nomination under d’Hondt does not mean that the justice portfolio should be its for the asking. If we are to have this extra important Department, we should run d’Hondt again so that every party would have a choice.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
The choice of the honourable Member’s colleagues on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee was that the justice portfolio would be added on to the end since the SDLP was next in line to nominate. That was the SDLP’s position. Our position was that d’Hondt should be run again.
Earlier, we discussed why the DUP or Sinn Féin should or should not nominate to the justice Department; they made the right decision in not doing so. The logic is perfectly obvious: can you imagine a senior member of the IRA army council who had been serving life sentences in jail for murder and who was released under the Good Friday Agreement becoming our policing and justice Minister? Can you imagine the chaos that that would cause?
I know from discussions with Sinn Féin over the years that it views some DUP colleagues as having a similar ability to give impartial justice. I understand why those parties do not want to have that Department, but why should the Alliance Party have it? It appears that the Alliance Party is being chosen because the DUP and Sinn Féin want a tame Minister. We have no agreement on the links between the Minister, the Executive and the Assembly because the politburo is trying to concoct a system whereby it can wheel the tame Alliance Minister in for policing and justice matters and promptly wheel them out again when any important Executive business arises so that they do not interfere with the balance of power in the Executive.
I do not know how the Alliance Party feels, but it seems to be a slightly daft way of agreeing to operate, if that is what they have agreed to.
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
The Member talks of a huge conspiracy, but he should read the legislation. The Northern Ireland Act 2009 states that the Minister, irrespective of their party, will be a full member of the Executive — there will be no wheeling in or out. The issue was settled in Westminster legislation that was supported by the Conservative Party.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
The Member will find that that is not the conception that the politburo has. [Interruption.]
Alan McFarland (UUP)
However, let us dwell on the Alliance Party for a moment: so much for it being Her Majesty’s principled opposition. We have been hefted for two years by the Alliance Party as its being the only party of opposition. Purity is their call: they are the only people holding the entire Executive to account. How good it is that they are prepared to sacrifice themselves for the good of Ulster. What a decent thing to do; to sacrifice one’s principles for Ulster.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the 154-day logjam was broken by the Robinson/McGuinness letter of November 2008 that produced a detailed timescale. One of the things that struck me at that time about the letter was that it got round to discussing public confidence in a blurred way. Its bottom line on that point was that public confidence will exist when Peter and Martin decide it exists. On careful reading, that is what the letter means: public confidence will exist when the First Minister and the deputy First Minister decide it exists.
Simon Hamilton (DUP)
I have seen the timetable to which the Member refers. It is actually a list of 37 points or processes that need to be gone through. Will he enlighten me and the rest of the House by pointing out one exact date or time in that process paper? I am sure that he will not be able to, if previous experience is anything to go by.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
I cannot. [Interruption]. However, I can point out that several of the Member’s colleagues said that it would be an entire political lifetime or ten political lifetimes. [Interruption]. Barking, or what?
Basil McCrea (UUP)
Does the Member care to hazard a guess, in years, about how long a political lifetime might be?
Alan McFarland (UUP)
It will be interesting to see how long the elected lifetime of the DUP will be, given the current rise of the TUV.
I want to move to the outstanding issues. On finance, it looks as though we are getting somewhere. As many Members around the House have said, that is absolutely vital. If we do not get the finances right, we can pack up and go home. We also have a major issue that has not yet been highlighted over parades. There is no room for error. If we do not tie that issue down and get a set of rules with which we can all operate and with which we are all happy, there will be no point in having policing and justice. Every summer, the parading issue will rise up and bite whoever the Minister may be.
The third issue is a pet one of mine, the Eames/Bradley Consultative Group on the Past. My view is that we need to leave this back with the NIO to deal with and pay for. At the moment, although the NIO is keeping responsibility for inquiries, it is trying to move the Eames/Bradley work over with policing and justice. In my view, that would be an absolute disaster. Trying to deal with the past is something could haunt us for 50 years. We will have enough trouble in accepting policing and justice in its current form. If we accept the Eames/Bradley work into this House, we will never get policing and justice going in a sensible way.
The Ulster Unionist Party supports the devolution of policing and justice, but not yet. There is a lovely Civil Service axiom, “the doctrine of unripe time”, which, if one thinks about it, is quite clever. The time is not right for doing this.
Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin)
It is worth reminding the Member that on 21 October 2000, David Trimble, the Member’s former party colleague, or perhaps he still is the Member’s party colleague, said:
“I can think of nothing better to give everyone confidence, and to bind all the community behind law enforcement, than to see the central political policy direction of the criminal justice system – including policing – in the hands of Seamus Mallon and I, and our successors.”
I will leave that with the Member.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
I agree. We are keen for policing and justice powers to be devolved. Indeed, as has been mentioned, our party brought down the entire edifice over policing and justice. There is no point in accepting the proposals if the structure at the top is completely dysfunctional and wobbly and if every serious challenge, on every issue from education onwards, causes a complete furore. What chance do we have if we bring about the devolution of policing and justice now?
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Order. I have reminded Members a few times already that all remarks should be made through the Chair. Mr McFarland has the Floor.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
The proposals that are being put forward today would mean that Peter and Martin could sack the Alliance Minister the moment he or she does not do as he or she is told. The system for electing the Minister of justice will be down to the two largest parties in the House, and the system for removing that Minister will also be down to the two largest parties. The Minister of justice will be a puppet Minister, subject to the whims of Peter and Martin. The Minister of justice will be out as soon as he or she does not do as he or she is told. Imagine an Alliance Minister trying to stand up to the politburo here in a disagreement about parades or how to deal with the dissidents.
On ‘The Stephen Nolan Show’, on the radio this morning, Mr Alex Maskey said that it was dreadful that police were stopping people around the countryside. A member of the Policing Board is complaining about the police stopping people in their attempt to deal with the dissident threat. As justice Minister, what chance would “Lord” Farry or “Lord” Ford have of dealing with such issues on the Floor of the House if the two largest parties disagreed with their methods?
Stephen Farry (Alliance)
In his opening remarks, the Member made a great play of the importance of the operational independence of the police and the other agencies that are involved in taking decisions on the ground. Rather than contradicting himself, can he make up his mind on what point he is making?
Alan McFarland (UUP)
The point that I am making is that, at some stage, the justice Minister may wish to give advice on a policy decision to the Policing Board and the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable does not have to listen to him at all, but the justice Minister may wish to give advice.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
No; the Policing Board can give its views to the Chief Constable, but he may or may not listen. If the two largest parties disagree with the Alliance Minister’s view on a parading issue or how to deal with the dissidents, that Minister will get a thick ear and will be told to behave or be sacked.
Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin)
Does the Member recall 12 Ministers being sacked at the whim of one party on several occasions in the early 2000s?
Alan McFarland (UUP)
As the Member knows only too well, that happened because there was an understanding that his organisation would take certain measures, and, if those things were not done, my party was to stop the operation of the Assembly. His organisation did not do what was required of it, and we stopped the Assembly. [Interruption.]
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
I hope that Members will return to discussion of the Bill and address their remarks through the Chair.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
Earlier, Dr Farry wigged us about the Conservative Party’s views on the devolution of policing and justice. I remind the House of the words of the Conservative Party’s Northern Ireland spokesperson when the Bill was being discussed in March 2009. He said:
“We have therefore always supported the eventual devolution of criminal justice and policing, when the conditions were right and once the proposed model for devolution had the support of all communities.”
I am afraid that that sounds a bit like my party’s position; it is not different as Dr Farry claimed earlier.
I will draw my remarks to a close.
Alan McFarland (UUP)
No; I have been bobbing up and down, and my legs are getting sore. [Laughter.]
The Ulster Unionist Party is fully supportive of the devolution of policing and justice, but not until government is stable. We hope that that will be soon and that we will be able to get on with it. However, there is no point in bringing contentious issues to the House when we cannot even do the basics yet. We oppose the Bill.
David Ford (Alliance)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. Mr McFarland referred to “Lord Farry” and “Lord Ford”. He may be unaware of this, but, on two occasions, I told his former party leader that I was not interested in a peerage, which was being offered as a bribe.
The guarantees of equality, partnership and inclusion are benchmarks for the conduct of government in the North, and they were hard won. However, during the negotiations about the devolution of policing and justice powers, the DUP, with the consent of Sinn Féin, took bites out of those guarantees. By altering the selection method for the Ministry, Sinn Féin conceded that a nationalist cannot now be justice Minister. Its belated concerns for the SDLP are regarded as hypocrisy.
The SDLP has a right to have a second Minister at the Executive table. However, we will end up with another unionist Minister at that table, while the mandate of another party is ignored. Democratic rights get turned on their heads by the DUP on Sinn Féin’s watch.
Mr Campbell, Mr Moutray and others talked about how they support the devolution of policing and justice powers. Similar contributions were made by members of Sinn Féin and other parties. My party colleague Mr Alban Maginness said that we are very much alive to the needs of the community, and said that legislation is required. Indeed, legislation is required to address a number of issues, not least to allow the police to do their job more effectively and efficiently.
I was somewhat bemused by Martina Anderson’s contribution, because Sinn Féin now seems to have become the “lock them up and leave them” party. She talked about the revolving doors of justice, but she did not mention anything about a fair trial.
When I was a young girl, my grandmother told me to tell all the boys that I would marry them, but not to tell them when. [Laughter.]
I did not. It seems as though Mr Peter Robinson got similar advice, because he has been told to tell Sinn Féin that policing and justice powers will be devolved, but he will not say when. We still do not have a time frame for the devolution of those powers. The Bill is simply about creating a Department of justice and providing a method to appoint a Minister of justice, rather than electing one. That is all that is in the Bill.
What was all of last year about? What was the stalemate about? What is the paralysis and logjam at the heart of government about? The DUP says that it is a party of devolution. It has devolved powers, so where are the decisions that are needed daily and that matter to people in their everyday lives? Rather than taking decisions for the greater good, those decisions are held up by the mutual veto of the DUP and Sinn Féin, and their selfish party political interests. That is what is happening with all decisions and across all public services. [Interruption.]
Mr Simpson is one to shout across the Chamber. Other Members may be reticent about naming him, but I am not: it was Mr Simpson who said that the devolution of policing and justice powers would not happen in a political lifetime.
David Simpson (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. I want Mrs Kelly to confirm in writing where I said that, whether in this House or another House, because I did not say it. Had I said it, I would stand over it. The Member should prove that I said it.
David Simpson (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, if Mrs Kelly checks the House of Commons Hansard report, she will realise that I did not say that.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
I ask that Members return to the issue of the Bill. [Interruption.]
Order. Members should pay attention and speak through the Chair. Once again, I ask that Members return to the subject of the Bill.
I will happily return to the subject of the Bill. However, first I will try to allay Mr Simpson’s concerns. Had he listened carefully in the first place he would know that I did not say that he made that comment in the House. I said that I had heard it in the media. Does Mr Simpson now deny that his colleagues have made such a comment?
David Simpson (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. Will Mrs Kelly please make up her mind? First, I understood her to say that I made that comment, but she now attributes it to one of my colleagues. Will Mrs Kelly please confirm what she said?
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
That is not a point of order. I asked Mrs Kelly to return to the subject of the Bill.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Order. Mrs Kelly, I ask you to return to the Bill, because that is the subject of the debate.
You are delaying the process, Mr Campbell. Mr Robinson has a problem with getting all members of his party to agree on the devolution of policing of justice, regardless of what the community wants, says or needs. How many times have Members heard on the doorsteps that the devolution of policing and justice is a matter of concern? It is not; people want policing and justice powers to be devolved. However, they also want the Good Friday Agreement to be protected because they know that, time and time again, Sinn Féin has been hoodwinked by the DUP in negotiations at St Andrews and elsewhere.
John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin)
I assume that the last time that the Member was canvassing was for the European election, as a result of which the good people to whom she refers endorsed Sinn Féin. Where, therefore, did she hear that message?
The clue is in the title: it was a European election.
By referring to Sinn Féin’s inability to negotiate and its having been blindsided on a number of fronts by the DUP, I seem to have touched on a sore point for those sitting on that party’s Benches.
Peter Robinson (DUP)
The Member was getting a little excited; perhaps she has now calmed down a bit and may be able to take in what I am about to say. The Bill specifically does not contain a date for devolution; it is not required to do so because it is enabling legislation. Other legislation already exists that sets out the process under which devolution takes place. There is, therefore, no requirement on the deputy First Minister and me to encourage anyone to include a specific date in the Bill. That does not make the Bill “deficient”, as Mrs Kelly described it. The Bill is simply enabling legislation and has nothing to do with the date on which devolution will take place. The debate from that end of the Chamber, however, has concentrated solely on when devolution will happen. It is an enabling Bill, and Members should be addressing that aspect of it.
The First Minister may be used to speaking in a patronising tone to people in his party, but he will not refer to me in that tenor. He does not speak in that manner to Margaret Ritchie at meetings of the Executive; perhaps that is why the DUP does not want another SDLP Minister. [Interruption.]
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Order, please. I remind Members to make their remarks through the Chair, and I ask Mrs Kelly to return to the subject of the Bill.
A date is important to provide some surety. The fact that the date was also important to Sinn Féin resulted in a delay of four or five months and a suspension of the Assembly. Why should the date not be important? At this stage, why not have clarity by setting a time frame? Perhaps, in responding to the debate, the First Minister will inform the House of the date that he may have agreed last night with Gordon Brown and Sinn Féin. He did not, however, include the Ulster Unionist Party, the SDLP or the Alliance Party in those discussions. As Mr McFarland said, the so-called mandatory coalition is more of a “DUP/Sinn Féin axis”.
We are well used to Sinn Féin’s somersaults and cave-ins on a wide range of issues. However, we will have our voices heard and we will let the nationalist people know what Sinn Féin is doing on its watch. The SDLP will protect, and always has protected, the Good Friday Agreement. We will not be silent and turn a blind eye when vetoes are handed to the DUP, which has a record of not sharing power in any council in the North of Ireland.
Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the Bill and I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. The Bill will pave the way for the transfer of policing and justice powers. The fact that the Bill is before the House is further evidence of the agreements that have been reached in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.
There is support in the wider community for the transfer of powers. The public want to see the criminal justice system being made more accountable. The best way to do that is through locally elected representatives. Those arrangements are, of course, temporary. The process provides for a clause is a provision of a law which causes the law to (in effect)..." class="glossary">sunset clause to take effect in May 2012, by which time new arrangements are required to be in place for the continuation of the Department of justice.
Scotland has shown some initiative since having policing and justice powers devolved. The Scottish Government have led the way in introducing drugs courts, which are now being copied in other jurisdictions in Europe. Last year, a cross-party delegation from the Policing Board met the Minister with responsibility for policing and justice in Scotland, Kenny MacAskill. The benefits of having those powers devolved to locally accountable representatives are blatantly obvious, and were made blatantly obvious to those representatives who were on that trip.
Already, the four main parties work together on the Policing Board to hold the PSNI to account. We need policing and justice powers to be devolved to deal effectively and holistically with issues such as antisocial behaviour, death-driving, drug dealing, the PPS and sentence remission. Many victims of crime have suffered as a result of the serious flaws in the criminal justice system. As we are aware, hardly a week goes by when the issue is not mentioned on the news or through the media, which, in itself, highlights the extreme urgency of the problem. Victims will continue to suffer as a result of those shortcomings if the transfer of those powers continues to be put on the long finger.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Can the Member recall, and perhaps seek clarification from, a Member who may speak later for the Ulster Unionist Party? During an intervention, Alan McFarland referred to the position of the Conservative Party in the Westminster debate on the policing and justice transfer legislation. The Ulster Unionist Party should remind this House that the Conservative Party supported the legislation that was going through the British Parliament, despite the protestations from the Ulster Unionist Party. Which part of the Ulster Unionist Party, UCUNF or the Tory Party are those Members talking about today?
Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)
I thank the Member for his intervention. As other Members on this side of the House have done, he highlights all the holes in the arguments that the Ulster Unionist Party and others have put forward. All that we have heard today is a series of contradictions in relation to its position and its past positions. At the end of the day —
Basil McCrea (UUP)
We are quite prepared to engage in debate. In fact, the reason why we are doing this today is to let Members know that we have opinions — considered opinions. We are quite prepared to give answers to all the questions that Mr Maskey asked.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
We will, when the questions are put to our party. It seems a little incredible that you asked a member of your own party for an answer that he does not have. We will address —
Basil McCrea (UUP)
We will address those issues, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. It is important that all parties are involved in these issues. Rather than keeping itself in the dark, why does Sinn Féin not try talking to the rest of us?
Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)
The Member had the opportunity to answer the question, but he clearly did not have the ability to do so.
What we have seen today is a number of parties putting political opportunism and point-scoring ahead of the interests of the wider community. Ultimately, the community wants powers that relate to a wide array of policing and justice issues, including antisocial behaviour and drug dealing, which is a big concern in my constituency, to be devolved. People want those powers to be devolved because they want their communities to be made safer and they want to see crime reduced. That will not be achieved by the pathetic comments that have been made by Members at the other end of the House.
The Bill represents immense political progress, and the public wants to see it progressed because criminal justice is a major issue for all our communities. It is important that adequate finance is put in place to provide an effective community service, and I acknowledge the work being done to secure that funding by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in negotiations with the British Government.
In conclusion, I support the Bill. I encourage other parties in the House to put aside their own narrow political self-interest in the wider interests of the community, because the policing and justice issue must move forward. Therefore, I urge those parties to reconsider their very inconsiderate positions.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Questions to the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure will commence at 3.00 pm, so I propose that Members take their ease until that time.