Pensions Bill: Consideration Stage
Executive Committee Business
3:30 pm
Debate resumed on amendment Nos 5 and 6, which amendments were:
No 5: In clause 1, page 2, line 17, at end insert —
‘(8) This section shall be disregarded for the purposes of determining entitlement to Winter Fuel Payment in accordance with the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000.’ — [Mr A Maskey]
No 6: New Clause, after clause 1 insert —
‘Duty to report on the impact of health inequalities and occupation on the cost of pension provision for various occupational sectors of the population
1A. The Department for Social Department shall, within one year of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, lay a report before the Assembly on the differences in the cost of pension provision for various occupational sectors of the population arising from health inequalities, including the impact of occupation on life expectancy.’ — [Mr A Maskey]
Alex Easton (DUP)
Amendment No 5 refers to the increase in state pension retirement age, which is not connected in any way to the winter fuel payments currently payable to vulnerable groups in society. The Bill brings equality to the retirement age of men and women and increases the retirement age to 66 years by 2020.
Pensioners are just one of many vulnerable groups entitled to receive the winter fuel payment, but the amendment could cost the Northern Ireland Executive millions of pounds. I know that the Members opposite mean well, but can they give a clear indication of where the money would come from? In the last debate, we asked the SDLP where the money would come from, but they were not able to tell us. They referred to some policy document but could not even tell us what was in it. It would be helpful to know this.
Some 1,600 people who were born between 6 February 1954 and 5 April 1954 will, in fact, get their winter fuel payments a year earlier.
Amendment No 6 creates a new clause calling for the Department for Social Development to present a report once a year on:
“the impact of health inequalities and occupation on the cost of pension provision for various occupational sectors of the population”.
It creates an extra layer of bureaucracy, and there would be an associated cost with that. It is not clear that it is even possible to produce such a report within a year. I suggest that it would take several years, rather than one year, to produce such a report on the Bill’s impact on health inequalities.
Michael Copeland (UUP)
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation.
The first amendment is very close to my views and is worth making. However, I must place a caveat on that, which is the potential cost associated with it, referred to by Mr Easton. Again, I will wait until the Minister has answered.
I also seek guidance from the Minister on whether strict cash payments are always the best way of approaching fuel poverty. I know of cases in the past when, although the actions were well intentioned, they led to more than one payment going to the same house. Presumably, you can, in many respects, heat two or three people as effectively as you can heat one. Again, we are back to what the cost of the first of the two amendments would be. I guess, in some ways, that it may not be a simple argument about breaching parity, because I do not think that this would be a breach of parity. Albeit that it would go above and beyond parity, it would still have an associated cost and, in some ways, create the same difficulty.
I am curious about the Minister’s assessment of the actions that have been taken thus far to tackle fuel poverty. I welcome the event held by the Committee for Social Development, in which we all participated. That really brought the issue to the forefront, and, in fairness, the Minister did react. He brought forward a raft of measures, including double glazing. I seek an assessment of whether those measures have, at this stage, gone any distance towards achieving the goal of reducing, if not eliminating, fuel poverty.
On the first amendment, for us it is largely a question of whether it breaches parity. Does it go beyond parity? Does it test parity beyond the sensible bounds that we try to adhere to? What will the cost be? And the critical thing is this: what else might have to be given up to fund this, should it be taken up?
The last amendment is one that the Ulster Unionist Party is minded to support. It has often been said in the Department for Social Development that the journey from Sandy Row to Finaghy will cost you eight years of your life. There is something wrong in life expectancy, like educational achievement, being dictated at the date of a child’s birth by the postcode of its birth. We can never make society level and regular for everyone. We can never completely smooth out the differences in the lifestyle choices that people adopt. However, we need to be seen to at least make the effort to establish how those differences arise and how they can be addressed.
I have said that my constituency, which I am honoured and privileged to represent, has, side by side, some of the wealthiest and some of the poorest wards in the Province. It was formerly an industrial behemoth, with two of the largest shipyards in the world — both in Ballymacarrett in east Belfast — the largest aircraft factory and the largest ropeworks, all of which have gone. Work needs to be done to redress the damnable fact that to travel eight miles from Belfast city centre to the outskirts of the city costs a year of life expectancy for each of those miles.
As I said, we await comment from the Minister regarding the first amendment, but we are minded to accept the second.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Amendment No 5 is very welcome. Indeed, the SDLP continues to prioritise the elimination of fuel poverty in the North. The amendment would protect those who will face a delay in their pension from losing out on their winter fuel payment. It is embarrassing that the Pensions Bill should suggest that our elderly accept a delay in receiving the winter fuel payment in line with the increase in pension age. It is notable that many of our elderly already struggle to stretch what is, in some cases, the meagre amount of money that they get. Given the increase in the pension age and the delay that that could cause, many will simply be plunged further into poverty, where paying for fuel will not be an option.
I commend the Members who tabled the amendment, one that the SDLP has tirelessly advocated at every opportunity. That has been most evident in the Social Development Committee. I particularly commend our spokesperson, Mark Durkan, for his role in that.
Given that the elimination of fuel poverty is a priority for our party, for the Assembly and, importantly, for the Executive, as committed to in the Programme for Government, it would certainly be a contradiction for the Minister or the Executive to force more hardship on the largest societal group currently living in fuel poverty in this region. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)
I will be brief. Given that we have significantly less competition in the utilities market here, fuel costs are traditionally a lot higher. Therefore, we have a higher proportion of over-65s living in fuel poverty. One third of elderly clients here have to make a choice between heating and eating. Given the huge percentage increase in fuel prices since 2003, with prices looking likely to continue to rise for some time due to the investment required to replace an ageing infrastructure and the impact of high oil prices, we support the amendment. However, although winter fuel payments are of significant benefit to older people, they do not provide a long-term solution to fuel poverty. We believe that tackling energy efficiency in homes should be a key priority for the long term.
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
You mentioned the long-term strategy for fuel poverty. Do you not agree that the present Chair of the Committee for Social Development led the way by pulling together all the Departments and all the people and stakeholders who were involved in trying to work out the strategy that you are talking about?
Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)
As this is the last plenary sitting before we go off on our well-earned break, I will not disagree with the Member: I congratulate the Chairperson.
I support the amendment.
Peter Weir (DUP)
Despite the fact that this is our last day before the Easter recess, I will not quite join in the bonhomie and equanimity of the Member who spoke previously.
We oppose amendment Nos 5 and 6. Amendment No 5 is of greatest substance. We have already had the debate this morning about the equalisation of the pension age and the subsequent proposed rises in the state pension age. The winter fuel payment has, historically, been linked to the age at which a person becomes a pensioner; that is, when they are entitled to claim a state pension. For a number of years, that discriminated against men, with women qualifying at 60 and men at 65. That resulted in a challenge to the European Court of Justice under equality legislation, which, ironically, is the same legislation that we have to comply with for the equalisation of the pension age. Both men and women were then given the winter fuel payment at the lower pension age of 60. In my view, the winter fuel payment has always been and should always be a pensioner benefit. If the state pension age rises, it is only right that an individual’s access to pensioner benefits rises also. There is a clear linkage there.
There is no evidence that the amount of money that men or women spend on fuel in their home rises dramatically on their sixtieth birthday. It has tended to be the fact for women that, as their income falls, they move on to pensions from a working income, which then raises the percentage that has to be spent on fuel. With women working to 65 or 66, that drop in income is subsequently delayed, and, therefore, it is right and just that the help that the winter fuel payment provides is targeted at those who most need it: those who are on pensions. The winter fuel payment has always been linked to the state pension age. That linkage should not change simply because that age is rising.
Already, some pensioners are not able to receive the winter fuel payment at 60. I know of an incident where a man turned 60 on 9 December 2010 but was unable to claim the winter fuel payment until winter 2011. There will always be a cut-off point. Maintaining the link to the state pension age is the best way to maintain that cut-off. The need to protect the elderly has been mentioned, and we all share that view. To turn to someone who is 60 — there are Members in the Chamber who are 60 or are rapidly approaching 60 — and consider them as elderly in today’s society is —
We are not seeking to get into the age argument; we are seeking a fuel payment for people who are vulnerable. The vulnerability of people who have reached pension age is well established. However, I want to make one point. We could have a situation where someone may be eligible for a fuel payment one year and yet, through a quirk of the legislation, may not be eligible the subsequent year. That is a concern I have with the legislation. In other words, their entitlement is established already, but the following year they may be disentitled.
Peter Weir (DUP)
I take the Member’s point. However, if we are looking at the issue of vulnerability, at the moment this is an age-related situation and it has been linked in with the pension age. The reality is that there are some very elderly people who are not in any way vulnerable, yet they will receive the payment. Linking it to pension age seems to be a fairly sensible way to do it. We have to accept reality.
There is also the practical reality of cost. If we were to break the link with pension age — I look forward to confirmation on this from the Minister later — the impact of this amendment alone would cost the Northern Ireland Executive around £30 million. Any money spent is an opportunity cost elsewhere. With the best will in the world, the money would have to come out of other budgets. Would it come out of the hard-pressed health budget, education or a range of other things? This is a revenue budget; it would not be hit in capital terms. It would affect health, education or a range of those other issues. There is no way around that. If you spend £30 million of your block grant in one area, you cannot spend it elsewhere, and that would have severe consequences for a lot of people. We believe that the Bill that is going through, if used as a base to determine the pension age, would be very defensible on that basis. Consequently, although I am sure this is a well-intentioned amendment, it is, I believe, ill thought-through and will be extremely costly to the Executive and a range of other services. Dire consequences would arise from it.
I briefly turn to amendment No 6, which proposes a new clause. To be fair, I have a little more sympathy for the intentions of this amendment, but, again, I think it is slightly ill judged. It is right to have monitoring of and reporting on the situation, but I do not think that the amendment has been particularly well drafted. If we do a report within one year, we may find that there is very little data to base judgements on. A year is far too short a period in which to look at the long-term implications, and, in one year’s time, we could simply end up with a report that absorbs the time and energy of government officials to no purposeful effect. Although I understand the sympathy that various parts of the House have shown for the amendment, we have to think of the consequences of our actions. If we simply produce a report for the sake of it, it will not do any good. If we produce a report that leads to proper monitoring of the situation, that is a different matter, but I do not believe that the time frames that have been put forward are in any way long enough to provide that level of judgement.
There are long-standing systemic issues, as Mr Copeland mentioned. The differences between some of our poorer areas and our more affluent areas have a major impact, but this will not be determined on a snapshot. Mr Copeland referred to the situation in East Belfast, and I think all of us can pick out similar situations in our own constituency. We know of great disparities in our society between more affluent areas and those that are poorer.
Michael Copeland (UUP)
Do you agree that the basic tenet behind the amendment is quite sound? If we can agree on that and accept that a year is not a sufficient or appropriate length of time to tie ourselves to at this stage, could we perhaps return to it at Further Consideration Stage with a timescale that is doable?
Peter Weir (DUP)
The sensible route, therefore, would be for the House to reject the amendment today. If it is rejected today, there is an opportunity for something of a slightly different nature to be brought back at Further Consideration Stage. I have no doubt that those who tabled the amendments were well intentioned, but, to use the old expression, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Although I do not expect that this will quite take us down that route, it is certainly not something that I think will be of benefit to the legislation. It needs to be looked at, and, if the House does not accept it today, the Department could seek a better formula for a more meaningful way of monitoring. There is no point in saying that we can produce a glossy report in a year’s time —
Peter Weir (DUP)
I will give way in a second.
There is no point in saying that we can produce a glossy report in a year’s time if the data is not substantial in nature and we cannot draw proper conclusions from it.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
I thank the Member for giving way and for giving particular attention to this amendment and accepting the bona fides of it. We suggested the report could be done within a year because we are not looking for a long-term exercise; we are looking for a collation of data that is currently in existence. We do not think it is at all difficult to produce such a report within a year. However, that can be tweaked in due course. I advocate that the Assembly adopts the amendment, which can be tweaked, if needs be, at Further Consideration Stage, after further discussions with the Department.
Peter Weir (DUP)
I suggest that the amendment is either withdrawn or, indeed, not moved at this stage. I would have thought that we could reach consensus on something that provides meaningful analysis. It is not just about collecting current data; it is about looking at the impact in a wider context and at where we are going with all of this. Simply producing something in a year’s time will not produce something meaningful. If that amendment is not accepted today, something meaningful could be tabled at Further Consideration Stage around which the whole House could unite.
Obviously, I have strong reservations about amendment No 5 because of the impact that it would have on the Northern Ireland block grant. Due to practicalities, I oppose amendment No 6. I urge the House to oppose both amendments.
Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin)
I rise to support amendment Nos 5 and 6. In deference to the previous speaker, I will try to avoid any bonhomie.
As my colleague Alex Maskey said, amendment No 5 is a straightforward amendment that would protect the older people who are already identified as the most vulnerable to fuel poverty and whose status as pensioners will be delayed by changes to the state pension age. Already, 23% of pensioners live in poverty, a figure that is much higher than that for anywhere else in Britain. The increase in the pension age will mean that many of our most vulnerable older people will, because of ill health or the rigorous demands of the labour market, be left dependent on less generous unemployment benefit, when, prior to the changes, they would have been entitled, as pensioners, to greater support.
It is reasonable to suppose that those who are identified as vulnerable to fuel poverty and are in receipt of the more generous state pension will continue to be in fuel poverty when they are reclassified as unemployed and are in receipt of a less generous benefit. We should not forget that, as has already been mentioned, in the past year, 756 older people in our community died from cold-related illnesses. Many of them could not afford to heat their house. That is an appalling statistic, and we should not forget it.
I will move on to amendment No 6. The Bill is very much built on the notion that increasing the pension age is reasonable because a rise in average life expectancy means that we all live longer. Mr Copeland mentioned that he had come into contact with three children in his constituency, at least one of whom could expect to live to 100 years old. I must say that it is gratifying to know that, if you come into contact with Mr Copeland, it can put years on you. [Laughter.] That is possibly a different matter.
There is a blatant misrepresentation of the reality that lies behind the statistics. It ignores persistent health inequalities that prevail in certain disadvantaged groups. Conditions here in the North differ significantly from those in Britain, particularly in the wealthier, more privileged south of England, where experience continues to dominate social policy proposals and advances that are applicable everywhere. One of the most glaring anomalies has to be life expectancy. The greatest improvement in life expectancy is in the south of England, particularly in London, with some of the wealthiest boroughs — Kensington and Chelsea — enjoying the greatest improvement in average life expectancy, even if they have not got the best football teams. The North of Ireland is among the areas that suffer the worst average life expectancy. A recent report that was highlighted in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ revealed that men who live in Belfast city centre can expect to die 10 years earlier than those who live in south Belfast. The example was given that, if you get on the bus in Donegall Square and go to Finaghy, you will live longer. Obviously, after having read that report, a lot of people are moving to Finaghy. Women who live in the city centre can also expect to die six years earlier.
Those are shocking levels of health inequality between regions and even within relatively small geographical areas. They expose the inadequacy of using an average rise in life expectancy to determine policy. Recent statistics have revealed that the gap between the average life expectancy of the rich and the poor is widening, not narrowing. By the same token, those who are most likely to enjoy the greatest longevity are less prone to suffer the chronic ageing conditions associated with more disadvantaged groups.
The operation of parity continues to thwart the Assembly’s ability to craft social policy to properly address the needs of people who actually live here. British Tories are keen to promote regional differences when it comes to proposing cuts but are less keen to recognise such differentials when it comes to addressing greater need. Conducting a study and laying its findings before the Assembly is a small undertaking, but it is not insignificant. If conducted with due diligence, it would reveal the reality of life expectancy and the patterns of health inequality in the North, providing vital information on which the Assembly could craft its own social policy intervention. I urge the Assembly to support the amendments. It is interesting to note from all we heard here today that, instead of celebrating the fact that people live longer, we are talking about penalising them.
Michael Copeland (UUP)
If I am following your thought processes, Minister, you are, to a degree, agreeing that the piece of work is worth doing, but saying that the time frame is somewhat constrained. Would you be minded to acquiesce when the Bill comes to Further Consideration Stage and give some indication as to the sort of time frame that may be necessary and the results that could be achieved after some further consideration?
Nelson McCausland (DUP)
I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes; a longer reporting period would be of much better statistical value, and would, hopefully, get for us a better picture. I am happy to take that suggestion that we bring the proposal back at Further Consideration Stage, with a longer reporting period than one year, as was stated in the amendment.
I will conclude with some comments on life expectancy. Over that period of four years between 2004 and 2006 and 2008 and 2010, the life expectancy for a man aged 65 in Northern Ireland rose from 16·7 years to 17·4 years. There was an increase of 0·7 years — just over six months —
Fra McCann (Sinn Féin)
I will be brief. I understand that statistics work in many ways for many different people, but there are areas in the North — Mickey used the Finaghy analogy — and areas in Belfast that do not reach those standards, where health and life expectancy are poor. When we talk about trying to deal with those issues, those are the people we are talking about. NISRA provides annual or biannual statistical data that allows us to tap into a rich source of information.
Nelson McCausland (DUP)
There are two points there. I will deal with the reference to life expectancy first. Yes, there is a variation from place to place in Northern Ireland, just as there is a variation from region to region in Great Britain. It is the same in England, Scotland and Wales; it is the case in every country that there are variations. We could get more detailed information about particular areas or the demographic profile of life expectancy.
Nevertheless, over that period of just four years, there was an increase of 0·7 years in life expectancy — average life expectancy, admittedly. That suggests that some people who might not have lived as long will live longer. They are average figures because you cannot deal with any figures other than average figures in this regard.
He made a point about the information that is available from the Northern Ireland Research and Statistics Agency (NISRA). Undoubtedly, there is a lot of information available from NISRA, but there are other areas of information that would make this piece of work much more informative and valuable, and it is worth taking up the proposal that we bring this back at Further Consideration Stage to see exactly what would be a reasonable timescale to get the best value out of the work. There is no point in doing it just for the sake of it. Let us ensure that whatever is done gets for us the best outcome and the best value. Projections indicate that the upward trend in the average lifespan is set to continue. Between 2010 and 2025, the number of people in Northern Ireland who are aged 65 or over is projected to increase by over 40%. To try to take into account differences in life expectancy by varying the state pension age for regions, socioeconomic groups or occupations would the make the system very complex and difficult or impossible to administer.
I urge Members to reject amendment No 1 and to agree that we bring amendment No 2 back at Further Consideration Stage after further consideration has indeed been given to it. Amendment No 1, if accepted, would, clearly, breach parity and have serious funding implications. Amendment No 2, if accepted, would be resource intensive and, in its current form, the proposal would be unlikely to effect any meaningful changes or produce any really significant information. Therefore, I commend that we bring it back at Further Consideration Stage, having given it some more thought.
Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will seek to keep this very brief, because I do not intend to rehearse all of the points and arguments that were made by a variety of Members. First, I will refocus on amendment No 5. As I said earlier, and as other Members revisited, the purpose of the amendment is to alleviate the difficulties that many of our older citizens, in particular, will suffer as a result of the increase in the pensionable age — both, for women, from 60 to 65, and, everyone having been equalised, first to 66 and upwards to 67 and 68 in due course.
There is a clear body of compelling evidence that tells us that a number of our citizens, particularly senior citizens, are very vulnerable to fuel poverty. Therefore, there has been a requirement for this type of support in the past, and, indeed, up to now. The increasing of the pensionable age is, primarily, a cost-saving exercise by the British Government. That may well be reasonable and all the rest of it to some people, but, nevertheless, there are negative consequences to that, and this is one of the negative consequences. As I said earlier, a lot of evidence tells us that, in increasing numbers, people are suffering and will suffer as a result of this provision in the Bill. I accept that there is an argument around parity and that, of course, there will be a price tag to this.
I draw attention to the Minister’s comments, and he is the lead Minister in the Executive on the question of fuel poverty. It is clear that, if a cogent and sustained fuel poverty strategy were embarked upon with a proper implementation plan and appropriate levels of investment, surely, in the longer run, we would make people less dependent on fuel poverty support, because we would have been systemically reducing the problem of fuel poverty. The Minister outlined a number of the measures that would be required to do that. If, in the time ahead, you were to invest in measures to mitigate fuel poverty, you would not necessarily eradicate the problem but you would certainly reduce it considerably, thereby making people less reliant on fuel poverty support. It is not necessarily logical at all to say that, by allowing people to receive fuel poverty payments which are not connected and directly linked to the pensionable age, you will be paying them in perpetuity, because, at any given time in the future, it is up to us to say that we have significantly tackled the problem of fuel poverty so we can discontinue the payment. I do not think that an endless pit of money would be required to be paid out.
I stress that the issue of parity, particularly on an issue such as this, has not been properly and robustly challenged enough in our view, and that is why we want to continue to press ahead with the amendment. There is compelling evidence to support the amendment, and we think that it is worth challenging the Government directly on that issue. That is the primary purpose behind the amendment.
I will move on to amendment No 6. I have heard Members across the Chamber, including the Minister, suggest that the Minister or his Department would be open to a discussion on this, and, if that is the case — the Minister repeated that in his closing remarks — I and my party are prepared to withdraw the amendment for today so that we can have a reasonable and rational discussion with the Department and the Minister to ensure that we have a further amendment at Further Consideration Stage. At an appropriate point, we will table a further amendment, which hopefully, we can agree on.
The essence of the amendment is to say that the upward increase in the age of eligibility for state pension is an arbitrary figure, and I have no confidence that the British Government will not continue to move the goalposts. That being said, the measures are simply to address, not so much the issue of greater longevity, but the sustainability or cost of running a pension scheme. I do not ignore the difficulties with that, but, nevertheless, the measures do not in any way take into consideration the health profile of the population. Therefore, amendment No 6 was primarily designed to say that we hear all that the Government have been saying but none of it is linked to people’s health profile and their ability to continue working at an older age. We want an amendment to be accepted and passed by the House and accepted by the Department so that we can have a proper, meaningful debate in due course on the basis of proper and up-to-date data.
The Minister has said — I appreciate him doing so and taking this on board during the debate — that we can have a discussion on an appropriate amendment that allows us do precisely that, and, if that is the case, whatever about the time frame, we will be happy to withdraw the amendment this afternoon so that we can have that discussion and, hopefully, come back with an agreed position. Failing that, I have to say for the record that we would resubmit our amendment to the House at a later stage.
Question put, That amendment No 5 be made.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 34; Noes 45.
AYES
Mr Agnew, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Byrne, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Dickson, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lynch, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Mr McElduff, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Mr Ó hOisín, Ms S Ramsey, Mr Sheehan.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brady and Mr F McCann.
NOES
Mr Allister, Mr S Anderson, Ms P Bradley, Ms Pam Brown, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Copeland, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mrs Dobson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Hussey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Miss M McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells.
Tellers for the Noes: Ms Pam Brown and Mr Easton.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes 30.
AYES
Mr Allister, Mr S Anderson, Ms P Bradley, Ms Pam Brown, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Copeland, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mrs Dobson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Hussey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Miss M McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells.
Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Pam Brown and Mr Easton.
NOES
Mr Agnew, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Byrne, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr Lynch, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McElduff, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Mr Ó hOisín, Ms S Ramsey, Mr Sheehan.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brady and Mr F McCann.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause
Amendment No 6 not moved.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 26 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 31 to 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 (Equalisation of and increase in pensionable age for men and women: consequential amendments)
Amendment No 7 not moved.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Pensions Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I ask Members to take their ease for a few minutes, please.
(Mr Principal speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 45 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes in which to propose the motion and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes.
Before we begin, I want to say to the whole House that I am conscious that the motion refers to matters that have already been before the courts and on which judgement has been given. However, the Speaker cannot be expected to know what other cases of a similar nature may come before the courts in the future. I therefore caution Members to be very careful in everything that they say today to avoid the risk of prejudicing any such proceedings. I hope that that is clear.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
I beg to move
That this Assembly registers its concerns in relation to the quality and reliability of evidence provided by assisting offenders under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, as witnessed in the recent supergrass trial, and the subsequent undermining of confidence in the administration of justice; believes that it is essential that the criminal justice system operates in a transparent manner which respects the rights and entitlements of all citizens and engenders maximum public confidence in our policing and justice systems; and calls on the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General to use their powers to call for an immediate review of the operation of the legislation.
Before I open the debate, I am very conscious of the English family, who were directly affected by the recent trial and, indeed, of other families who have lost loved ones and may also be affected by what is said in today’s debate. I ask all Members, including myself, to be conscious of that when speaking in the debate. In the first instance, all those families are entitled to justice and truth, and some of them have been waiting a very long time to get it.
Today’s debate is about highlighting the serious concerns that some of us have about justice and the delivery of justice, which is the bedrock on which any democratic society is built. There is a responsibility for the police, the prosecution service and the judiciary to deliver justice to those who need it. When it comes to delivering justice, there can be no half measures or short cuts. We must all be satisfied that those who are at the heart of the justice system are working impartially and have confidence that the criminal justice system has been transformed in the way set out by the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement.
Our party is opposed to the use of supergrass evidence. We opposed it in the 1980s and oppose it today because there are insufficient safeguards in the legislation. There is a fear that supergrass trials will be used to cover the role of police agents and their Special Branch handlers, and public confidence in the judicial system will be diminished if it becomes clear that a cover-up is taking place in any case brought before the courts. That has also been reflected in other cases, and I want to mention briefly the murders of David McIlwaine and Andrew Robb, whose families still believe that the legislation was used to cover up and conceal the identities of those who were involved in their murders. That cannot work, and it will corrupt and contaminate the new dispensation in policing and justice to which we have all signed up and to which we all aspire.
Justice has to be the product of careful, painstaking, deliberate and probing investigation by the appropriate agencies: the police, the prosecution service and the judiciary. All those agencies exist on a lifeline of support from the public, which arises from a contract of obligation and an affirmation of approval — an endorsement between the people and the justice system.
The use of supergrass testimony fatally undermines the pursuit and delivery of justice, as it depends and revolves around people looking out for themselves. In this recent case, it was said by the trial judge, and consequently by others, that the assisting witnesses were of bad character and yet were deemed as witnesses of truth for the prosecution. The fact is that their evidence centres on their immunity from sentencing and not some road to Damascus conversion whereby their consciences made them come forward. That involves a deal for a shorter time in prison, which leads people to lie. Those lies are then carried by the police and passed on to the prosecution service, which then passes them on to a judge, thus undermining any kind of public confidence in the whole judicial process.
That was very obvious during the 1980s, when hundreds of people were put in prison on the basis of supergrass testimony. What was not so obvious then was where the lie began, how directly involved the police and the prosecution service were, and how much the judge knew about the origins and authors of the lie. Those questions were never satisfactorily answered. The likelihood is that we will never be able to get them answered fully. What we do know is that the police, the prosecution service and the judiciary were badly damaged in the public’s mind by the use of supergrass testimony back then. My party wonders why anyone would want to bring us back to those times of controversy and public doubt about the whole justice system.
We need to look at how the system has been tainted. We also have to understand that, in the North of Ireland today, there are Diplock courts with one judge and no jury. We also have to look at that. The legislation states that there is no clear procedure to address what happens to accomplices when they knowingly tell lies. We have seen that in the past number of weeks.
Today, we ask the Minister to bring forward a review of the legislation. There is a new era that requires all agencies to reflect the change. That is especially true of the police, the Public Prosecution Service and the judiciary.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I am struck by the fact that the Member has talked here, on a number of occasions, about the new dispensation that we have moved into and how she is concerned lest the new dispensation become tainted. Does the Member agree with me that there is more moving on to be done by those whom she and her party claim to represent? We have the continual running sore of the disappeared. Those people and their families are also entitled to justice. The Member may speak about this later. I may have pre-empted her, and I hope that I have not. However, I ask her to tell us, in a clear and stark manner, how she proposes to deal with that issue, which is a running sore for those families who have had to suffer so much. Will she address that issue in her comments today?
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
I say to the Member very clearly that those families are entitled to justice and truth. I have no problem saying that very clearly.
It has already been accepted, even by the Minister, that this case has dented public confidence. Therefore, I ask every Member in the Chamber to support the motion.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I beg to move the amendment No 1: Leave out all after ‘offenders’ and insert
‘in the recent trial which used evidence under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the subsequent undermining of confidence in the administration of justice; recognises that assisting offenders can be a powerful tool in the fight against serious and organised crime; believes that it is essential that the criminal justice system operates in a transparent manner which respects the rights and entitlements of all citizens, protects the public against criminals and engenders maximum public confidence in our policing and justice systems; and calls on the Minister of Justice to ensure that there are positive working relationships between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service in the operation of the legislation and that adequate accountability measures are in place.’
In proposing amendment No 1, I will detail the concerns that I have with the main motion and amendment No 2. I appeal to my colleagues in the SDLP on an issue that I tried to discuss with Alban Maginness at the Justice Committee. The issue with the main motion is the use of the word “supergrass”. That is a pejorative term that brings us back to the 1980s. This is not the 1980s: we are 30 or 40 years on.
What is a society entitled to expect from a judicial system? It is that bad people go to prison. We must find whoever is responsible for the crimes that were committed. There were 25 new murder inquiries conducted. No one was found guilty of the crimes, but those people were killed. Surely we ought to get a frame of justice that tries to find some sort of satisfaction in the law for that purpose. When Members propose this as some sort of catch-all in respect of supergrass trials, it seems to me to deny the vast majority of the public the basic support and help that they should expect under the law.
Where you have serious organised criminals who use sophisticated techniques to avoid detection and prosecution, then surely if you can get evidence from one of their own — an accomplice — that evidence should be used to put those criminals behind bars if at all possible.
Some complaints were made about this particular case as a lot of money was spent. It was certainly very high profile, and, ultimately, there were no prosecutions. The question comes up: should the case have been brought in the first place? Well, all parties, apart from Alliance, were represented on the Policing Board, and they will be aware of the reasons for setting up the independent panel. It was a live criminal case, and there were certain areas of confidentiality that could not be explained then and which I do not choose to explain now. However, as chair of the Policing Board’s Human Rights Committee, I will say that —
Jonathan Craig (DUP)
I question how much information the Member can actually give on this. There were certain privileged circumstances under which some of this was discussed at the Policing Board, and I ask the Member to bear that in mind. I also ask him to bear in mind that a Member from this party vigorously opposed some of the recommendations that were made to the Policing Board.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I thank the Member for his intervention. I was in the process of explaining that there are things that cannot be said because of confidentiality. Nevertheless, it is worth stating that the European legislation — specifically article 2(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights — talks about how you investigate situations where the state is accused of being involved in murder. I will say to you, if you understand the point, that the police have the legal right to take life. It is a really strange undertaking, but that is a legal right in certain circumstances. However, if they do take life, you have to have an independent inquiry.
We have talked in the past about the whole issue of independence. Mr Craig might be interested to know that when we talked about the independent panel being set up, it was not to do with this case; it was to do with the Stephen Lawrence case. In the past, there was absolute agreement that the family of those involved should be kept informed about proceedings. Therefore, there was precedent for why it was done. The Policing Board took other steps to ensure that it had oversight of what was going on, but confidentiality does not permit me to say what those steps were.
People are calling for an open and transparent process, but actually that process took place, and all parties should be aware of that. Although the Alliance Party has no members on the Policing Board, I presume that the Justice Minister and the Alliance Party will also be familiar with that.
I have to say to the people who brought this motion forward that I am surprised that they have issues with the concept of using evidence, where evidence is found to be satisfactory, to put bad people behind bars. In essence, that must be a good thing. In certain specific cases, a judge or court will look at evidence and say that it is not admissible or that they do not accept the veracity of the witnesses, or whatever. A number of cases have happened in other jurisdictions similar to this one where that has been found to be the case. However, that surely proves the point that the judicial system actually works. Even though there is a case to be made and a case to be answered, you are able to say that in a certain case, it was found to be wanting.
I will put on record what I know. In the Hansard report of evidence from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) to the Justice Committee, Mr McGrory stated that there was some justification for bringing the case, because, even at the halfway stage, the judge said that there was still a case to answer. That justifies the position that the PPS took.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
Is it not the case that the test for prosecution is not whether there is a prima facie case — a case to answer — but whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction, which is informed by an examination of the evidence, including the evidence’s credibility? Therefore, when the director said on public radio that it was right to bring this case, because there was a prima facie case, he was not, in fact, reflecting the proper legal test, which is this: is there a realistic prospect of conviction? Had that test been applied, given the inherent and known flaws in the brothers’ evidence, it is a prosecution that would perhaps not otherwise have been brought.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
Loath as I am to cross swords on a point of law with the Member to my right, I will quote from the Hansard report of the Committee meeting. Mr McGrory said:
“There is a reasonable argument that the evidential test was met.”
That is what he says is his test. He continued:
“Indeed, in his evaluation of the evidence after cross-examination by 12 QCs over a protracted period of weeks, the trial judge took the view that he could still convict and that there was a credible basis on which there could be convictions at that stage and so did not stop the case at what we call the halfway stage.”
All that I can say is that it is a point of law that goes back and forward. There is an evidential test; there is a public interest test; there is a judicial review; there is a system in place. Whatever the outcome of that, I think that the system works.
Time is pressing on, but I will say in this argument that I am not happy with a motion that tries to put all so-called supergrass trials in the same league. There is an issue with bad people —
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I am sorry, but I do not have the time. There are situations in which bad people are in organised criminal gangs, which are incredibly destructive to society. When we get evidence from people who are accomplices, it should be pursued. They should be brought before the courts of justice, and the courts will decide the appropriate way of dealing with the matter.
I come now to amendment No 2. Although I have a certain sympathy with the reason that the DUP tabled it, there are certain issues to do with the independent oversight panel, and I have explained that to DUP Members. When you look at the Stephen Lawrence arrangements and various other things, you will see that, in principle, it is right and proper that you adhere to the legislation as laid out in the Human Rights Act. I look at that and say that the DUP’s amendment goes too far. The basic principle that we are arguing for here is —
Basil McCrea (UUP)
Amendment No 1 makes the best of a difficult situation, and I genuinely ask Members present to vote for amendment No 1 as the right way forward.
Paul Givan (DUP)
I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “2005” and insert
“in the Tommy English murder trial and the subsequent undermining of confidence in the administration of justice; believes that it is essential that the criminal justice system operates in a transparent manner which respects the rights and entitlements of all citizens and engenders maximum public confidence in our policing and justice systems; and calls on the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General to use their powers to call for an immediate review of the operational decisions taken in the aforementioned murder trial and the role of the independent oversight panel in the police investigation.”
The difficulty that we have with the motion is that it puts a question mark against the very principle of using accomplice evidence to secure a conviction, which is a principle that has been long established. Justice Gillen cited in his judgement the comments made by the court in the Blackburn case of 2007. I support those comments, and I think it beneficial to repeat them. In that case, the court said:
“There never has been, and never will be, much enthusiasm about a process by which criminals receive lower sentences than they otherwise deserve because they have informed on or given evidence against those who participated in the same or linked crimes, or in relation to crimes in which they had no personal involvement, but about which they have provided useful information to the investigating authorities. However, like the process which provides for a reduced sentence following a guilty plea, this is a longstanding and entirely pragmatic convention. The stark reality is that without it major criminals who should be convicted and sentenced for offences of the most seriousness might, and in many cases, certainly would escape justice … The solitary incentive to encourage co-operation is provided by a reduced sentence, and the common law, and now statute, have accepted that this is a price worth paying to achieve the overwhelming and recurring public interest that major criminals, in particular, should be caught and prosecuted to conviction.”
We support what the Ulster Unionist Party has put forward in its amendment, but we believe that our amendment goes further and addresses the very serious issue of the role that the independent oversight panel had and continues to have in the police investigation associated with Operation Stafford, which included the Tommy English murder trial, and I will elaborate on that shortly.
The need for a review of the work of the Historical Enquiries Team and the Public Prosecution Service in the case of the Tommy English murder trial is clear when you consider the judgement made by Justice Gillen in respect of the credibility of the Stewart brothers, who were relied upon to provide the key evidence in this case. He said:
“both Stewarts in the past at least were ruthless criminals, unflinching terrorists and men of profoundly bad character conducting their lives very often in a haze of alcoholic stupor and illegal drug abuse. Their lives were chaotic and devoid of normal moral scruples. They lived in a place where powerful criminals, such as themselves, were subject to few or no rules, where the voice of civilised reason was silenced and where it was difficult for the innocent to complain. Their admissions in 2008 to a plethora of criminal offences committed over a lengthy period of time presented an overpowering and piercing image of unspeakable random violence and mean spirited deceit from which decent men and women would instantly recoil and which even for the court made wincing listening. … My concern was that despite their assertions of change and professed commitment to do the right thing, these were the same men merely wearing new suits.”
Justice Gillen also said that:
“The supportive evidence relied on by the prosecution has fallen far short of repairing these defects”
in the Stewart brothers’ evidence.
The question that must be asked is this: why, after 330 interviews, during which the brothers also lied, was the decision made to take the case to trial? That decision resulted in a failure to secure convictions through accomplice evidence, allowed the Stewart brothers to receive a minimal sentence when they should have been given a severe sentence, cost the taxpayer millions of pounds and damaged public confidence in the administration of justice. Indeed, figures have come to light today that show that, so far, almost £6 million has been spent on this case, and that is before the fees for barristers and solicitors claimed through legal aid are added to the total cost, which could add a further £5 million to £6 million to the final bill, doubling the current amount.
An issue that needs to be resolved is the process for reviewing the sentences given to those who have turned Queen’s evidence but who subsequently fail to tell the truth and who, as in this case, are found to be liars. Alarmingly, the Director of Public Prosecutions has admitted that the SOCPA legislation is silent on that matter, which further damages confidence as it can only give rise to the view that individuals can become assisting offenders and have a reduced sentence without any consequences if they fail to tell the truth. In cases of this nature, when the testimony that will be relied on is from individuals who, by the very fact that they are accomplices, will be of bad character — in this case, they were of profoundly bad character — a higher test must be met by the Public Prosecution Service before deciding to prosecute.
I turn to the serious questions that need to be answered with regard to the role of the independent oversight panel in the police investigation of this case and those associated with Operation Stafford. At the Justice Committee, the Minister and his officials confirmed that an independent oversight panel for the police investigation entitled Operation Stafford, which included this case, is in existence. Subsequently, in the House of Commons, the membership of the panel has been confirmed to consist of Baroness Nuala O’Loan and Richard Harvey, a London barrister. In response to a question from Ian Paisley Jnr, Mr Hugo Swire MP revealed that the panel was established in November 2010 to receive regular and comprehensive briefings on the progress of the PSNI’s Operation Stafford.
My concern emanates from the fact that Operation Stafford stems from the Police Ombudsman’s report on Operation Ballast, which caused huge controversy at the time of its publication in 2007. The report was rejected by the Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers’ Association, which issued a rebuttal of the statement made by the ombudsman, including a particular response to the allegation of collusion:
“The misuse of the word ‘collusion’, without any legal anchorage, has led to it being used as a political catchphrase. As a result, police officers who have served their country and community with integrity and bravery have been vilified in the court of public opinion. On every single occasion where the word ‘collusion’ appears in the Statement, the ‘finding’ is entirely groundless.”
My suspicions have also been heightened following the BBC ‘Spotlight’ programme. Someone who contributed said that criminal prosecutions are needed against those who handled agents either in the police, intelligence agencies or the army. Jennifer McCann earlier alluded to the real agenda for those in the republican community; namely, attacking the Royal Ulster Constabulary, particularly those who served in Special Branch.
Given the context around Operation Stafford, which stemmed from Operation Ballast, I think it is understandable that questions about the independence of this oversight panel have been raised. We need to know its terms of reference, the process that was used to appoint members, the remit of the panel and what recommendations or observations it has made and to whom in respect of the police investigations.
Paul Givan (DUP)
The issue of having some type of oversight of a police investigation is not unheard of; the issue, though, is the nature of its independence. Operation Ballast was penned by the Police Ombudsman who now sits on the oversight panel of the police investigation. That has rightly led to questions about the independence of that oversight panel.
Paul Givan (DUP)
Not at this point again.
The Minister of Justice stated that the formation of this panel is “unusual”. The Secretary of State said in response to the creation of the panel:
“we must be very careful to respect the independence of the police in operational matters”.
Therefore, I am calling for a full inquiry into the role of the oversight panel in order to answer the questions there are around its role and independence. In no way do I see how this independent panel is necessary to comply with some article of human rights legislation, as Mr McCrea seemed to suggest. I do not see how my and the party’s amendment would in any way be a particular problem. What we are asking for is an inquiry into its role. We need to have confidence that Operation Stafford is being conducted properly, and there are question marks over the independent oversight of that particular body. That is why this party proposed the amendment, which we will support at the vote.
I welcome the motion. My party will offer its full support. Supergrass trials are highly sensitive, as we know, given their history in Ireland. It is worth noting that this history extends beyond the memory and experience of our recent Troubles here in the North. This Assembly cannot hope to properly and fully comment on supergrass trials without grasping this broader history; a history that acted to erode so much confidence in certain judicial processes and the state’s advocacy of them.
This is part of the wider issue of our reformed policing and judicial institutions. Given the findings of the recent ‘Peace Monitoring Report’, one of which was that the policing deal is not secure, I suggest that the retention of public confidence in all these intertwined matters is foremost in our consideration of the motion today.
I think it can be safely claimed that recent public events have not helped garner public confidence in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The recent supergrass trial, which was clearly disturbing in its outcome, has given rise to this. That was manifested through its process, cost and its impact on public perception and confidence. The failure was on multiple levels.
Colleagues have appropriately highlighted and much of the media focus has centred on the fact that almost £6 million has been spent in total for one trial. We have not heard the full extent of that, given that legal aid costs are as yet unknown. It is illogical to imagine this to be sustainable. It is another modern monetary price for policing in our past.
That legislation is relatively new and largely untested in the legal circumstances of the North. The motion calls for a review to be held into its future practice. That suggestion is entirely reasonable politically and legally. The SDLP is on record saying consistently that a compelling case for community safety is required in order to, in any way, justify the use of that legislation. Thus far, that public confidence and layered accountability has not been exemplified or forthcoming. The Stewart case failed to provide grounds on how that system would protect the community and serve the interests of the rule of law. Events have, therefore, clarified that action is required.
I noted with concern the Minister of Justice’s contribution to the Committee in which he pointed out that arrangements for accomplice evidence existed in common law for several centuries. I suggest to the Minister that to shelter behind the existence of similar legal practice and the longevity of its use in other jurisdictions is to renege on the sensitivity and complexity of our circumstances.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
Does the Member accept that, if you do not allow weight to be given to accomplice evidence, you allow criminal organised gangs to continue without conviction?
I do not know which speech the Member was listening to. The motion and my speech indicate that there are very particular circumstances in this part of the country. There is a real history about which we need to be aware. All that we are doing is calling for a review of the practice of the legislation. Therefore, perhaps, the Member wants to go away and read the motion that has been proposed.
No. The motion clearly asks for a review of the legislation and its use. It will be clear to anybody who has watched any media coverage of the recent use of that legislation that a review is required. However, thanks to the Member for his intervention.
Surely, the devolution of justice and policing demands that we in the North come to our own decision on the use of those trials, hence it is necessary that a review is held. Since taking office, the Minister has shown himself to be very open to launching reviews, be they into the Prison Service or youth justice, etc. I urge him not to impede a review into the use of that legislation. In the interests of public confidence and the integrity of the legal system, it is, clearly, required. I support the motion.
Stewart Dickson (Alliance)
Before us today is a menu of options: the original motion and the two amendments. In considering the options, I can rank them in order of the least to the most supportable. For reasons that I will set out, the motion itself is unacceptable and the DUP amendment unwise. Of the three, the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment seems to be the most acceptable. In respect of all three options, I want to start by commending the authors for highlighting the need for transparency, respect for rights and the importance of maximising public confidence — features which my party’s Minister has been working hard to solidify and enhance since he was elected to that position.
In that respect alone, I can find something in the Sinn Féin motion to support. It is, however, far too general in nature, criticising the very concept of using assisting offenders. It cites the recent trial as evidence. However, it presents that evidence as a weakness of all such evidence rather than of the evidence in the trial alone. I could similarly cite cases in which evidence that is provided by assisting offenders proved effective in its use. We should not judge the legislation on the basis of a single case. Indeed, it would be foolish to do so.
The fact is that we need legislation to allow offenders to give evidence against others and have that co-operation recognised appropriately in their sentencing. In the recent case, Mr Justice Gillen himself said that the strategy has been used for hundreds of years. It is also a useful tool in fighting crime, as is recognised in the UUP amendment, which, as I said, we find worthy of some support.
The DUP amendment calls on the Minister and the Attorney General to call for a review of the operational decisions made about the murder of Mr English. That is something that we do not believe the Minister should agree to. The Minister has worked hard to ensure that he does not cross the lines that clearly demarcate what a Justice Minister should and should not become involved in. Operational decisions of the police and the PPS are two areas in which the Minister should not become involved. I was surprised to hear Members, especially those with a legal background, saying that the Minister and the Department have questions to answer with regard to the Tommy English murder trial. Either they are fully aware and are playing politics, or they need to get better advice before making such statements in future.
What the Minister has expressed a willingness to do is to review the legislation itself, if an adequate case is made to him. I am not aware of any such case having been made, and I have not heard an effective case made today, certainly not yet. It appears that Mr Justice Gillen did not make a case for it in his recent judgment, in which he made it clear that it was the evidence, not the legislation — I repeat: the evidence, not the legislation — that was found wanting. The legislation under which the prosecution was brought is UK-wide. It is similar in nature to legislation in many other countries and is not specific to Northern Ireland. The statutory provisions have been examined in detail in several cases and have not been deemed to be substandard. Certainly, if there was any suggestion from the judiciary that they were substandard, they would need to be looked at, taking into experiences from elsewhere in the UK. At this stage, there does not seem to be any significant concern in the judiciary’s mind in that regard.
I can understand the political and public concern at the failure to secure convictions in relation to the murder of Tommy English. I can also understand concerns about the considerable cost involved in the recent trial. However, at least the legal aid bill for cases of that nature will be lower in future due to the actions taken by the Justice Minister and the Assembly. I do not believe that we should do away with important and effective legislation on the basis of one disappointing case or that the case justifies the Minister moving into territory that he has, quite rightly, kept out of, despite misplaced political pressure.
The PPS decision to bring the prosecutions on the back of evidence given by the Stewart brothers will have been based on a number of tests, which we heard referenced here today. One is the likelihood of securing a conviction, and another is whether the prosecution is in the interests of justice. From what we have seen in the public domain —
Stewart Dickson (Alliance)
— some may question why the prosecution was brought forward. I believe that it is right that we should support the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment in today’s debate.
Sydney Anderson (DUP)
I speak to amendment No 2, which has been tabled by my party colleagues. As is so often the case with those who propose a motion, it is important to read between the lines. It seems fairly clear that the Members opposite are opposed to the use of the supergrass system — full stop. They seem determined to make sure that every avenue is explored and every device utilised to ensure that police and army personnel are brought to account but seem less keen to ensure that those involved in terrorism are brought to account. It is those sorts of double standards that rankle with very many people. I hold the view that the use of supergrasses, or assisting offenders as they are now known under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, is a legitimate and very necessary weapon to bring terrorists to justice, and it must be maintained.
I know that the supergrass system is far from perfect and far from ideal. I can remember some of the high-profile cases that collapsed back in the 1980s — a long time before the current legislative framework was established. The new framework does change some aspects of those sorts of trials but, by and large, the key components remain the same today as they did in the 1980s. Reliance is placed on the testimony of those who, for whatever reason, are prepared to testify against former friends, and failure to secure convictions has usually been due to the bad character of the witnesses and not the actual evidence itself. That was the case in the latest supergrass trial, and it is on that case, commonly known as the Tommy English murder trial, that I want to focus.
We really do need to learn lessons from what turned out to be a major farce. It led to the acquittal of 12 men on all the charges against them. Nine were charged with murder. It lasted over 70 days and has cost millions of pounds.
As my party’s deputy leader, Nigel Dodds, said, it will go down as one of the most expensive trials in the history of Northern Ireland.
We must also not forget that, behind all the statistics, it was a devastating experience and a most tragic outcome for Mrs English and her family. She had to relive the dreadful events surrounding the brutal murder of her husband, and, to add insult to injury, she then had to watch the accused walking away free, swaggering out of the court and congratulating themselves. Indeed, the arrogance of those men as they left the court was a sickening sight to many decent and right-thinking people, and it was a grim reminder of the paramilitary mafia that still holds too much sway in Northern Ireland.
The public want to see justice done. They want convictions, and they want to see those who are guilty of heinous crimes charged, tried and sentenced. However, they also believe that, in any democratic society, the judicial system must be fair and seen to be so. From the very start of the Tommy English murder trial, it was clear that the evidence of Robert and Ian Stewart lacked credibility and consistency. As the media reported daily on the case, it was obvious that it was a shambles, and many correctly predicted that it would collapse. The trial judge became increasingly irritated by the ramblings of the two brothers, who, he said, were proven liars. How on earth that bizarre case ever got to trial is beyond me. Surely the history and character of the two men should have led to the ringing of very loud alarm bells during the preliminary pre-trial stages. The Stewart brothers were interviewed on 330 occasions. The PSNI and the Public Prosecution Service should have been able to see through the two men, and I simply cannot get my head around how they were taken in by them. That is also a mystery to a lot of people, and it has not helped with public confidence.
The other issue that our amendment draws attention to is the fact that we remain puzzled and perturbed by the rather strange role of the independent oversight panel in the police investigation. That is the official title given to two individuals, Dame Nuala O’Loan and a London barrister, who provided assistance to the police on Operation Stafford, relating to crimes committed by the UVF in north Belfast. The Tommy English murder case was part of that broader operation, and it seems that the two members of the oversight panel were consulted by police. That issue was raised at the Justice Committee on 1 March, but we did not receive clear answers from the Minister or his officials. We need greater clarity on that, and more light needs to be shone on the role of that oversight panel.
Confidence in the judicial system has been shaken. That is why it is vital that we have an immediate review of the operational decisions taken in the Tommy English murder trial and the role of the independent oversight panel in the police investigation.
Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I join all the other Members who said that, in the first instance, this is about victims and families, who, after the trial collapsed and having waited for years with their hopes raised, did not get any closure or justice. In the process, the police, the courts and the Public Prosecution Service were all undermined. That is the difficulty that we face today.
Sinn Féin opposed supergrass trials in the 1980s. I know that Basil has a difficulty with the word “supergrass”, but I do not mind if we call those involved supergrasses or assisting offenders. The issue is the same. We opposed those trials in the 1980s precisely because the evidence was tainted, and, if my memory serves me correctly, none of those trials succeeded. People were convicted, but the Court of Appeal let them all out again. Therefore, this is not the first time that we have seen this. The evidence from the 1980s is that supergrass trials do not work when tested, unless you take the view that putting people in jail over that period of time and then letting them out on appeal was a method of internment. The present legislation predates the transfer of justice and policing powers, so our fingerprints are not on it. However, Sinn Féin opposed the legislation at the time because of its lack of safeguards.
On a number of occasions, it has been said that we are dealing with a single case. However, the Tommy English murder trial was actually the second case. The other case, which was mentioned earlier, related to the murder of David McIlwaine and Andrew Robb. We should remember that the guy who was originally charged with the murder, Mark Burcombe, was convicted and given a two and a half-year sentence. The family insisted and showed evidence that he had other information that pointed towards an agent who got off during that trial. Therein lies the difficulty. If the agents of the state — the agents of the PSNI — are being used or are involving themselves in very serious criminality, why are they not also being brought to book? In all the cases where agents have clearly been involved, no one else has been brought to book.
One of the core issues is that of agents and Special Branch handlers.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
Does the Member accept that accomplice evidence could be useful in dealing with a wide range of criminals, such as drug dealers, fuel launderers or bank robbers, and that it is not just about former or current terrorists? As such, it is a useful tool that should be in the bag to address criminality.
Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin)
I accept that those who are involved in criminality should go to jail; it is as straightforward as that. However, we are trying to get a proper policing service and a judicial system that will put them in jail. My argument here is that this is the wrong way to use the law in that regard. Deals are done by the police or, indeed, the prosecution, for short sentences, and the question, in answer to what you said, is this: where is the scrutiny?
Let me give you an example. It was widely reported that one of the Stewart brothers was involved in sex with underage girls. Is it acceptable to the police, to the Members of the Assembly, to ordinary people or to the Public Prosecution Service that such people should be given short sentences for giving evidence against others and be able to get themselves off the hook? That is the difficulty in this. If Patten was about anything and if the review of the justice system was about anything, it was to take us away from the types of practice that existed in the past. A return to supergrass trials or this type of evidence — I will call it “assisting offenders” — undermines years of work to turn this around.
Let me make another crucial point, which is in the PSNI policy statement on the 2005 Act. It states that the Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) of crime operations:
“will sign off the Assisting Offender as a witness of truth.”
First, I do not know who thought up the term “witness of truth”, because it is so easily attacked, but, if the ACC of crime operations is to be the person who does that, let us be clear that the ACC of crime operations is also the person who signs off on all police agents and their activities. Surely it is obvious to anyone in this room or anyone else that that is a huge conflict of interest in dealing with the issue of justice and bringing the right people to court and convicting them.
We want justice for victims. However, the justice system must be beyond reproach. I note that other Members mentioned how much this is costing and said that it could be as much as £10 million. It is not worth £10 million or 10p if it reverts to a system that has already been rejected on innumerable occasions by the Court of Appeal and others. At minimum, surely there needs to be a review of the operation of the legislation that can be debated in the Assembly.
When he talked about the amendments, Stewart Dickson made our case. He said that the Justice Minister will say that he cannot deal with operational issues. Therefore, why table an amendment that deals with operational issues when you know that the Minister will not be able to deal with it? This is about having a review of the legislation, which the Minister can deal with, and that is what he should be asked to do.
Peter Weir (DUP)
In approaching this issue, which has been highlighted by the Tommy English murder trial, we should also remember that there is a family at the heart of it. Tommy English’s family have been made victims. It is a tragedy, and, unfortunately, in this particular case, the system has turned a tragedy into a farce, one that has had a detrimental impact on the confidence that people had in the system.
Like the previous contributor — it may be one of the few points on which I agree with him — I am not hung up on the use of language. The use of the terms “assisting offenders” or “supergrasses” does not particularly bother me. Where I would differ and where I would be in closer agreement with the point made by Roy Beggs is that unlike, perhaps, the party opposite, we are not caught in some sort of 80s tribute act in which the prism of the supergrass system of the 1980s blinds us. Nor, indeed, are we in a blind spot about the evil machinations of the securocrats at every corner.
The SOCPA legislation is different from what was there in the 1980s. Protections have been put in place, and, as was indicated, this is not simply about how we deal with past crimes to do with terrorist activities. It is about dealing with a range of criminality, and, in the right circumstances, the opportunity for the justice system and the police to use assisting offender evidence should be taken. Therefore, I am not complaining about the legislation itself. We have no desire to throw the baby out with the bath water. The legislation itself is sound, although it was wrongly used and badly used in the Tommy English case.
As has been said, it is undoubtedly the case that, when you go into any trial, you cannot give the guarantee of a prosecution, and no one would suggest that there would be such a guarantee. Nor indeed has it been indicated that costs should act as an insuperable barrier to a case going ahead, although the figures suggest that the cost of this case is very large. In dealing with such a high-profile case, it has to be done on a sound basis.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
On the point you have made, I will quote from Hansard the comments of Mr McGrory at the Justice Committee. He said:
“the trial judge took the view that he could still convict and that there was a credible basis on which there could be convictions at that stage”.
That is a trial judge saying, without prejudging the outcome, that the evidence is OK.
Peter Weir (DUP)
No, with respect. I am loath to pull the role of old barrister, and I agree with what Mr Allister said earlier. It is a rare occasion on which we find ourselves on the same page, and we may not do on other issues. Simply because the judge did not dismiss the case at the halfway stage does not indicate that this was a sound way forward for the prosecution. There was perhaps prima facie evidence but, on the basis of the test of whether there was a realistic chance of successful prosecution, it is not just hindsight that allows us to say that the case should not have gone ahead. Anyone looking at it would have said that.
Peter Weir (DUP)
I will give way in a second. I appreciate the point that Mr McGrory made that anyone who is an offender is always open to a certain level of question, but the scale of the question marks over the Stewart brothers and the extent to which their credibility was shot through should have been picked up at a much earlier stage. That is not the voice of hindsight, because people raised it.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
The Member is absolutely right that it is very surprising that the DPP reached the conclusion to bring a prosecution. Does that raise the spectre that, perhaps, one of the concerns that we should have is that the DPP was taking the easy option of simply passing it over to the court instead of applying the real test of whether there was a realistic prospect of conviction because the DPP did not want to face the public opprobrium of not bringing a prosecution? Of course, that would have been very wrong. In hindsight, it has some of the signs of that, has it not?
Peter Weir (DUP)
I certainly agree with the Member. It is difficult to know precisely what went through the head of the DPP in making the determination, but it should have been picked up much earlier and, indeed, should not have progressed to the level that it did. That is why, in our amendment, we are trying to focus in on the case. There needs to be a thorough investigation of the case and of the independent oversight panel.
In assisting offender evidence, the credibility of the witness is key. I appreciate that not all Members were able to attend when Mr McGrory appeared before the Committee. I listened to him, and, as you would expect, he made the best case that he could. However, I was not convinced by the responses that he gave. Clearly, there has been a falling down in connection with the case, but that does not mean that SOCPA itself should be called into question or is dead in the water. This case has damaged the justice system. We need an investigation into the case, and we need to look at the wider aspects of it. That is why I support the DUP amendment rather than the original motion or, indeed, the other amendment.
Ross Hussey (UUP)
I begin by referring to the word “supergrass” in the motion tabled by Sinn Féin. “Grass” or “supergrass” is clearly a term of derision used against someone who informs on one of his own. In Northern Ireland terms, it is generally someone from a terrorist grouping who, to save his own neck, has decided to turn against his former allies and give evidence against them. There is no doubt that, in the most recent case to come before the courts in Northern Ireland, the assisting offenders were not considered by the judge to be the most reliable of witnesses, and, on the basis of that fact, he chose not to regard their evidence as reliable and released the accused.
To date, there is no evidence of a problem with the Act itself. Clearly, there are questions about how it is being applied, and the Act went through the various stages of inspection, review and interrogation in the House of Commons. In fact, several Members who sit on the Benches opposite could have taken the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons against the legislation, had they chosen to take their seat. The problem with the most recent case is that some of the decisions in the operation of the legislation are questionable and need to be accounted for.
There is no doubt in my mind that many in this community know of crimes that were committed in our recent past and have the ability to put murderers, bank robbers, bombers, drug dealers and money launderers behind bars. If any such person is willing to become an assisting offender, I would welcome their input into developing a case against a criminal. I would see their actions as deserving of credit, while their own crime would be deserving of punishment. The fact that they are prepared to raise their head above the parapet while their erstwhile colleagues hide indicates to me a change of heart and deserves a more lenient sentence, whereas those who are prepared to carry out major criminal acts deserve to have the full weight of the legal system brought to bear on them.
I agree that the criminal justice system must act in a transparent manner. No one can be seen to be above the law or even beyond it. Clearly, the fact that a trial is held is transparent. The fact that evidence is given in a court and, in many cases, covered in news bulletins and newspaper articles indicates transparency, and a judgement either for or against the accused is transparent. The fact that an assisting offender is identified and, perhaps, sentenced as such and gives evidence in an open court again highlights the transparency of our legal system. The very fact that the most recent case was, in effect, thrown out by the judge is again a transparent act in full, open public view.
The Sinn Féin motion refers to the
“rights and entitlements of all citizens”.
I fully support those rights. However, our amendment adds “protects the public against criminals”, and that strengthens the motion. Someone who has lost a loved one to a terrorist bomb, someone whose life has been destroyed by a terrorist bullet or someone who has been crippled by a group of thugs is entitled to see the perpetrators in a court of law. Unfortunately, in many of cases, the perpetrator does not face a court because of the code of loyalty between himself and his cohorts. However, if one cannot live with what he has done and chooses to hand himself into the authorities and reveal what he knows to the police, I strongly believe that, if the evidence he provides stands up following a review by the Public Prosecution Service, a case should be brought.
The law as it stands is not at fault. The judge in the most recent case did not criticise the law but found that he could not believe the witnesses, who I believe were unable to provide reliable evidence as they had ruined their lives through drink and drug addiction. I cannot, therefore, support the Sinn Féin motion, and I believe that my party’s amendment allows us to support the victim rather than the perpetrators of the horrendous crimes that were committed against society over many years in the past, and it would allow us to ensure that we also have that tool in our legislation for use in the future.
Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. Following the collapse of the Tommy English trial, there has been considerable public concern about the continued use of this type of supergrass trial. The Minister said in response to a question in this House that he believes that what we have under the 2005 Act is very different from what happened 30 years ago, but many are already beginning to seriously question whether there are any real differences.
The supergrass trials of the 1980s collapsed because of a flawed process that severely damaged what semblance of justice we had at that time. Under the current legislation, the few cases that have come to trial are beginning to show major fault lines and have the ability to undermine confidence in our fledgling justice system. The Director of Public Prosecutions agreed with us on that at last week’s Justice Committee meeting.
We are also told that the Act provides a more structured and transparent process. It may be more structured, but it is certainly not transparent. The Brown case has been used to defend the legislation. Again, that case was far from flawless, and many families are left very disappointed at the outcome of that trial, as some of my colleagues have said. Some feel that the state has used the legislation to cover the actions of state agents.
One of the tests in the process is that assisting offenders, as they are called, be deemed to be truthful and honest. The process of inducement, in my opinion, leads people to be liars. That is exactly what happened in the most recent case.
Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin)
No. There is not much time left, anyhow.
Minister, I live in a border county and have known of people, one of whom was a member of my party, being murdered by loyalists in neighbouring counties across the border. Will the Minister tell me what would happen if an assisting offender, under the legislation, confessed to one of those killings? What implication would that have? Would extradition arrangements be put in place?
The collapse of the Tommy English murder trial has dented public confidence in the judicial system. Supergrass-type trials were used in the past and were proved to be flawed. What is happening with the current legislation is creating the basis to repeat that. If other trials of this nature in the future have a similar outcome, we will be back saying that this is flawed legislation also and that we need to re-examine it. Unless we examine it now, by that stage the damage will have been done.
Finally, I call on the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General to use their powers to call for the immediate review of the operation of the legislation.
First of all, the collapse, as it were, of this particular case was very damaging. It has damaged public confidence in the administration of justice, and there needs to be a rebuilding of that.
A number of issues are being confused. One is the 2005 Act, as if that Act invented accomplice evidence. Of course, it did not; it merely provided a framework in which accomplice evidence could be presented to the public and the courts. What it did was make public the terms of any deal that was done between the Crown or the police and the Public Prosecution Service and an assisting offender. It gave an element of transparency to that, which was important in making sure that all the circumstances surrounding any arrangement between the Crown and the accomplice were disclosed. That is what the Act did, and, if you were to effectively repeal the Act or the relevant sections of the Act, you would still have accomplice evidence, and we would be back to the position of the 1980s, when there was no disclosure of any arrangements between the Crown and an accomplice. Furthermore, it would be a worse position, because the protection of corroborative evidence is now no longer extant due to other legal decisions, and therefore cannot be relied on. We are in a worse position as far as that is concerned.
As a representative of North Belfast, I say that the public in North Belfast are disturbed. However, the public in North Belfast also see the fact that a man was murdered in front of his wife and children in a most brutal fashion and in the most horrific circumstances and that those who carried out, organised and arranged the killing are still at large and have not been brought to justice. That disturbs people more than anything else, and Members should concentrate their mind on that.
I believe that it was in the public interest for the prosecution to take place. The public interest demanded that a prosecution take place if there was sufficient evidence. It is up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to determine that. The Director of Public Prosecutions came to the Committee and explained the position of his office. He did not personally make the decision, but he explained his office’s position and his predecessor’s reasoning.
It is worth pointing out that, when it came to an application by the defence counsel, the trial judge did not accede to the application that there was no case to answer. He accepted that there was a case to answer. So there was a certain level of evidence that was acceptable to the court and the learned trial judge. Ultimately, he rejected the evidence placed before him — the evidence of the accomplices — but that evidentiary test was satisfied in the court. It is important to remember that, and I believe that the public interest was served by the trial going ahead.
Other issues have been raised by Members, particularly those on the DUP Benches, about the oversight panel. DUP Members seem to have an obsession with Baroness O’Loan as some sort of bogeywoman who interferes in all this. The oversight panel was agreed by the Policing Board.
In fact, the DUP has members on that board and was, therefore, implicitly involved in that agreement.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
In some quarters, it has been said that, in addition to the men in the dock, the 2005 Act was on trial in Laganside courts. To an extent that is true, but not entirely so. In so far as it was true, one would have to say that the processes of the Act have emerged damaged. That is unfortunate. Accomplice evidence is not new and has been with us for a very long time. In one sense, accomplice evidence is both the best and the worst of evidence. It is the best of evidence in that it comes from those who know because they were there when crimes were committed; it is the worst of evidence because it often comes from parties so tainted by their past and involvement in widespread criminality that their credibility is in question. However, it is evidence that is capable of being produced and that should, in the right circumstances, be produced.
What is damaging in this case is the prosecution being brought in circumstances in which it was abundantly clear that the primary evidence came from witnesses who were broken reeds and were unlikely ever to be believed. Nothing that Mr Justice Gillen said in his quite robust criticism of the Stewart brothers was news to the DPP. DPP staff knew exactly the frail nature of the evidence that they were bringing, and yet they brought it. In bringing it, I think that they knew what the inevitable outcome would be. I do not think that anyone analysing that evidence would ever have thought that a judge or jury could convict on it. However, they brought it, and the question that troubles me is why they did. If it is a matter of applying the legitimate test that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, bearing in mind the frailty of the evidence and its credibility problems, it beggars belief, in my mind, how they could have concluded that there was a realistic prospect —
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
In a moment.
That drives me to the unfortunate conclusion that, as I expressed earlier, the DPP staff took the easy option. They said, “This is too hot to handle; let the judge decide. That saves us from the public criticism of not bringing the prosecution.” If that is right, that was a very wrong decision, and one that —
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
— leaves difficulty in regard to the prosecution and the outcome of the case.
I will give way to Mr McCrea.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
I will explain. We were out of time. We allowed Mr Allister in with a three-minute sort of proviso, which was indicated beforehand. We are running out of time, so I call the Minister to respond.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
On a point of order. I do not accept that I am, in any sense, a second-class citizen of the House and entitled to less time than others to speak. I gave way to Mr McCrea. He should be entitled to speak, and I should be entitled to an extra minute.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Order. It was after the three minutes. I am calling the Minister to respond.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
On a point of order. With respect, we are talking about only two minutes. I am not, in any way, challenging your decision; I accept it absolutely —
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Order. It is not my judgement that you should question; it is the Business Committee, which sets the times. I am simply a servant of those. I call the Minister.
David Ford (Alliance)
I start by acknowledging the importance of the issue, and I congratulate those who tabled the motion. It is absolutely right that the Assembly should debate issues of high public interest, such as the use of evidence from assisting offenders brought under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. I acknowledge, as others have done today, the suffering of the families of Tommy English and of David McIlwaine and Andrew Robb, who were also named during the debate.
I support one of the key premises for the motion, which is the need to build and secure confidence in the justice system across all sections of the community. One of the purposes of a debate such as today’s has to be to get beyond the rhetoric and the knee-jerk reactions that the case has generated. Care needs to be taken not to rely too greatly on a single case in judging changes to the law. Any individual case has unique factors that determine its success or failure. In this instance, it is absolutely right that the Director of Public Prosecutions should consider whether there are any implications for future cases under the legislation, as he has said that he will do. There is, of course, ongoing dialogue between the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Police Service about the conduct of prosecutions.
I recognise that one of the themes from the debate has been the call to change the legislation so that the prosecution of cases cannot rely on assisting offenders. Members noted that the assisting offender arrangements that were put in place by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 codified a long-standing common law practice, which dates back to at least the 17th century, to encourage individuals to bring forward evidence against major criminals who would otherwise escape being called to account for their crimes. One of the key points of debate around the House seems to be how far we should recognise the fact that that common law practice exists and how far we should consider the differences that SOCPA brought seven years ago. Without wishing to intrude too far into the internal workings of the SDLP, it seemed that there was an interesting difference of opinion between Colum Eastwood’s and Alban Maginness’s views about whether we had seen benefits from having a statutory basis rather than merely a common law basis.
Looking back to the 1980s, I certainly understand the historical resonances. In particular, I understand why members of Sinn Féin are concerned by the current operation of SOCPA because of their view of what the justice system should look like. However, I disagree with them. The statutory assisting offenders’ regime, which is seen right across the United Kingdom in all three jurisdictions, introduces a number of important safeguards. They include a formal written agreement between a prosecutor and an assisting offender, and the availability of a reference back to court if an offender knowingly fails to give the assistance promised. In addition, the fact that someone —
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
Does the Minister accept the word of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who said that not one case has been referred back in England and Wales? It is hardly a protection.
David Ford (Alliance)
I suppose I would say that it would be an indication of things working well if no cases had been referred back, because in the mind of the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, that would suggest that the system was working adequately.
David Ford (Alliance)
Without being aware of the precise facts of all those assisting offender cases in England and Wales, I do not think that either Mr McCartney or I am in a position to give a blanket judgement on them.
Unlike what might have been thought about the previous common law position, the process is now designed to be open, auditable and with clear safeguards built in. That was demonstrated, for example, in the case that was cited previously — the sentencing of Mark Birkham — in which the judge explained the sentence that would have been given but for the assistance that was provided. It is also important to record that, in the case of Brown, on evidence, including that from Mark Birkham, a murderer was brought to justice using the assisting offender route to secure the conviction of somebody who might otherwise have walked free, despite having committed two heinous murders. The relatives of the victims in that case would otherwise have had no justice.
The judgement in the trial of Haddock and others clearly raises issues about the credibility of the two assisting offenders. However, I do not believe that it invalidates the future use of the approach. Indeed, I question whether Members would take the same view of a case in which the accomplice of a drug dealer or a bank robber gave credible evidence that helped to secure the conviction of a serious offender. Do we really want to prohibit such a possibility in all circumstances?
The incentive created by the provisions whereby an individual would secure a lower sentence than would otherwise be the case was also mentioned. I understand that concern. However, in the case of Blackburn, and to repeat what Mr Givan quoted, the court made clear that:
“like the process which provides for a reduced sentence following a guilty plea, this is a longstanding and entirely pragmatic convention. The stark reality is that without it major criminals who should be convicted and sentenced for offences of the utmost seriousness might, and in many cases, certainly would escape justice … The solitary incentive to encourage co-operation is provided by a reduced sentence, and the common law, and now statute, have accepted that this is a price worth paying”.
Equally, in discussions that I have had with the Chief Constable about the Haddock case, he has made it clear to me that the Police Service did not hold relevant evidence that would have secured the conviction of the Stewart brothers before they came forward and made admissions about the crimes that they committed. That highlights that, for these two individuals, a lower sentence was not what made them come forward, given that they might not otherwise have faced proceedings at all.
Of course, the legislation may also apply where there is already evidence against an individual. In either case, it is for the PPS to determine whether it is in the public interest to enter into an agreement with the offender, while taking account of the nature and extent of the information given or offered. The criminality of the individual must be dealt with first.
In addition, the Act enables a reference back to court if the offender knowingly fails to give the assistance that was promised. The DPP is considering that in this case, but, as was highlighted, that is an operational matter for the director and is not something for me as Minister.
I will turn to Members’ comments. Jennifer McCann outlined what she saw as the key case against the operation of SOCPA. She saw insufficient safeguards and was concerned that it was simply a resumption of the old system of the 1980s. I hope that, through my remarks so far, I have outlined why I do not accept that that is the position. Whatever the situation may have been in the 1980s, I believe that the statutory basis for the current Act leads us into a position that is entirely different to that of the previous common law. To some extent, Basil McCrea answered those points when he, in effect, objected to her use of the language about supergrasses. He also made it clear that, in his view, criminals should go to prison and the best available evidence should be put forward against them. The challenge facing us is the extent to which we take assisting offender evidence as the basis that will assist towards convictions.
In moving his amendment, Paul Givan raised a number of concerns about the operation of the monitoring panel. However, as others said, that panel was set up by the Police Service and was agreed by the Policing Board when every party in the Assembly, except Mr Allister’s and mine, was represented on the board.
David Ford (Alliance)
Just to finish the point before giving way, Mr Givan is correct to say that I referred in the Committee to the monitoring panel as “unusual”. However, I used the term “unusual” in response to his use of the term “abnormal”. I do not think that the pejorative adjective that he used was appropriate.
Jonathan Craig (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have listened several times now to the statement that the previous Policing Board agreed to the setting up of this independent oversight panel. The reality is that the Policing Board had no say whatsoever in that, and objections to it were recorded from this party’s member of the panel that looked at the issue. It is wrong to label the Policing Board as having been behind the oversight panel or supporting it. There was dissension because of the make-up of that oversight panel.
David Ford (Alliance)
If I was inaccurate in my terminology, I apologise. I was not involved. We can agree that it is the case that members of the Policing Board were aware of the arrangements.
Towards the end of the debate, Seán Lynch asked me what the implications would be for an extradition case. I must confess that I am not sure that I can say what would happen if there were to be an extradition case, but I can repeat the point I made previously. Under the operation of SOCPA, there would be a clear and transparent process in which assisting offenders would appear in court, be convicted of their part in offences, receive an appropriately reduced sentence openly and transparently in court and then be expected to give evidence. That is the fundamental difference as to where we are.
I also take the point that was made by Alban Maginness, that the Act now provides a framework for the operation of accomplice evidence. The issue that seems to be being raised, in general terms, is whether that framework is adequate or whether there are other aspects which need to be dealt with.
I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. Following the logic of what you have just said, is it not timely that we look at the Act and at the operation of this legislation and, given the circumstances — the collapse of the trial and the public outcry in relation to it — there should be an in-depth review of its operation? That is entirely reasonable and, I would have thought, entirely acceptable to your good self as well as to the SDLP, including my colleague and myself.
David Ford (Alliance)
I am delighted to have promoted harmony within the SDLP at least, if I have no other achievement this afternoon. I will deal with the points which Mr Maginness has just made as I conclude, but I need to be cautious about going too far into the specific operational issues of one case, rather than the general principles.
I suppose the final speech, whether or not truncated, allowed Jim Allister to make the fundamental point that accomplice evidence is at times both the best and the worst, and we need to find a way of resolving that.
As I said in opening, this is a very important issue of high public interest and importance, but let me draw the House’s attention again to the comments on the legislation itself in Mr Justice Gillen’s judgement:
“This judgment should not be seen as, and is not intended to be, a comment much less a criticism of the structure of the SOCPA regime which accommodates the use of accomplice evidence. … Its purpose is to adopt the pragmatic approach that without it major criminals who should be convicted and sentenced for offences of the most egregious nature might, and in many cases, certainly would escape justice….That I have not been … satisfied”
— beyond a reasonable doubt —
“in this instance does not preclude the possibility of guilty verdicts in other similar cases where less flawed witnesses are called to give evidence.”
I am conscious that the director, in his evidence to the Justice Committee, pointed to a procedural query on which he was taking advice, so I am writing to him, the PSNI and the Police Ombudsman’s Office to see if they have identified any significant issues about the general terms of the legislation. I will also take account of what has been said in the debate and what remains to be said, but I cannot work on the presumption that there is something wrong based on a single case. I will continue to listen to the views of Members and the agencies that I have highlighted. I will certainly review the Hansard report of the debate.
On the basis of my comments, whilst I accept the generality of much that has been said, I oppose the wording of the motion, although there is much within its intent with which I agree, including the system operating in a transparent and open manner, respecting rights and maximising public confidence. My objection is principally because the operation of the legislation is not a matter within my powers.
I also oppose amendment No 2, although it has parts I can accept because of its reference to operational decisions. Although amendment No 1 is not entirely in language I would use, I would, however, support it. It touches on my role, recognises the part that SOCPA can play, reflects the need for public confidence and seeks positive working relationships in the operation of the legislation and adequate accountability measures.
I welcome the debate, which has aired an important issue about SOCPA and its operation. I support the motion, subject to amendment No 1.
Jonathan Craig (DUP)
I support amendment No 2, which my colleague tabled. This case has indeed undermined public confidence in the justice system. What I find amazing is that in spite of 330 interviews by the PSNI, we are left with a case with no convictions. We need to think about that when it comes to public confidence.
In more recent times, this independent oversight panel has looked into the case. We need to ask ourselves the fundamental question: why did the case go forward? I have heard other Members refer to issues around all that. Was it the DPP or the cop-out? Did the police get it so dramatically wrong? Could they not see after 330 interviews that those witnesses were not credible, or was some other force telling those people to push the case forward?
I am left with a doubt in my mind. Was somebody exerting external influence? Why was the case pushed forward and moved into the judicial system, and why did it then go through almost the entire case before the judge said “No, these are not credible witnesses”? I would have thought that anybody with any amount of reason would have said to themselves long before the case got to court, or even as it progressed through the court, that those individuals just are not credible and this will not stack up or lead to a safe conviction, and it would have been collapsed an awful lot sooner. However, we did not see that, so I am left asking why.
There is this doubt in the back of our mind with regard to the role of the oversight panel in all of this. That is why we are supporting the amendment and asking for a review of not only the case and how it was carried out but what other influences there were on the case as it stands.
I listened with great interest to what Alban Maginness said about this and that we should not be obsessed with a bogeywoman. I am using the Member’s term, not mine. I am not obsessed with a bogeywoman. In fact, I have no opinions on that individual at all if I am being absolutely honest. However, there is in our mind a clear conflict of interest. How can you sit in oversight of a trial that was triggered by a process that you, as an individual, were key in triggering? You trigger a process and then sit as someone who has influence over that process. There is a clear conflict of interest there.
As a party, we are interested in seeing whether there are outworkings that brought undue pressure. Is there something that forced it to go to the point that it did? I believe and accept the argument that this does indeed undermine confidence in the judicial system. There is no question about that. Any trials that do not lead to convictions ultimately have a question mark over them.
I have heard a number of Members refer to someone who is being left out in a lot of this. That is, the victims. We have all talked around the shop, but in all of the trials that ultimately fail we forget about the victims — those who have suffered. I ask the House to consider what our amendment is saying, which is: look into this trial, see what went wrong, have a look at the oversight role and see whether anything in that led to that outcome. That is all we are asking for.
Jonathan Craig (DUP)
We are not undermining the principle of the system for witnesses, because we are in total agreement with the Minister that it is something that the judiciary and the legal system have always used, and it is better today than it was in the past.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
The motion expresses concern about the evidence provided by supergrasses. “Supergrass” is widely recognised as a derogatory term for accomplice evidence. Attempts were widely made during the debate to link the current procedures to the supergrass trials of the 1980s. However, we have a different system today.
The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 as a powerful tool to address crime, which is something that we have added to our amendment. So, we ask all Members whether they want to add another tool to help the police address crime.
My colleagues Basil McCrea and Ross Hussey highlighted the fact that the motion is an attempt to link the discredited term “supergrass” from the 1980s to today.
Modern gangs are frequently very forensically aware. There can be tight-knit groups that can impose themselves on communities. That can create an element of fear, and there has been evidence of that. However, this is much wider than talking about gangs that are involved in paramilitary activity. As I said earlier, how are we going to address the drug gangs that exist, which profiteer at the expense of our young people? Those gangs are frequently as ruthless and well organised as paramilitary groups: in fact, some of their members are former paramilitaries and are, therefore, knowledgeable about forensics.
So, the issue is much wider than the paramilitary interest of an historical nature; it is about how we are going to address criminal gangs today. Members must not just think about the past, they must think about the future. I fail to understand why Sinn Féin and the SDLP appear to be opposing accomplice evidence.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
I listened very carefully to what the Sinn Féin Members said over the course of the debate, and it was very clear that they are opposed to accomplice evidence.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
What they say has a bearing on my judgement of what they are doing. The wording in their motion is a method of achieving an objective. What they are clearly saying, and what they no doubt will be saying in what they publish — I ask you to read the Hansard report very carefully to see what they said during the debate —
Roy Beggs (UUP)
Jennifer McCann, Gerry Kelly and Seán Lynch all clearly oppose the use of accomplice evidence. What is their view on other jurisdictions? Do they oppose the use of accomplice evidence in other jurisdictions? That will pose a problem for them when they go to the electorate there. We are interested in solving crime here in Northern Ireland; therefore, I recognise it as a valuable tool. How are the citizen and the community to be protected?
Paul Givan indicated his support for the Ulster Unionist amendment, but then expressed a preference for his own amendment. I ask him to reassess that, given what Members have said. It is clear that the Alliance Party supports the Ulster Unionist amendment, and if he wishes for the motion to be changed I ask him to support the Ulster Unionist amendment, which clearly has the potential to do that, whereas his own does not.
Paul Givan (DUP)
Will the Member consider the fact that his party’s amendment fails to draw in the independent oversight panel, which, to me, is the kernel of what is being discussed? Therefore, the Member should not put that amendment to the vote, but should allow ours to go to the vote and support it along with other parties.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
It is clear from what has been said that that would fail, because the Alliance Party has indicated its opposition to your amendment. I want to improve the motion to get something that will work. The Alliance Party’s Stewart Dickson indicated that the motion is unacceptable and that the DUP amendment is unwise. Indeed, the Minister seemed to indicate his agreement with that and that the Ulster Unionist amendment is the most acceptable. The Minister also indicated that it is important for him not to cross the demarcation in the justice system.
A number of Members, including Peter Weir and Jim Allister, indicated that the SOCPA legislation has potential but appears to be wrongly and badly used and that it is very unfortunate that there has not been a successful outcome in a case involving such huge public expense. A number of Members suggested that that was down to a failure to assess the credibility of the key witnesses, and most would agree with that thinking. Alban Maginness highlighted a problem for us all: the murders of Tommy English are still at large; how will we ever address them?
I ask Members to support the Ulster Unionist amendment so that accomplice evidence can continue and so that we indicate our support for that method.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a Phriomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. I seek support for the motion proposed by Sinn Féin. Most of what I have heard this afternoon leads me to say that Members should support it. I have not heard a single issue raised this afternoon that could not be covered in a review. Think of all the things that Members have said this afternoon: is there anything that a review would not bring to the fore and allow us to discuss?
When Members have pointed out things that happened in England and Wales, I have heard the Minister quite rightly tell the Assembly many times that this is not England and Wales but the North of Ireland where we have our own jurisdiction. Why should we not have a legislative process that will allow us all to bring to the table all the issues that have been raised here this afternoon? Who fears a review?
We have quoted the trial judge on a number of occasions this afternoon. Indeed, some people have interpreted him. In times past, we were always cautioned about trying to second-guess the words of a judge. However, the judge said very clearly:
“Parliament has passed this legislation and it is for the courts to interpret and implement it faithfully.”
Irrespective of the legislation that will come out of the review, would it not be better if a judge in some future trial could say that the Assembly had passed this legislation and not some other Parliament? That is the test, and people need to bring that to the debate.
We have our view of this type of trial. It is flawed at its core because people are given inducement to give evidence. When people have had inducements to provide evidence in front of the courts in the past, the cases were taken through the courts. Not only were people, on some occasions, acquitted at the Court of Appeal but, for a long period, people questioned the quality of justice practised in the courts at the time.
It has been quoted again today that this sort of concept has been in common law for hundreds of years. If it is in common law, why did it have to be codified all of a sudden? The reason why it had to be codified is that it had to be dressed up. I have not heard any Member here today questioning the quality of justice that was practised in the 1980s.
We are told that the new legislation is different. We are now told the deal that the accomplice gets, whereas, in the past, that was kept a secret. People tell me that that is some sort of qualitative difference and that we are all going to wake up and discover that we know the deal now, but we did not know it in the past, and that it will make us all feel that the scales of justice have suddenly been removed from our eyes, but I just do not see it.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I want to put the general position to you. Taking away the 1980s and the paramilitary stuff, I want to know for the record whether there are any circumstances in which you think, with appropriate safeguards, where accomplice evidence is reliable, and if an accomplice comes forward and gives evidence, that that should be taken to mitigate his sentence? In principle, is there a yes to that?
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
It is fine putting up the conjecture, but if you show me the instance when it has happened, I might be able to answer it. Are you saying that, in this particular instance, and in all the cases in the 1980s, all those people came forward and said —
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
Are you saying that all those people who came forward had, all of a sudden, had a road to Damascus conversion? Did the Stewart brothers have a road to Damascus conversion? If you are putting something forward, make sure that it is solid. The law is tested on something that is solid, not on something that is a “what if” or a “what about”. Are the Stewart brothers reliable witnesses? I think that the court decided that they were not. That is one of the tests. Jim Allister made that point, and I think that he encapsulated it —
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
No, I will not give way because I have important points to make.
He encapsulated it. The legislation was on trial. It is interesting that the trial judge said that:
“courts are the keepers of the rule of law and, borrowing a phrase of an 18th century American judge, if it is to be more than a mere rope of sand, a court must never set aside the legal standards that lie at its very heart.”
That is the core of this, and that is why there should be a review. Perhaps the Minister felt that I was second-guessing what Barra McGrory had said. However, last Thursday, Barra McGrory said to our Committee:
“Therefore, I have checked with the Director of Public Prosecutions in England and Wales and his senior legal adviser, and they have never referred one of these cases back under that provision ... However, in their experience, a number of similar cases in England and Wales have failed to secure convictions, yet they have not sought to initiate that procedure.”
Therefore, it is not one trial. It is at least two. Therefore, there is no process in place.
The Stewart brothers were given a deal and induced to give evidence. Sometimes, people question the role of the Public Prosecution Service, but the RUC or the PSNI signed off by saying that the assisting offender — offenders, in this case — were witnesses of truth. That is what was brought to the door of the Public Prosecution Service. The trial judge said that those people were liars and embellishers, and they colluded with one another to give evidence. Indeed, he even said that their demeanour in the witness box showed beyond reasonable doubt that they were liars. That is the test of this.
When Basil comes up with the idea of a lily-white accomplice coming in and having a pang of conscience, we do not see it in this legislation, and we did not see it in the 1980s. It was flawed then, and, in our opinion, it is flawed now. Therefore, if there was a trial process, as outlined by Jim Allister, the recent trial showed us that it is time for the Assembly to review the legislation so that, whatever we do in the future, none of us can say here today that we gave our support to this legislation.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
I fear that the Member is obfuscating the point that Mr McCrea tried to raise. You were asked a very simple question: if there was an accomplice about whom you had no doubts, say someone who was involved in the Northern Bank robbery who you might admire, and he came forward to give evidence, would you accept his evidence? Do you accept accomplice evidence, yes or no?
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
I am surprised at someone who has practised law putting a proposition laced with “what ifs”. The simple thing about all of this is in front of us. Has there been an instance when that type of person has come forward and a person or persons have been convicted? Why is that the case? The only reason why the Stewart brothers found themselves in court is because they were seeking an inducement. It was not down to some sort of feeling they had that they had done wrong. Indeed, many people will speculate. Jonathan Craig talked about speculation, and we can speculate until the cows home about who they were and what they were.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
On that point, the Justice Minister was quite clear. He reviewed the evidence against the Stewart brothers and said that it was not sufficient to get any form of conviction. When they came forward to do something, it was not with a view to getting a lenient conviction or sentence, because they were not in line to get any conviction or any sentence. That is why it was interesting to hear what they had to say.
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
It is very interesting. Those two people were liars. They were found to be such in the court, yet you are willing to believe that the —
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
The Member is suggesting that the Chair should believe that those two people came forward in the circumstances in which they outlined. Let us face it: everything that they said was discredited, as were the circumstances in which they presented themselves to the PSNI, the circumstances in which they gave their evidence and the circumstances that led them to the court. You would not buy a second-hand car from any of them. Let me put it like that.
Our position is very clear, and I have said that today. I have listened to many good points made by Members. The way to deal with each and every one of the points that were made in the Chamber this afternoon is to have a review of the legislation. What better way to achieve confidence? What better way to ensure that the courts are not a rope of sand? In the past, the courts were ropes of sand. The courts in the North were brought into disrepute. Remember this: people would have argued and made the same contention then that they are making this afternoon, that the witnesses, the accomplices, the supergrasses — whatever you want to call them —
Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin)
— were credible people, until the courts and public opinion found otherwise.
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I advise Members that if the amendment is made, I will not be putting the Question on amendment No 2, as the wording to which it relates will have been deleted. I hope that is clear.
Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 15; Noes 56.
AYES
Mr Allister, Mr Beggs, Mr Cree, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dobson, Mr Elliott, Mr Ford, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hussey, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy, Mr B McCrea, Mr Swann.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Hussey and Mr B McCrea.
NOES
Mr Agnew, Mr S Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Ms P Bradley, Mr Brady, Ms Pam Brown, Mr Buchanan, Mr Byrne, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr W Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Dallat, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Eastwood, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lynch, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Miss M McIlveen, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Sheehan, Mr Weir, Mr Wells.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr Lynch and Mr McCartney.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put, That amendment No 2 be made.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 27; Noes 43.
AYES
Mr Agnew, Mr Allister, Mr S Anderson, Ms P Bradley, Ms Pam Brown, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Miss M McIlveen, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Weir.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr S Anderson and Mr G Robinson.
NOES
Mr Attwood, Mr Beggs, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Byrne, Mr W Clarke, Mr Cree, Mr Dallat, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dobson, Mr Eastwood, Mr Elliott, Mr Ford, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hussey, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lynch, Mr McCallister, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Mr B McCrea, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr O’Dowd, Ms S Ramsey, Mr Sheehan, Mr Swann.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr Lynch and Mr McCartney.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 30; Noes 40.
AYES
Mr Agnew, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Byrne, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Eastwood, Mr Lynch, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr O’Dowd, Ms S Ramsey, Mr Sheehan.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Lynch and Mr McCartney.
NOES
Mr Allister, Mr S Anderson, Mr Beggs, Ms P Bradley, Ms Pam Brown, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dobson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mr Ford, Mr Frew, Mr Gardiner, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Hussey, Mr Irwin, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy, Mr B McCrea, Miss M McIlveen, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr Dickson and Mr G Robinson.
Main Question accordingly negatived.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Principal speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker.]
Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)
The proposer of the topic for debate will have 15 minutes in which to speak. The Minister will have 10 minutes to respond. All other Members who wish to speak will have approximately eight minutes.
Mr Principal speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, I am thankful to the Business Committee and your office for allowing this Adjournment debate to be tabled. Mr Principal speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker and fellow Members, there is a thematic context to the three areas of activity that are mentioned in the title of the Adjournment topic. In 1985, a major economic report was done on the county of Tyrone, and one of its major comments referred to the rich cultural heritage of the people of Tyrone, as strongly evidenced by the county structure for both the GAA and the Orange Order. Sport and sporting activity play a major role in the life of people, particularly the young, across the constituency, ranging from Gaelic sports, rugby, soccer, hockey, boxing, tennis and cricket among others.
Two key people have contributed enormously through their volunteer work in sports coaching. One is Brother Ennis of the Christian Brothers in Omagh, who has made an enormous contribution to the promotion and development of Gaelic games in west Tyrone. Mr Jackie Reid, a former PE teacher in Omagh Academy, has made a similar contribution to the promotion of rugby in the Omagh area and, indeed, in Dungannon. Both men epitomise personal dedication and commitment to sport and community development.
Tyrone has enjoyed great success in Gaelic football by winning three All-Ireland senior titles in 2003, 2005 and 2008. They have also won numerous All-Ireland minor titles and many Ulster titles. The GAA in Tyrone is very strong, and there are many excellent clubs in west Tyrone particularly that have built up excellent facilities over the past 25 years. Clubs such as Aghyaran, Castlederg and Clady have shown what can be done with local effort and community support.
Other clubs in the Strabane district, including Clann na nGael, Aughabrack and Glenelly, have good pitch and related facilities. Sigersons Gaelic football club in Strabane is a prime example of an excellent GAA club that has built excellent facilities to cater for youth and adult footballers and hurlers.
In Omagh district, we have many excellent clubs. In Omagh itself, there is Killyclogher, Drumragh, Dromore, Trillick, Fintona, Eskra, Carrickmore, Loughmacrory, Greencastle and Drumquin among others. Another very successful club has been Errigal Ciarán at Dunmoyle, which again has excellent facilities. The GAA has a fantastic track record in coaching and promoting sporting activities for young people, and the investment of money and time in the promotion and development of youth games has brought its reward in the winning of many national titles.
The new Garvaghey GAA centre is primarily geared towards coaching and the promotion and development of young people playing Gaelic games. The Tyrone county board has put in a massive investment of over £4 million to date, including €1·5 million from Croke Park, and the three councils in Omagh, Dungannon and Strabane have put in enormous amounts of investment: £100,000 from Omagh council; £80,000 from Dungannon council; and £50,000 is promised from Strabane council. More investment capital is needed to complete the project. It is a very worthwhile sports development project that deserves support for capital funding from the Northern Ireland Executive and the Sports Council of Northern Ireland. There is a range of sporting groups and associations, and it is important that their contribution is recognised.
The Youth Sport complex in Omagh was built a number of years ago as a multi-sports complex catering mainly for field sports, and £2·4 million has been invested there over the past 10 years. However, that facility now needs a 3G synthetic pitch, and that will require another £200,000 of investment. There are many junior and amateur soccer clubs throughout Omagh and Strabane, some of which have good facilities, such as those in Castlederg and Strabane town. Omagh District Council owns a number of soccer pitches, but quite a few soccer clubs do not have adequate sports facilities of their own.
Unfortunately, an example is Sion Swifts soccer club, which is based is Sion Mills. It caters for about 300 young people on an ongoing basis, yet it does not have any pitch facilities of its own. In the past, it has used the two pitches as Herdman’s Mill, but since the Herdman’s project has gone into liquidation, it cannot get insurance cover, and we are left with 300 young people, their coaches and their teams not being able to play in Sion Mills itself.
In Omagh district, some soccer clubs have good facilities, such as Strathroy Harps in Knockmoyle, Tummery Athletic in Dromore, as well as the Beragh Swifts. In Omagh town, there are a number of council-owned pitches, but the old St Julian’s pitch for Omagh Town Football Club, which no longer exists, is in a poor state of repair and requires modernisation for health and safety requirements and to make it suitable for playing games on.
We have a very important youth club in Omagh called the Omagh Boys and Girls Club, and £1·2 million was invested there about 10 years ago. Under the leadership of Mr Paddy McMahon and other youth leaders, it has been an excellent club that has provided good, sustainable youth activities for the community and for the youth of the area. In Strabane, we have Melvin Hall which is in the Bridgend, and, over many years, it has been an excellent facility to cater for the needs of the youth and other sports users. It is a busy centre that is bursting at the seams and is well run and managed by Strabane District Council’s sports department.
The traditional importance of cricket in the rural areas of west Tyrone cannot be overstated, with some of the older clubs such as Donemana Cricket Club being over 100 years old. Those clubs take part in and have won several competitions including the Irish Senior Cup, the Ulster Cup, the North West Senior League and North West Senior Cup. Notably, Sion Mills Cricket Club hosted Ireland versus the West Indies in 1969, which Ireland won handsomely. The Herdmans have made a major contribution to the development of cricket in the north-west.
In west Tyrone, like many other parts of the country, people identify themselves by the culture that they celebrate.
Culture can be defined as a set of shared attitudes, values, goals and practices that characterise an institution, organisation or group. For example, the Tyrone feis, which happens annually, caters for young people from 4 years old up to 20 years old, allowing them to partake in music, art, drama, poetry and other competitions. They are, in effect, practising what they would consider to be their culture.
We also have the Orange Order, which celebrates its culture through parades and celebrations throughout the year, with the pinnacle of celebration being the 12 July parade. Many excellent pipe bands and other musical marching bands provide good community activities and local pride for their respective communities. We have excellent art centres in both Omagh and Strabane that are catering for the many local amateur dramatic groups that put on plays annually. In Carrickmore we have the Mid-Ulster Drama Festival, which has been going for over 40 years, bringing local and national drama groups to that festival and greatly enhancing the cultural and community activities of Carrickmore and mid-Tyrone. We have the Dún Uladh centre outside Omagh, which is a Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann facility. It is a regional centre of significance and makes a major contribution to hosting scór events and other Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann activities.
Sport and culture are heavily intertwined in west Tyrone, as are culture and tourism. According to the Northern Ireland passenger survey of 2009, cultural tourism figures reached 219,500 in Northern Ireland. That shows the potential of cultural tourism and sport if properly utilised in places such as west Tyrone. In relation to tourism, there is a strong link between cultural activities and tourist attractions to meet the needs of visitors from home and abroad. There are key tourist attractions in west Tyrone, including the An Creagán centre between Omagh and Cookstown; the President Wilson ancestral home near Strabane; Gray’s printing works in Strabane town, renowned for its association with the American constitution; and, indeed, the Ulster American Folk Park between Omagh and Strabane. All of those tourist facilities are on the north-west passage route and make an important contribution to the local economy.
Over the past five years, the Ulster American Folk Park has enjoyed between 135,000 and 160,000 visitors per annum. A lot of overseas visitors, including Americans, want to experience the immigration and history links between the old world in Tyrone and the new world of the US. The Ulster American Folk Park was built in the 1970s to accommodate 30,000 visitors. It was the brainchild of Mr Eric Montgomery, who worked so diligently and expertly to get it established. In 2010 there were 145,000 visitors — 10,000 fewer than the previous year, which saw 154,000 visitors. In 2005 there were 134,000 visitors, so the visitor numbers are increasing generally. In the past year at the folk park, 22%, approximately 30,000 of its visitors, came from the Republic, and 11%, that is, 15,000 visitors, came from North America.
I understand from the minutes of a DCAL meeting in February 2011 that the folk park put in a bid for £15 million for the following comprehensive spending review period for capital expenditure. It was refused, but the Ulster American Folk Park is one of the most attractive tourist facilities in Northern Ireland, and I think there is a strong sense in west Tyrone that it deserves a share of some of the capital investment that goes into the overall museums budget.
The strong Irish-American connection and the Scottish-Irish connection are a powerful attraction for modern tourist interests. More capital investment in both the Omagh and Strabane districts for tourist activities could prove very economically sustainable, particularly in terms of job creation. Obviously, the very positive signal about the A5 road should also enable our part of the world to become more attractive as a tourist destination.
Cultural and heritage tourism can be very financially lucrative for local people if a good tourist product is presented and promoted effectively. The connecting facilities of the President Wilson homestead and Gray’s printing works offer the potential to have a more viable and sustainable tourist product in the Strabane area, with the right tourism promotion.
The Sion Mills regeneration heritage project also deserves support. There, we have the best example of industrial heritage in buildings and an overall facility that has contributed so much to the economic, social and cultural development of Sion Mills and the surrounding areas. The whole Herdman history and heritage in the north-west has made an enormous contribution to the sporting, social and economic history of our area.
Over the past five years, three capital projects with financial assistance totalling £520,000 have come into West Tyrone. Of 10 capital projects submitted, two applications were unsuccessful and one was withdrawn. The other seven are at the preliminary stage of assessment. I find it interesting that those seven were submitted in 2012, which means that over 50% of all applications were made in the past year. I would like an update on the prospects of those applications over the rest of this spending period.
I will conclude by admiring and acknowledging the enormous contribution that people across our communities have made to promote and develop those three thematic areas in West Tyrone, as well as the enormous efforts of many people, most of them volunteers, who have made an enormous contribution to the social and economic development of Omagh and Strabane. However, the time has come for central government to back the people and local initiatives with grant aid to develop and sustain the growing number of cultural, sporting and tourism initiatives that need to be further developed and enhanced. We cannot rely on past achievements alone. We need further investment now in all three areas to make sure that West Tyrone’s tourism, sport and culture are viable, sustainable and growing. Modern economic activity is greatly dependent on selling to visitors a tourist product that will provide local employment and economic activity. We do not have sunshine to attract tourists, but we have a unique tourist product that is based on our people and their rich heritage and culture.
I thank Members for attending the debate and look forward to their support. I again thank the Minister for being present. It is good that she is here, and I hope that she will be able to attend to some of the needs of the people of West Tyrone over the next period. West Tyrone has developed a rich social capital and capacity through self-help, community activism and sporting prowess at competitive levels, which reflects and represents the energy, commitment and interests of our people. That results in a good community dynamic, which has developed into a social and economic model that can bring benefits and rewards through community well-being.
I end by saying that a lot of work has been done through self-help. Community development in West Tyrone has been extremely good. There has been generous funding in the past from the International Fund for Ireland, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and other government agencies. We look forward to continued support.
Thomas Buchanan (DUP)
I reiterate all that Mr Byrne said and commend him for securing the Adjournment debate. Investment of any type in West Tyrone is always welcomed. It always appears so difficult to get investment into West Tyrone when we look for it. It is so difficult to get Departments and Ministers to listen to the lobbying and the pleas of elected representatives, who say, “Look, the people of West Tyrone need funding, assistance and help.” It is so difficult at times to get through to Ministers and Departments and get them to listen to the pleas of the people. That is why I am glad that the issue has been brought to the House this evening.
It always appears that before the financial bus leaves Belfast it is over half empty. It sheds half its load or more before it gets away. It gets the length of Portadown and throws another bit off. It comes to Dungannon and sheds another bit of its load. When it gets our length, we in West Tyrone are left with the crumbs or the pennies, or whatever you like, of investment.
Although we welcome the little droplets that we get — it is always good to get investment into west Tyrone, no matter how small — this evening, we will be like Oliver Twist; we are going to keep asking for more, and why not? We in west Tyrone deserve the same level of funding and commitment as every other constituency across Northern Ireland. Our message is simple: we are going to keep knocking at the door and lobbying until we get the funding that we deserve for all types of activities. When it comes to capital investment, job creation or whatever, it always seems that we are on the back foot in west Tyrone, no matter how much lobbying we do.
The topic has been broken into three aspects: sport, culture and tourism. I will not go into the specific areas that the proposer went into; he named all the different clubs. I will be more general to avoid being repetitive. In the sporting world in west Tyrone, as the proposer said, we have the football, the rugby, the Gaelic football, the cricket and the hockey. We have many other sporting facilities in west Tyrone. So often, however, they do not receive the proper required investment to bring them up to the proper standard. Many small clubs throughout the rural areas of west Tyrone that cater for younger people are being run by volunteers. The only way that they can be sustained and kept viable is for those volunteers to fundraise in their own communities. We really need some more investment into those areas to keep them moving forward. We have good sporting facilities across west Tyrone, but it is about keeping them viable and moving forward. West Tyrone produces some of the greatest sportspeople, whether it be in soccer, in the Gaelic, in cricket or whatever. We have the potential to deliver that, but we need more assistance and funding from central government to move it forward. It is like a car engine trying to move forward. However, if it is starved of fuel, it will stop. We do not want to stop or go back; we want to move forward. In order to do that in the sporting world in west Tyrone, we need the proper level of investment.
The proposer mentioned the great diverse cultures, such as the Orange Order and the GAA, which are widely celebrated in west Tyrone. It has one of the greatest cultural heritages in Northern Ireland. Cultural identity is special and unique to the people of west Tyrone. Whether it be in arts, storytelling, music, folklore, creative arts or whatever, it is special to the people there. It is part of the tradition that was handed down through the generations, and it gives the people that sense of identity.
I think of the pipe bands scene in west Tyrone. We have pipe bands in nearly every townland. Some small bands are out perhaps only one or two times a year. Others go on to the contest world and the pipe band scene in Scotland, and they win prizes and bring them back to west Tyrone. We are proud of that culture and identity. Again, those are run by many volunteers who keep them moving forward. The majority of the funding comes from community fundraising activities. Some might come from local councils — little bits here and there — but the majority comes from community fundraising. There needs to be a little bit of support from central government.
The proposer said that we have the arts centre in Omagh and the theatre in Strabane. We have other venues throughout west Tyrone. Again, for us to sustain them and keep them moving forward, we need a little bit of investment from central government.
Turning to tourism, although we do not have the lakes of Fermanagh or the coastal areas of north Antrim, we have the hills and valleys that create a picturesque scene. You will not find that picturesque scene anywhere else in Northern Ireland. The Sperrins attract many visitors every year, and, of course, we have the Ulster American Folk Park. The Member mentioned the numbers that go through that park every year. All that is part of the culture and heritage that we find in West Tyrone. We have a tourist attraction that is special and unique to West Tyrone; it is not found anywhere else. So, to keep that alive and moving forward, we need that further investment from central government.
I am disappointed to learn that the bid for moneys that the Ulster American Folk Park made has been turned down. I ask the Minister to look at that. Like the Member who spoke previously, I would like some details on the other seven areas that submitted applications, which are somewhere in the pecking order, to see exactly where they are and what assistance can be given to them.
Thomas Buchanan (DUP)
I trust that the Minister will listen. I thank her for being here, and I look forward to her response.
Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle, agus cuirim fáilte roimh an díospóireacht seo. I welcome the securing of this Adjournment debate, and I thank Joe Byrne for taking that initiative. The subject of the debate offers plenty of scope to the representatives from West Tyrone to highlight the many cultural and sporting projects and initiatives that are in the constituency, as well as the many visitor and tourist attractions that are worthy of highlighting.
I will be specific by zoning in on three or four core projects that I feel strongly about. In the first instance and from a sporting point of view, I too express my support for Tyrone GAA’s pioneering £6·7 million Garvaghy centre of excellence project. That project is making a real and meaningful contribution to our local economy. So far, around 150 people have been employed on it, including the 34 people who were working on the site last week alone. It is about making future provision for young people to practise and perfect their sport in a modern, fit-for-purpose facility, which to date and in the main, has been funded by voluntary contributions from the Gaels of Tyrone. For example, in the very recent past, the family of the late Paul McGirr became the 200th Garvaghy patron. It has been mentioned that there has been some support from local government.
However, there is a sense of grievance among the promoters of the project that, hitherto, there has not been capital injection from the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure or Sport NI. I understand that sense of grievance, because the project meets many of the Programme for Government objectives that are about promoting sport and health, making an economic contribution and recognising cultural value. I also appreciate that the Minister has visited the site and has a good understanding of the amount of voluntary effort that has gone into the project. However, I think that it is reasonable to expect government to make a contribution. That is the point that the promoters are making, and I support it. That is because the centre is one of the biggest sports and cultural projects in the North at this time.
If more money were to become available, I too would make the point that there should be a Places for Sport-type programme. It would be great to get that in place. I feel strongly about that, and I know that the Minister would support it if the money were available. I would support even an equipment grant like the kind that Sport NI typically delivered in the past. However, a lack of resources means that that is not to the fore at this time.
Clubs at community level across the different sports deserve central or regional government support when they make considerable efforts and put their hands in their own pockets, so to speak.
I want to mention some of the cultural projects. The Mid-Ulster Drama Festival has been mentioned. Worthy of mention, too, are drama festivals which take place annually in both Newtownstewart and Strabane. However, at the Mid-Ulster Drama Festival in Carrickmore, tonight is the fifth of nine nights of theatre in a row in Carrickmore, in the forty-fifth Mid-Ulster Drama Festival. Tonight, it is the turn of the Backburners Drama Circle from Newtownstewart, and their play tonight is ‘Closing Time’ by Owen McCafferty. Last night, it was ‘The Weir’ by Conor McPherson, performed by the Pomeroy Players of County Tyrone. You may not know this, Principal speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, but recently I had a walk-on role in a play involving the Pomeroy Players in Begley’s Hall, St Mary’s Hall, in Pomeroy, as an insurance man. It was great.
There is a great tradition of drama throughout Tyrone, including companies like the Hazel Wand Theatre School. Mention has been made, too, of Dún Uladh and the headquarters of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann in Ulster, which is at Ballynamullan, sharing a site with Gaelscoil na gCrann and Killyclogher Gaelic Athletic Club (GAC). So there is a lot of cultural and sporting promotion taking place there, on the one site.
I was not going to indulge in mentioning some sporting heroes from the area, but I will mention two. One is from the rugby tradition, and his career was cut relatively short. David Pollock, from Omagh, was a leading light in Ulster rugby, but he suffered a bad injury. I am not going to mention Peter Canavan in this debate, Deputy Principal Speaker; I will not mention Peter Canavan’s name. However, I will mention young Tiernan Bradley, who recently won Ulster Herald Sports Personality of the Year at Kelly’s Inn, and that was a big occasion for that young boxer and his family.
The Strule Arts Centre and the Alley Arts and Conference Centre in Omagh and Strabane have been mentioned as well, and rightly so. Other venues like The Patrician in Carrickmore and An Creagán Visitor Centre are all playing their part in promoting culture and the arts, as is Dún Uladh, of course.
I think it is reasonable and legitimate for people in any constituency, including in West Tyrone, to make the point that, when they take the lead in developing facilities, it is reasonable to expect government to support that. In the case of both arts centres in Omagh and Strabane, the Arts Council has been very supportive in the past with capital funding. Maybe the call is now for revenue programmes to support events that will take place in such centres.
On a tourism note, it is good that the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister is here. I hope that the comments are also read by the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister, Arlene Foster, who has the remit for promotion of tourism. I think that the Tyrone concept is very strong, particularly on the east coast of America, in places such as New York and Philadelphia. It is a good idea for the Tourist Board to promote the name of Tyrone on the east coast of America where a lot of our people have taken up residence over the years. I leave it at that.
Ross Hussey (UUP)
I, too, thank Mr Byrne for bringing this subject to the Chamber this evening. Many years ago, Jimmy Young, when doing a parody of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, would have said, “Welcome to Northern Ireland: the glens of Antrim and the Giant’s Causeway, the glens of Antrim and the Giant’s Causeway, the glens of Antrim and the Giant’s Causeway”, as though the world ended with those two places. He obviously did not know that Tyrone existed, and there are times when I believe that some people still believe that Tyrone does not exist.
I have the honour of being the vice chairman of Omagh District Council. My colleague Councillor Buchanan also serves on Omagh District Council, and Mr Byrne and Mr McElduff are former members of it. Michaela is a former member of Strabane District Council. So we have associations with the councils, and the two district councils in West Tyrone deserve credit for the work they have undertaken in helping the sporting and cultural life of West Tyrone.
I want to put in an objection to Mr McElduff’s comments. He played an insurance man in a play in Pomeroy. I was an insurance man for 26 years and was not asked to take that role. I could have given him guidance and support, but he did not seek it. It is too late now, Mr McElduff. Your time has come and gone. Had you spoken to me beforehand, you could be a star today. Now look where you are.
However, we have invested in sport, culture and tourism projects. If you take just those three words — sport, culture and tourism — the village of Sion Mills hits all three. Sion Mills has the rich tradition and working culture of the mill, its sporting background in soccer, cricket and bowling and its tourism impact because of its facilities: that is just one small part of Tyrone.
Mr Byrne, Mr Buchanan and Mr McElduff referred to the strong cultural identity in west Tyrone, whether that be from a GAA or a Tyrone tradition. One thing in Tyrone that binds us all together is the fact that we are from Tyrone. It means something to us and always will.
I read some background information on the west Tyrone area and our sporting heroes, cultural background and tourist attractions. Mr Byrne referred to quite a few of them, as did Mr McElduff and Mr Buchanan. However, when you look at what we actually have, it opens your eyes to what local people are doing, which is all down to volunteers and individuals.
In bowling, there is William Boggs, an Ardstraw bowling club member who won the triple event in the mid-Tyrone zone and triumphed in the first all-Ireland under-25 tournament held at St Anthony’s Club, Craigavon, in 2011, beating a number of seasoned internationals. In football, there is the Brendan Keogh youth league. The 2012 season, which will be its 14th, begins at the end of March and looks as though it will be one of the biggest yet, with four clubs, Beragh Swifts, Fintona Swifts, Strabane Athletic and a club from Fermanagh and South Tyrone called Augher Stars. I will include that club anyway; I am not proud, and they are from Tyrone as well.
Omagh Academy, my old school, won the Northern Bank schools trophy for the first time in 2012. Mr Byrne referred to Jackie Reed. He was my PE teacher, so please do not look at me and think what a success he had with me. I am afraid that I was one of his failures, but he did try. I used to babysit for him, which is why I got away with a lot of things.
The Omagh Wheelers cycling club was formed in 1999. That club continually lobbies local councillors and MLAs to support it. Reference was also made to Micaela Brunton and Frances Campbell in netball. The Ecclesville Centre in Fintona: Councillor Rainey would never forgive me if I did not mention the Ecclesville Centre in Fintona. So there, it got two mentions.
In boxing, Tiernan Bradley was mentioned. The Sacred Heart boxing club fighter registered an amazing treble in 2011, claiming the Ulster and all-Ireland boys’ 52 kg titles as well as the Irish junior cadets’ title. Later in the year, he also claimed bronze at the European schoolboy boxing championships.
My brother Derek would not forgive me if I did not mention Castlederg High School. In football, there is Strathroy Harps and Dunbreen Rovers in Omagh, which is coming up for 50 years. The sad reality is that despite many attempts, it still does not have a home. It has had various temporary homes over the years but still has not got a home.
In boxing, we have Nathan Duncan. The Drumragh Integrated College student won the 75 kg schoolboys’ middleweight Ulster boxing championship this month. He trains with the Immaculata boxing club in Strabane. In hockey, there is Shirley McCay. There is also the Omagh Lawn Tennis Club: again, a club that started very small and built itself up.
When we look at leisure facilities, we can see that Omagh District Council has invested millions of pounds in its leisure centre. The same can be said of Strabane District Council in respect of the facilities that are provided in Strabane, and the Derg Valley Leisure Centre is another example of that.
Culture and tourism; the Ulster American Folk Park. How could anyone not fund the Ulster American Folk Park? It celebrates the biggest link between Ireland and America: people will come in their droves because of what is there. It is a marvellous facility. Again, we can remember it starting in the Mellon homestead many years ago, and look where it is today. That is down to hard work and commitment. I also had the honour, as vice chairman of the council, of attending various events there. The Bluegrass Music Festival attracts hundreds and thousands of people into Omagh, County Tyrone.
I sit on the committee of the Strule Arts Centre, and many people who come to it cannot understand how we have such a great facility in Omagh. We are not a total backwoods: we are there, and we are there to be seen.
Time has nearly got the better of me, but one place that I have not mentioned is the St Lucia complex, the military barracks in the centre of Omagh. That is a brilliant opportunity to share our military past. An awful lot of people from the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions joined the army in Omagh at the St Lucia Barracks. I always say that it is one of the finest examples of a military barracks of that era, probably in the whole British empire. Omagh District Council has its eye on it, and it is still there in the melting pot. I would love to see it brought into public ownership.
Mr Principal speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker, you are looking at the clock, so to save you telling me to sit down and be quiet, I will stop now. However, as Mr McElduff would say, come on Tyrone.
Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
I too thank the Member who brought this debate to the House for allowing me the opportunity to speak to the House on some of the sporting, cultural and tourism initiatives that the Minister’s Department has provided much-needed revenue and funding for in the Strabane district and further afield west of the Bann. I appreciate the Minister being here.
First, I want to talk about some of the tourism initiatives. I appreciate that some of the tourism initiatives are cross-departmental with DETI, and I am keen to hear from the Minister whether she, along with the ETI Minister, would start the discussion on some of the west Tyrone initiatives, both sporting and tourism, that Members have spoken about today. Those are projects that the Minister could raise at the next North/South Ministerial Council meeting on tourism.
Strabane has one of the most prestigious canals that you will see anywhere in Ireland or Europe. Our canal opened in 1796: it is some 306 years old, and it closed in 1962. It is a four-mile stretch of the River Foyle, starting from the River Mourne. Its purpose when it opened was to encourage industrial and commercial cargo upstream from Strabane to Derry. As Strabane at that time was a flourishing market town, it brought considerable prosperity to Strabane and its hinterlands. Other Members referred to Gray’s Printing Press earlier and the ancestral home of President Woodrow Wilson.
The canal has been restored but not quite to its former glory, but as close to that as the funding would permit. It has two locks: Devlin’ s lock and Crampsie’s lock. They are now working, and hopefully the canal will be opened once again to the public so that it can be used for enjoyable activities, such as walking, cycling, boating, gaming and angling. I am sure that when the canal opens, hopefully in June, it will attract visitors from far and wide who will come to share with us in Strabane this jewel in the crown. I thank the Minister along with the council and her Department for their efforts in bringing that to fruition.
I am sure that you are aware that these types of projects attract tourists to the town and, indeed, west of the Bann. Events such as the one on the canal can stretch the budget. We need finance to keep it up. I urge the Minister to find the much-needed and deserved funds for such projects.
We also have some great loughs in Strabane, such as Lough Ash, Lough Lee and Moorlough. Moorlough sits right in the heart of the Sperrins. There is beautiful scenery right along the lough. Minister, your Department has part responsibility for Moorlough. It is well stocked with brown and rainbow trout and covers some 16·2 hectares. Many visitors are attracted to that lough, where they enjoy a game of fishing or a great family day out. Such are the amenities at Moorlough that there is little or no access to it, only a stony road; there is a toilet block that needs repaired annually; and the parking facilities are inadequate. Minister, as it is the part responsibility of your Department, I encourage you to find the funding that is needed in that area. When we had the great weather over the weekend, Moorlough was bustling with tourists — and I mean tourists, not people from Strabane. There were people from Antrim there on Sunday. It is a joy to be had by everyone. Minister, you are welcome to Strabane to visit the many tourist attractions.
We mentioned the Alley Theatre in Strabane and the Strule Arts Centre in Omagh. We are very proud of our arts in west Tyrone. The Member mentioned the dramas that have taken place at the Strule Arts Centre. At the Alley Theatre, we have had another successful year of pantomimes and dramas. We have a range of performing arts, visual arts, literature and crafts. All of these types of smaller projects cannot be forgotten about. Unfortunately, when some of the smaller groups that run and host these events apply for grants, they do not fit the eligibility criteria. As was mentioned, most of the people involved in these drama groups give up their free time because they are passionate about what they do. They ensure that the public get to see the natural talent that we have in west Tyrone.
I will speak now about some of the sporting events in Strabane and further afield in west Tyrone. Strabane is the birthplace of Dr George Sigerson; he was born in Holy Hill in 1836. Our local Gaelic club is named after the esteemed Dr George Sigerson, and I declare an interest as a member of that club. The club has excellent minor and senior teams for both girls and boys, which are going from strength to strength. Minister, your Department was recently instrumental in securing funding for an outside trail alongside the club that sits well in the heart of the community, not just for club members but for the community to use.
Throughout west Tyrone and Strabane, we have excellent facilities for boxing, basketball, hockey and camogie. We have an excellent hockey team in Castlederg. Ladies’ games, particularly camogie and hockey, are under-represented and do not get the financial support that Gaelic, rugby and football do. Minister, I urge you and your Department to do more to promote women’s sport and games. Women contribute greatly to sport, and that is often forgotten about. Speaking of hockey, I am sure that the Minister will join me in sending our best wishes to the Ireland women’s hockey team. Their Olympic qualification dreams were dashed when they lost 4-1 to Belgium at the weekend.
I also want to mention the Irish language in West Tyrone, particularly in my home town of Strabane. Recently, Gaelphobal won the all-Ireland Glór na nGael competition for its contribution to the Irish language.
Michaela Boyle (Sinn Féin)
I also want to mention the centre of excellence at Garvaghy. Further investment is needed in the promotion and development of Gaelic games in that area.
Lastly, I will take the opportunity to thank the Minister and her Department for their continued support for many projects west of the Bann.
Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin)
Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Principal speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. I thank Joe Byrne for proposing the Adjournment topic. I also thank Thomas Buchanan, Barry McElduff, Ross Hussey and Michaela Boyle for setting the scene for West Tyrone.
I am a city girl. I come from north Belfast, but, since I took up office last May, I have been in West Tyrone, and, from what I have seen, the range of activities that happen in that constituency cover a lot of different aspects of sport and culture. I have a briefing in from of me, but I have seen it myself. Indeed, it has quite a lot to offer.
I want to pick up on some of the comments that were made. I am aware that the constituency of West Tyrone is a largely rural area, but there are a number of urban centres. The main centres are Strabane and Omagh, which, as Members mentioned, were traditionally market towns. Indeed, both towns and the rest of the constituency are rich in their cultural heritage.
I am aware of the unemployment figures for the constituency. Some 23% of the population of West Tyrone live in some of the most deprived areas. I will take up some of the points that Thomas made. The Executive, through the latest Programme for Government, have again demonstrated that resources need to be directed towards need. The 23% of the population that is deprived covers not only areas of unemployment, but poor housing, educational attainment, health and all the rest. However, youse already know all that.
I am concerned about the number of young people who are leaving our shores to go to America, and, mainly, Australia to try to find work. That issue has been raised before, and it is totally unacceptable to us all.
Joe Byrne talked about the lack of investment in West Tyrone, and Thomas Buchanan also picked up on it. I want to put on the record that, in my view, the west of the Bann has not received the investment that it should have received. It is recognised for all sorts of reasons that people living west of the Bann did not get the investment that they were entitled to, compared with people living east of the Bann. We need to make sure that that lack of investment is a thing of the past.
On 14 February, which, coincidentally, was Valentine’s Day, I, and many other Members were glad that £330 million was committed to the upgrade of two sections of the A5 road between Derry and Strabane and Omagh and Ballygawley. That was well overdue. Some £25·7 million was committed to accelerate the progress of construction work on the new Omagh local hospital. Again, that is in addition to the £75 million that was announced in August last year. I am just pointing out the recent investment that was made. We need to make sure that that trend continues.
DCAL has invested a lot of capital funding in local sport and cultural and tourism infrastructure. We have invested in museums, sports venues, theatres and visitor attractions. Capital investment is really important for local people. They need to see a value put on their constituencies. As Barry and others pointed out, local capital investment will mean local jobs, particularly in the construction sector, which has been hard hit, particularly west of the Bann.
Members mentioned the excellent facilities in their constituencies, particularly Strule Arts Centre in Omagh and the Alley Arts Centre in Strabane. However, others were mentioned. I am surprised that nobody mentioned the Fintona tram, but I will touch on that later. Despite some of the comments that were made, the Ulster American Folk Park received £2·4 million.
I hear what you are saying about it not being enough, but £2·4 million has been invested in a feature that is ranked eighth most popular visitor attraction in the North, with some 167,000 visitors. I think that that is quite good. We need to go in and support that.
In the past five financial years, Sport NI has provided funding towards 31 projects in west Tyrone, totalling £2·3 million. However, I hear what people are saying. One of the real issues that has been raised relates to the Garvaghy project. I went to the Garvaghy project something like two days before Christmas, and I saw at first-hand the centre, the site and the progress that has been made. I have to say again, as a girl from north Belfast, which has no pitches for its kids, I was really impressed with what County Tyrone has done for its citizens. I was really impressed with the young people. My understanding is that Sport NI will be making a decision soon — in May or June — on the contribution, and we all look forward to that.
I want to refer to some of the comments that Members made. If you do not mind, lads, I will take the last point first, because Michaela had the last word. She mentioned women in sport. I am sure the House would like to pass on its commiserations, but also its pride, to Ireland’s women’s hockey team that narrowly lost out. They have our best wishes, and I am sure they will be back again. Women are involved in sport, particularly in west Tyrone. A lot of sporting activity occurs, and a lot of women are involved, but that recognition needs to be reflected in investment. I recognised that in December last year, when I put on an event to recognise the value of women in sport. The volunteers who are involved in sporting, cultural and tourism activities in west Tyrone, whom Members have mentioned, are to be valued but not taken for granted. I hear what you are saying. We need to support the contribution that people make on a voluntary basis by not taking them for granted and by making sure that they are invested in and recognised.
Michaela also mentioned the loughs. I am glad that people from north Antrim are going to west Tyrone. As a girl from north Belfast, I will be in west Tyrone again. The Member mentioned Lough Ash, Lough Lee, Moorlough lough and Lough Bradan and said that they were stocked with brown and rainbow trout. That will help in respect of tourism. Setting aside the recent developments around salmon and so forth, angling in our rivers and waterways, particularly in small rural villages and towns, is essential. We need to do what we can to support that.
I recognise the value that local government has made through its contribution, particularly around Garvaghy, but when listening to some of the Members talk today, you would think that DARD was not involved. DARD made a contribution to Garvaghy as well, so central government have made a contribution. I think the question should be this: what is DCAL going to do? We think that we need to at least recognise that. The question is about DCAL, not government in general. The funds that local government has put into that project, tourism and other sporting and cultural projects have to be widely recognised.
Some of the arm’s-length bodies from my Department have matched some of those contributions through Sport NI, the Arts Council and museums. Recently, we went through the review of libraries. This is where I want to mention the Fintona tram and the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum. Fintona tram is very important. I did not realise that, but I realise it now. The question I keep getting asked by none other than Barry McElduff — but not solely him — is whether we can —
Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin)
I did not want to mention that, but you did, so that is on the record. I will not dispute it; I would not dare intervene in a local row.
I recognise that we need to bring some of our artefacts out of the museums and put them into our towns and villages. We need to exhibit those things to help tourism. We need to try to join aspects of the DCAL family with our local government to try to make sure that we do everything that we can. I do not know whether we are there yet; that is the honest answer.
I will certainly check the Hansard report of today’s debate, and I am confident that my Executive colleagues will do likewise. I have had contributions in preparation for this debate from the Social Development Minister, Nelson McCausland, and from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Arlene Foster. Those contributions related to neighbourhood renewal, because of the deprivation, tourism and, primarily, investment. We have also had contributions from the Health Department. We need to have a more joined-up approach to make sure that the purpose of the debate is achieved. It is about culture, tourism and sport. We need to link up to make sure that we provide the best possible facilities and services for the people of west Tyrone.
This is my first adjournment debate, and I am delighted that it has been about West Tyrone. I hope that the announcements that should be made by Sport NI and others regarding facilities in that constituency will be made and will be successful. I also hope to be back again. I was at Omagh District Council offices recently for the launch of Líofa. I was very well received, and I was really impressed. I know that the Ulster-Scots Agency has done excellent work along with Foras na Gaeilge, and the Orange Order and the GAA have done loads of work. A lot has been done and more needs to be done, and I look forward to playing my role in that.
Adjourned at 8.10 pm.