COMMITTEE ON THE Wednesday 23 August 2006 Members in attendance for all or part of proceedings: Witness: The Committee met at 10.05 am. (The Chairman (Mr Molloy) in the Chair.) The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I remind members to switch off their mobile phones, as their signal interferes with the Hansard recording system and means that sections of the meeting can be lost. Will members state any apologies and, if necessary, name those members for whom they are deputising? Mr Raymond McCartney: I am standing in for Martin McGuinness. Mr McCann: I am standing in for Conor Murphy. Mr A Maginness: I am not sure for whom I am deputising: it is probably Mark Durkan. Mr Attwood: I am standing in for Seán Farren. Mr Neeson: I am standing in for David Ford. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any deputies from the Ulster Unionist Party? Mr Kennedy: The poor are with you always. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): You are a permanent fixture. Mr Weir: Ian Paisley Jnr is due later. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does any member, who has not attended the Committee before, have any interests to declare? I shall take that as a no. Are members content with the minutes of the meeting held on 16 August 2006? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The next matter is our letter to the Secretary of State and his reply. They are fairly lengthy. Members may want, therefore, to take a few minutes to read them. Do members have any comments? Mr Neeson: The most important thing in respect of the Secretary of State’s willingness to appear before the Committee is that, if he cannot fit in with the dates that we have provided, we should avail ourselves of whatever dates suit him. Hopefully, those dates will be sooner rather than later. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The proposed new date is 3 October 2006. Mr Kennedy: It is nice of him to give us an early opportunity. Mr Neeson: We should avail ourselves of that. I formally propose that we accept that date. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are members agreed? Mr Kennedy: We have been expected to work through the summer at the behest of the Secretary of State, which, in large part, we have done. There has been a wee bit of toing and froing, but there has been a consistent level of attendance from all parties, and we have tried to take our work seriously. We are now heading into September, which was supposed to be the big date in the Secretary of State’s mind, when the report of the Preparation for Government Committee would be ready and Members of the Assembly would potentially have the opportunity to debate it in the Chamber. We have important issues to discuss with the Secretary of State, but he is saying that he is too busy and that it will be October before he can appear before the Committee. 10.15 am Perhaps I am being overly critical and cynical, but, if this work is as important as the Secretary of State outlined to us at the outset, why is he not prepared to attach equal importance to it and appear before the Committee? A meeting would not be an interrogation of the Secretary of State; he is entitled not to expect that. However, we are entitled to some consideration of the work with which we have been tasked. An important aspect of that is for the Secretary of State to clarify his position, and that of the Government, on a range of issues. If we do not meet the Secretary of State sooner than early October, it could cause problems in preparing a full and final report for consideration by the Assembly. Mr Weir: I agree with Mr Kennedy. If push came to shove, we would probably have to be ready to report before then anyway. However, it is very poor form that we are being told that 3 October is the earliest date. The importance of this work has been stressed to us, and many of us have given up a fair amount of time. If we were talking about a session with the Secretary of State that would last three or four hours, that would be a different kettle of fish. I assume that we are looking at a slot of about an hour to quiz the Secretary of State. It also strikes me that, for the Secretary of State, Stormont should not prove to be too inconvenient a venue. We should write back to him, indicating that, in order for us to prepare a full report, we should ideally have a meeting as soon as possible. Faced with the choice of either meeting the Secretary of State at a very late stage or not meeting him at all, I would prefer to have the opportunity to quiz him, even if it were included as an addendum to our report. We should be pressing him. Delaying a meeting until 3 October is treating this Committee with contempt; if he is serious, it should be earlier. The Committee’s letter referred to, in particular, the political impact of his Glenties speech, which it was important to do. It is worthwhile to record that, if the Secretary of State is not available before our report must be produced, the report should indicate that we would have benefited from the chance to speak to him. However, we should not give up at this stage. The Secretary of State should realise that, if he does not make himself available, whatever report we produce will not be as advanced as we would have liked. The Secretary of State is a great man for telling us that particular deadlines must be met. However, he is not facilitating anybody to meet deadlines, as he seems to be putting us very much on the long finger. I have a degree of incredulity that he cannot spare one hour between now and 3 October. We must tell him that, if he is not prepared to shift his position, while a report will be produced, the process will not be as advanced as we had hoped. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The proposal was that we would agree the report by 13 September. Mr Attwood: I echo some earlier comments. I do not know whether it was pointed out to the Minister’s private office that, thus far, and by agreement, the Secretary of State has been the only person whom the Committee has wanted to see. The Secretary of State might be mindful that, in order to make the workings of the Committee tight and focused on outcomes, and, rather than have a long list of witnesses, members chose to invite only him. That reflects the serious intent around the table and the serious role that he has to play in assisting the Committee. The Secretary of State must be mindful and respectful of the constraints that he placed on the Committee and on its ability to report back to the Assembly. He set those limits and constraints, and it would seem necessary, therefore, that he comply with his constraints on the time frame within which the Committee has to report. Given those two matters, and the fact that there will be a gaping hole in the report if we do not get a greater sense from the Secretary of State about where he sees the policing issue being played out over the next four months, we should go back to the Secretary of State. Certainly, we should accommodate his diary, but we must ask him to accommodate the time frame that he set by agreeing to see the Committee before the middle of September. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We will do that and see whether there is another date, which means that members have accepted Sean’s proposal that we meet with the Secretary of State. Mr Neeson: Yesterday, you chaired the subgroup on the economic challenges facing Northern Ireland, and you know that its report will be finalised tomorrow for presentation to this Committee. The subgroup agreed that, as it will meet the Minister, Maria Eagle, on 5 September, it would provide an addendum to its report. As Peter Weir suggested, that may well be the way forward for this Committee also. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The proposal is that we ask the Secretary of State to make himself available during early or mid-September at the latest. Failing that, the Committee will take up the offer of 3 October. Mr Kennedy: If we are going to play poker with him, we might as well not show our hand at this stage. Let us reserve our position on the October date until we see whether he can better that offer. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are we agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee Clerk will write to the Secretary of State to try to negotiate a different date. As regards the rest of the Secretary of State’s letter, in relation to Assistant Chief Constable Sheridan, there has been no direct response to our request, but it seems that the information is not available. Mr Attwood: What was that, Mr Chairman? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am talking about the request for information from Assistant Chief Constable Sheridan and the response in the Secretary of State’s letter. The letter does not provide any details: it says that the matter is outside the role of the Assembly. Mr Attwood: There are two matters that the Committee should pursue. First, in relation to national security accountability, the Secretary of State’s letter states: “Developmental work is in hand in this area.” How are national security issues being handled in general terms, and what type of information could the Policing Board, the Minister and the Assembly expect to receive? The Committee should ask Clare Salters to advise when the NIO anticipates that the developmental work could be shared with the parties. Secondly, under public order and the role of the army, the letter states: “Consideration is currently being given to what powers the army may need post-normalisation.” Two areas are then named: “public order” and “explosive ordinance disposal”. We should enquire whether those are the limit of the powers that the Army may need post-normalisation. Public order and explosive ordinance disposal powers are broadly consistent with the Patten Report. However, we should enquire whether the Government believe that the Army may require other powers post-normalisation that go beyond those outlined by Patten. We should ask Clare Salters to provide an indicative list of all powers that the British Government anticipate that the Army will require post-normalisation in order to operate effectively. We may not get those answers between now and the end of the Committee’s duration. However, we should ask for that information to be provided as soon as possible. Mr Kennedy: I suspect that “public order” and “explosive ordinance disposal” do not comprise an exhaustive list of the Army’s post-normalisation role. In the past, the Army has managed situations involving the emergency services such as during the strike by the Fire and Rescue Service, where the Army deployed “Green Goddesses”. Mr Neeson: I would like a definition of “normalisation”; that has never been made clear. By the same token, there has never been a clear definition of “ceasefires”. What do “ceasefires”, whether they be loyalist or republican, mean? In order to make progress, it is important that we have clear definitions of those terms. Mr Cobain: To reiterate what we said last week, we should not be bound by what the Patten Report does, or does not, say. That issue is gone. The SDLP can float in and out of the Patten Report whenever it suits. I hope that the Committee will not be held to the criteria that the Patten Report set for the future role of the Army, or for any other issue. As far as the UUP is concerned, the issue of the Patten Report is finished. It cannot be used in discussions as the criteria for the devolution of policing and justice. Mr S Wilson: The SDLP continually harks back to the Patten Report, despite having already accepted that the Policing Board has torn up parts of that report. Recruitment of constables from outside Northern Ireland is not done on a fifty-fifty basis, which is contrary to the Patten Report. The SDLP was happy to sign up to that on the Policing Board. In fact, I do not believe that the SDLP made any complaints because it realised that the report disastrously denuded the police force of skilled detectives and that, therefore, those constables were needed. Likewise, the SDLP accepted that the recruitment of part-time reserve officers was not on a fifty-fifty basis. The board is discussing the recruitment of police community support officers, which was not recommended by Patten — again, the SDLP has no difficulty with that. The SDLP has been quite happy to dispense with chunks of the Patten Report when it has suited them. The Northern Ireland Office is considering a post-Patten Report period. The Police Service has applied for money under the Patten Report, but has been told that things have moved on and that it must fund various projects from its own budget. The latest example of that is the police college. That is right — if we keep ourselves tied to arrangements that are now nearly 10 years old. Things have moved on, and we must move on from Patten. 10.30 am At every meeting, we return to the issue of national security. To me, it is a dead issue. National security is controlled by central Government in other parts of the UK; it will not, therefore, be devolved. As the Northern Ireland Office pointed out in its letter, arrangements to establish the protocols will be made between the police and the security services. National security will not be included in the remit for this Committee or the Assembly. Alex Attwood has some sort of infatuation with national security, and, therefore, every week, we come back to it. At some stage, we really must stop indulging him and move on. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I know that there are issues around policing to be discussed, but can we concentrate on the Secretary of State’s letter? Mr Kennedy: From the SDLP’s remarks, it could be interpreted that it expected Northern Ireland, at some point, to be an army-free zone. That is not a sensible assertion, neither is it very desirable. It bears no relation to reality: not least because of the significant military tradition in Northern Ireland, and the fact that a garrison will remain and, therefore, would be available in the event of any emergency, whether it concerns international terrorism or issues of national security. Mr A Maginness: I take issue with the rather personalised criticism that was made, and it should be put on record that the SDLP’s concerns about national security and the security services are important issues, which this party will continue to pursue vigorously on the Policing Board and elsewhere. To characterise them as the personal obsession of a member of the Policing Board — or a member of the SDLP, namely Alex Attwood — is absolutely wrong. It is reflective of — [Interruption.] Mr S Wilson: I could be much more offensive than that if you wanted. Mr Kennedy: He is only warming up. Mr S Wilson: Ask Fra McCann. Mr A Maginness: I know well that Sammy Wilson can be extremely offensive. However, I am making a serious point: to characterise this as the personal obsession or hobby horse of an individual member of the SDLP is absolutely wrong. The SDLP is committed to pursuing those issues and will pursue them vigorously. Mr Kennedy: Apologise, Mr Wilson. Mr Raymond McCartney: The NIO’s letter refers to the British Army’s role in supporting policing and public order. The British Army’s record in public order situations is not very good. Sinn Féin will oppose that strenuously and ensure that it is not one of the roads taken. Mr Attwood: There could be consensus on this. I suggest that, in due course, the British Government might be asked to advise the parties, this Committee and the Assembly, of the developmental work on national security matters. My reason for suggesting that — contrary to what Sammy suggested — is that the letter from the British Government says: “… those with responsibility for overseeing policing, including the Assembly in due course, will need to understand how national security issues are handled in general terms and what type of information they can expect to receive in relation to policing matters that bear on national security. Developmental work is in hand in this area.” It is the British Government’s intention that the parties around this table and the Assembly should receive and understand certain information and, at the moment, they are working to provide that information. Perhaps Sammy should re-read the letter. The British Government are saying that the matter is not off-limits, the Assembly will have a role, and that they are developing an understanding of what that role might be. I suggest that there should be consensus, and that the developmental work that is in hand should, in due course, be communicated to the Committee and the Assembly. I accept what the Patten Report said about the Army, whether I like it or not. I am surprised that Sinn Féin does not now accept that Patten provides the threshold in respect of the role of the Army in the North, having said previously that it did. However, that is for Sinn Féin to explain. The SDLP accepts what Patten said and, therefore, accepts that the Army has a role. It is important to know every element of that role. Of course, the Army will have a role during strikes and similar emergencies. However, is that the height of the Army’s power or, as I suspect, is there more? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Perhaps we can short-circuit the discussion by getting consensus on Alex’s proposal to ask the Secretary of State to share with this Committee information on the developmental work on national security matters. I am sure that all members want to know that. Is there agreement? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Alex’s second proposal is that the Secretary of State’s office be requested to provide an indicative list of all powers that the Army may require post-normalisation. Are members agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The other issue was the definition of normalisation and ceasefire. Whom do we ask for a definition of ceasefire? Mr Cobain: Various Secretaries of State have reiterated their definition of ceasefire. They have said that they take ceasefires “in the round” — whatever that means. Mr Weir: Basically, it means whatever suits them. Mr S Wilson: It varies from one week to another. Mr Neeson: Given ongoing paramilitary activities, it is important that we are clear in our own minds not only on our definition of a ceasefire but on the Government’s definition. That also applies to normalisation. What is normalisation? For example, if the UDA and UVF declare a ceasefire, is that normalisation? Clear definitions are important to enable us to move forward. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We could discuss that with the Secretary of State, if he comes to the Committee. Mr Neeson: I would like something before that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members agree that we write to the Secretary of State about that? Members indicated assent. Mr Kennedy: It will be November before he comes back to us on that. [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): As there are no further issues arising from the Secretary of State’s letter, we will discuss firearms and explosives. Mr Tim Moore will give us more detail on that. Mr T Moore: There is a research paper in members’ packs entitled ‘Firearms Devolution Scotland’. The NIO discussion document suggested that Northern Ireland might wish to follow the Scottish model of devolution in relation to firearms. The NIO characterised that model as one in which routine firearms regulation is a devolved matter but that the: “business of regulating the use of prohibited weapons, such as automatic weapons … remains reserved to Westminster.” The Committee asked for further information on that. The NIO characterisation is somewhat misleading and oversimplified. To explain my understanding of that, I draw members’ attention to paragraph 4 of my paper, which states that, under the Scotland Act 1998, firearms are a reserved matter. In effect, that means that it is the equivalent of an excepted matter in Northern Ireland. However, paragraph 8 of my paper states that provisions in the Scotland Act 1998 have made it possible to devolve powers to Scottish Ministers in areas that are, in effect, reserved. An example of that applies to the Firearms Act 1968, which states that the Secretary of State can authorise: “persons to possess prohibited weapons.” It is important to add that the ability to change the list of prohibited weapons has not been devolved to Scottish Ministers. The Secretary of State’s power is to grant a certificate or to grant the authority to hold a prohibited weapon. That includes what may be termed “automatic weapons”, in that, with constant pressure on the trigger, they will release two or more bullets. In Scotland, firearms matters are reserved, although certain functions have been devolved to Scottish Ministers. Today’s members’ pack includes a table that sets out the Secretary of State’s functions under Northern Ireland legislation. Presumably, if members were to choose to follow the Scottish model, those functions, rather than overarching control of the legislation, would be devolved. By way of example, last year, a young child was killed by an air rifle in Scotland. Public concern was such that the Scottish Parliament debated the incident and considered whether they could legislate for future occurrences. They discovered that they could not. The designation of which types of weaponry are generally prohibited remains with Westminster. The ability to authorise someone to hold those weapons is devolved to Scottish Ministers. That is how the devolution settlement works for firearms in Scotland. Mr Kennedy: I am reading the email from the Scottish Executive, and it is interesting to note that Ian Fleming now works there. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is the Committee content to recommend that Northern Ireland goes down the same route as Scotland, or do members wish to opt for a different procedure? Mr Raymond McCartney: Sinn Féin will argue for the maximum transfer. Mr Attwood: Members have only just received the paper. Given that it covers such a significant area and must be read alongside the Firearms Order 2004, the SDLP will have to reserve judgement. We need to see the differences between what Northern Ireland and Scotland have at the moment, and what further differences there might be between what Northern Ireland should have and Scotland might have. We might indicate agreement at the next meeting but we need to analyse the matter more thoroughly. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any other views? Mr Kennedy: The Ulster Unionist Party would be content to adopt the Scottish model. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Given that more information is required, we do not have consensus. We will put that issue in the car park with the others. Mr S Wilson: What storey have we reached? [Laughter.] Mr Weir: We are queued outside, waiting for an issue to come out before we can put another one in. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): This Preparation for Government Committee, which is dealing with law and order, passed the parades issue to the Preparation for Government Committee dealing with equality, rights and safeguards. Although that Committee discussed parades, it left the subject for further consideration and did not define it in detail. Mr S Wilson: How unusual! [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Yes. Other than acknowledge the work of this Committee, it has not discussed the parades issue further. Do members wish to make any comments on those matters? Are you happy to leave parades with the Preparation for Government Committee dealing with equality, rights and safeguards? Members indicated assent. Mr Kennedy: Did this Preparation for Government Committee not resolve something similar? Mr Attwood: That was about membership of the Parades Commission and appeals against Parades Commission determinations. There are two residual matters. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The appointment of members to the Parades Commission was passed to the Preparation for Government Committee dealing with equality, rights and safeguards for its consideration. Mr Attwood: That is right, but we must still make a decision on appeals. The Secretary of State’s letter indicates that the British Government think that appeals against Parades Commission determinations will be devolved to the Assembly and to the relevant Minister. That is noteworthy. 10.45 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does the Committee wish to deal with that today? Mr Kennedy: That is another issue that we would like to examine more closely with the Secretary of State. That is clearly the Government’s initial view on the matter. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Clerks will gather some more information on that. The problem with parking issues is that it will take a few long meetings to clear them up later. The more we can deal with today, the better. We will move on to discuss the explosives issue. The Committee Clerk: There was a question whether explosives should fall within the responsibility of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or the proposed Minister for policing and justice. This format of the Preparation for Government Committee, dealing with law and order, referred the matter to the Preparation for Government Committee dealing with institutional issues, which decided to refer it back to this Preparation for Committee. As well as a car park, we need bats. [Laughter.] Mr Weir: It is like a hand grenade with the pin taken out. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is a good job that it is not cricket. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister may have to decide on the matter when they determine which Departments should deal with which issues. Do members have any further comments? Mr S Wilson: To refresh our memories, is the issue about which Department should deal with the legislation or monitoring or which Department should deal with transportation, storage, and so on? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): It is about which Department should deal with the legislation. Mr S Wilson: If the departmental responsibility would involve the transportation and storage of explosives, the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland would probably be better placed to deal with it. If it is a wee minor issue like that, can we not make some decision on it, rather than kick the issue back and forth? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Transportation may currently be a particular problem, but, in a normal situation, a company, under the supervision of the Health and Safety Executive, would undertake that. The issue concerns the management of explosives, dealing with legislation regarding permits, and so forth. Mr Kennedy: It seems to be a public-safety issue more so than one of law and order. Mr Neeson: As members know, explosives are manufactured in Carrick — Mr Kennedy: Legally or illegally? Mr S Wilson: Both, actually. [Laughter.] Mr Neeson: The police always accompany the vehicles carrying explosives, so it could be a policing issue, although I also see the health-and-safety aspect. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): What do we do? Mr Cobain: This is a health-and-safety issue, not a policing issue. It may be a policing issue because of the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland, but throughout the rest of the UK it is a health-and-safety issue. A home must be found for it somewhere, and it would sit more comfortably with the Health and Safety Executive than with the police. Mr Weir: I agree with Fred’s point; it would not be a unique situation for an agency outside the criminal justice field to deal with a matter that has policing implications and that involves liaising with the police. This is probably a health-and-safety issue. I suspect that it is not the most controversial issue in the world. Mr S Wilson: Let us be bold and make a decision. Mr Weir: We could perhaps bank the issue. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We consider explosives to be a health-and-safety issue and recommend that it be dealt with by the Health and Safety Executive. Is that agreed? Members indicated assent. Mr Weir: Should we contact the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ and tell them to hold the front page? [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I am sure that they will have it. We will move on to policing matters; some issues were dealt with, and there was the opportunity to come back to deal with some others. We did not resolve them all. Mr Attwood: Policing or justice issues? The Committee Clerk: Last week we had a list of three issues under the general heading of “Policing”. Those were “Intelligence Services”, “Policing issues” and “Police Ombudsman”. Mr Cobain: Score “Intelligence Services” off. The Committee Clerk: “Intelligence Services” was completed. The “Police Ombudsman” discussion was completed, but the Committee agreed last week that it might want to return to general policing issues to raise any further points. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I think that we may have had that debate this morning. Mr Raymond McCartney: Although we have had good, broad discussions on the issue, it would be a good sign of the real progress that we are making on this Committee if we could firm up the timescale for transfer. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There was a proposal passed at one stage. Was it left that policing and justice would be transferred “as soon as possible”? Can someone remind me? Mr Kennedy: The Alliance Party proposed that powers be devolved as soon as possible, but Sinn Féin objected to that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there any further agreement regarding the earliest possible date, or any particular date? Mr Kennedy: It is hard to improve on “as soon as possible”, I would have thought. Mr Cobain: Mr Attwood is working on that now; he is trying to think that one out. Mr Attwood: The SDLP’s view is quite simple. We believe that if the institutions of Government are restored, that will be on the basis that all parties have signed up to all the requirements for restoration and for the stability of the institutions thereafter. If that is the basis on which people are going into government — that there is a basis for sustainability and stability —devolution of justice and policing should happen without delay. If there is a basis for government, in our view, there is a basis for the transfer of policing and justice powers. The British Government, as I understand it, will argue that there are requirements in respect of enabling secondary — not primary — legislation around some issues, and that it will take time to set that in motion before we get to the point of actual transfer. I want to have that conversation with the British Government to see whether that is just a delaying tactic or a genuine reason. Subject to that proviso, the SDLP thinks that the devolution of policing and justice should happen without any further delay. We believe that if there is any delay, a shadow Ministry should be considered in the interim period, whether that be a month, two months or six months. In that short time frame prior to the devolution of policing and justice powers, there should be a shadow Ministry so that when power is formally devolved everybody, including the Minister or Ministers, hits the ground running. Furthermore, if in that short time there are any teething tensions between the British Government and the NIO about what should be devolved, it will give an opportunity for such issues to be worked through. We are arguing that if there is restoration, there should be devolution of policing and justice. If the British Government present some technical reason to delay that, the time frame should be as short as possible, during which time we should have a shadow Ministry so that people know what the business is about, especially as some of it will be controversial. I would like to think that there would be some consensus, because if we can go into government because we are confident that people will live up to their responsibilities in government, given the fact that we all want to govern and that in order to govern there must be the power to govern, why not have policing and justice devolved immediately or in the shortest possible time frame? Or is it that some parties will have restoration only on their terms rather than on fair and equal terms? Mr Weir: I do not want to rehash this argument, because we have gone into detail already. I do not know if Mr Attwood is being slightly mischievous in the way that he has made his proposal. The DUP has been clear. The devolution of policing and justice has always been dealt with separately from the devolution of other Departments. It has been put at a different level, which is why it was not devolved in 1998. The Executive, during its existence between 1999 and 2002, did not have policing and justice powers devolved to it. Greater community confidence is required for the devolution of policing and justice than for the creation of an Executive. That fact has been acknowledged by the Government. It would be useful, and we would all be keen, to tease out the Government’s position on this issue. The Government have made their position clear in Westminster about the various locks that would have to be opened before policing and justice could be devolved. If there is a strong desire, or an acceptance, that policing and justice should be devolved at a particular time, the Government are not going to stand in the way. It is not simply a matter of the Executive being set up and clearing aside the technical issues; it is a question of trying to gain that public community confidence that does not exist at present. We want Northern Ireland to be stable and peaceful enough for confidence to be built up to the extent that people are keen to see the devolution of policing and justice. That is our aim, which is why we signed up to the formula of “as soon as possible”. Completely wrong signals are being sent out if we start to chat about shadow Ministries. Leaving aside the extent to which people would be employed without having roles and responsibilities, it is not simply a question of getting the Assembly back and automatically starting a short countdown to the devolution of policing and justice. That will come with community confidence. The DUP is prepared to back the formula of devolving policing and justice “as soon as possible”. We should not be tied into specific time frames or a process that automatically triggers devolution of those powers at some stage. A long open-ended process or shadow Ministries would be meaningless. Therefore, with respect to Mr Attwood, the DUP does not favour his suggestion. Our position and, I suspect, the positions of the other parties, has not changed. We had a lengthy debate on this issue. Members can give their views, but it is not productive to revisit the issue. Mr Neeson: This is a sensitive issue, and we have not even agreed on how the Minister would be elected or chosen. It is important that the institutions are working collectively and in good faith. A timetable of two years has been suggested. I agree with Mr Weir about policing and justice being devolved “as soon as possible”. The institutions must work and the public must have confidence in those institutions. Mr Raymond McCartney: The issue of public confidence was discussed at an earlier meeting. The DUP argues that there must be public confidence before the institutions and the justice Ministry are set up. If an Assembly is up and running, there will already be primary legislation in Westminster that states that policing and justice will be devolved “as soon as is practicable” — which seems to be what the unionists are suggesting — but also within a time frame of 12 months. It would send out a positive signal to everybody if, when the institutions are restored, there is an indicative time frame for a justice Ministry to be set up. 11.00 am Mr A Maginness: As time goes on, I am becoming more confused by the DUP position. The DUP seems to be saying that if people fulfil, and live up to, their responsibilities, all obstacles to the full devolution of policing and justice powers would disappear. The phrase “as soon as possible” seems to be an immediate consequence of that. If that is so, the DUP should have no reservations about a transfer of powers as quickly as possible. The British Government have passed enabling legislation so that matters can be dealt with reasonably quickly. Some secondary legislation may be required; we can ask the Secretary of State about that issue and get a guarantee that it would be dealt with quickly. Custom-made secondary legislation would be needed to deal with all outstanding matters. If the DUP wants the transfer of policing and justice to be delayed, that adds further conditions and is contrary to the spirit of what the DUP originally said, which was that if people fulfil their responsibilities, matters can be dealt with as soon as possible. I am really confused about the DUP position; it must be clarified. In a shadow Ministry, a Department would be set up with a Minister, or Ministers, in place by whatever mechanism might be used to establish that; powers that can be transferred immediately are devolved to that Department so that the Minister, or Ministers, in charge can exercise them. There may be some delay in additional powers being transferred, but at that point the Minister, or Ministers, would be in place. In that sense, there is a shadow Department, but I would not get hung up on the word “shadow”. Mr S Wilson: I am not sure where the confusion lies. Perhaps it lies within the SDLP, rather than between the SDLP and the DUP. All SDLP MPs voted for the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006. An important part of that legislation states that the devolution of policing would not automatically follow the devolution of other powers to Northern Ireland, but would be dealt with separately. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would first have to table a motion in the Assembly that would have to be carried by a cross-community vote, at which point Westminster would hand over the powers. That was all subsequent to devolution. If there is confusion, it must be within the SDLP, or perhaps Alban is out of line with his three parliamentary colleagues. Those are the facts. The reason that this issue is different from other matters to be devolved is quite clear, and was well articulated during the debate on the Bill: it is different because of the importance of public confidence. Policing and justice can be devolved only when people are satisfied that there is a willingness to work within the rule of law. The entire tenor of that debate was that devolution of policing and justice could take some time. We have made no secret that it could take some considerable time for confidence to be built and that it would depend on how parties behaved in the Assembly and on what was happening outside it. That was all well articulated and clearly explained, yet the SDLP voted for it. This is not some new condition, but something that has been argued out. That is why the legislation was framed in that way. Mr Attwood: The consequence of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 means that, on day one of the Assembly, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can table a motion and that there can be a cross-community vote. There is no confusion or inconsistency in the SDLP’s position. Policing and justice can be devolved on day one or in week one or in month one. If sufficient confidence exists for a party to enter Government, sit in the Executive and participate in an Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — whether it is a joint office, as prescribed by the SDLP, but from which the DUP and Sinn Féin have now backed away — the power and ability to devolve policing and justice exist on day one. We argue that the required level of confidence can exist from day one because, by going into Government, a party accepts that it has a level of confidence. The only remaining issue thereafter would probably be some residual secondary legislation that might take a little more time to deal with. The DUP is prescribing a veto, which was outlined in the comprehensive agreement, on when devolution of policing and justice happens. Had we negotiated that agreement, we would not have conceded that veto; nonetheless, the DUP has that veto. On a whim, elements in the DUP may want to use it. For that reason, rather than let the Assembly be subject to that weapon, people should get their heads around the idea that, if the power exists on day one, it should be used on day one. Doing so will bind people much more closely to the institutions and to accepting their responsibilities. It will also prevent parties playing fast and loose with democracy and the institutions, which was one of the problems with the first Assembly. Mr Kennedy: Let me helpfully add to everyone’s confusion about a couple of the party positions. The leader of the DUP informed us at one stage that all the issues had been effectively resolved. The comprehensive agreement says, in annex A: “Agreement reached on modalities for devolution of Criminal Justice and Policing”. In paragraph 8 of the Governments’ own preamble to the agreement, it says that: “the British Government will initiate discussions with the parties on the modalities of devolution as soon as the IICD has confirmed the completion of IRA decommissioning, with the aim of agreement by the time the Executive is established. On that basis the British Government will commit to introducing into Parliament by the summer of 2005 the legislation necessary to permit devolution to take place. Such legislation will come into force as soon as possible, once sufficient confidence exists across the community”. Annex F, the Sinn Féin statement on policing, says that: “As a result of our discussions we now have a commitment from the British Government and the DUP to the transfer of powers on policing and justice to the Assembly as soon as possible”. Why Sinn Féin would now object to the phrase “as soon as possible” is beyond me. I thought that would helpfully continue to confuse everyone. [Laughter.] Mr Raymond McCartney: On the broader question, it is down to whether this Committee, when it makes its report, wants to put on record an indicative time frame. We should propose whatever we feel is the consensus view of the indicative time frame. Let us define “as soon as possible”. Mr S Wilson: A couple of meetings ago, I actually proposed what Mr Kennedy has read out from the comprehensive agreement. We want to see the devolution of policing and justice, but there is no point if the community has no confidence that those in charge will support the rule of law. Mr A Maginness: May I make an intervention after Mr Wilson has finished? Mr S Wilson: Yes, after I have finished. We now have two or three pieces of evidence. First, we have the comprehensive agreement, in which the phrase “as soon as possible” provides the only indicative timetable. There is the legislation, referred to in that agreement, which again sees devolution of policing and justice as a separate step from the devolution of other functions to the Assembly. Furthermore, the Secretary of State, in the preamble to that agreement, as Mr Kennedy pointed out, accepted that the requirement for community confidence is a further step beyond what is required for devolution before we can have the devolution of policing and justice. The Secretary of State is saying it. The legislation — supported by the SDLP MPs in Westminster — is saying it. Indeed, Sinn Féin almost appears to be accepting it. I used the phrase “as soon as possible” because one of the Sinn Féin representatives used it, echoing what was in the comprehensive agreement, so I felt that we would get consensus around that. We are not going to set a date, because then that date becomes all-important and the conditions necessary to create community confidence fade into the background. Everybody works towards a date — two years, or six months, or whatever it happens to be — and we just sit back and wait for it to arrive, rather than work towards building that community confidence. That is why it is important not to set a deadline, but to simply say that we want it to happen and that there are certain things that have to take place before it can happen, and then to work towards ensuring that those things take place. That is the way of getting devolution as soon as possible — not by simply setting a time. 11.15 am Mr A Maginness: The DUP’s argument is that there must be sufficient confidence within the community to form an Executive and bring back the Assembly in its fullest form, and that there must be further confidence in the community in order to devolve policing and justice powers. That is a contradictory position. If there is sufficient confidence within the community to form an Executive, which is exercising very substantial budgetary powers — £8 billion or more — then it is incredible to say that in relation to policing and justice, in which there are many safeguards, there needs to be further confidence. Either you have community confidence or you have not. That confidence must cover all the functions of Government and cannot exclude one specific function of Government in Northern Ireland. If you use the phrase “as soon as possible” in its common parlance, it means that you do something immediately, provided — Mr S Wilson: Provided that the conditions are met. Mr A Maginness: No, provided that it is practical to do so in the sense that the legislation is in place, and it is simply a matter of practicalities. If not, the phrase “as soon as possible” is a bogus term being used by the DUP simply to put a good political gloss on its untenable political position. Mr S Wilson: It is a phrase backed by the Secretary of State, legislation and Sinn Féin. Mr A Maginness: Policing and justice powers should be devolved immediately on the formation of an Executive, or no more than six months later. That is the sort of approach we should be taking, rather than using a phrase that seems good but, when you parse and analyse the DUP’s position, becomes meaningless. Mr Raymond McCartney: “Public confidence” is like “British national security”, which we discussed earlier — it cannot be legally defined. Who determines public confidence? We will end up with one party determining public confidence. If an indicative time frame is given — such as once the institutions are set up, as Mr Maginness suggested — then, even accepting that gauging public confidence is allowed to be in the gift of one party, at least we will have moved things on. If not, we will end up looking for a definition for “ball tampering”, which nobody seems to be able to give this week either. Mr Weir: I will not go too much into cricket analogies. To an extent, we are flogging a dead horse, because we have had this discussion already. The sensitivities around policing and justice are greater than around any other potential Government Department. That is why we are having a special Committee to deal with these matters. We are not having a special Committee to deal with the impediments to devolution because of regional development problems or social development problems. Since devolution occurred in 1999, it has been accepted that policing and justice should be treated as a separate issue. That is why it is not simply the case that a few technical issues need to be sorted out. If that were so, policing and justice would have been devolved within a couple of months of devolution, or indeed at any stage during the lifetime of the Assembly. In any post-conflict situation around the world, policing and justice have proven to be more contentious than any other issues. The DUP’s position has been consistent. It is not a question of one party’s having a veto. In many ways, the locks are in place: the devolution of policing and justice must have the approval of the Assembly and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The requirements go far beyond the will of the DUP. They are enshrined in legislation. Danny’s quote showed that the DUP’s position has not changed. We want to reach a situation — hopefully, sooner rather than later — in which there is community confidence. We can play games with this issue as much as we like. However, it is unrealistic to think that community confidence would be there from day one. The DUP would like policing and justice to be devolved as soon as possible, but we must ensure that the necessary community confidence is there. Almost all the parties, including the SDLP, have accepted the Westminster legislation. Indeed, the SDLP has created a formula based on that legislation. Ahead of devolution, members can suggest particular time frames or models to devolve policing and justice. However, beyond the acceptance that, when the conditions are right, the devolution of policing and justice must be achieved as soon as possible, it is a matter of community confidence. I doubt whether a proposal could be made that the DUP would support. I suspect that, without stealing their thunder, the Ulster Unionist Party would probably be in a similar position, as might be the Alliance Party. It is crucial that there is community confidence, and, therefore, it is a matter of “as soon as possible” rather a strict time frame. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are going around the houses. Perhaps we need a couple of proposals to tie up the issue. Mr Neeson: Everybody is talking about community confidence. The bedrock on which community confidence could be based would be the Executive’s showing clearly that they are acting with collective responsibility. During devolution, despite the role of the DUP, nobody could say that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists showed collective responsibility. It did not exist. The basis on which collective responsibility could be shown would be, for example, on whether the Executive could take a coherent view of public disorder and could they accept the operational independence of the Chief Constable? The Alliance Party has said that, in line with legislation, devolution should be in place for two years before policing and justice are devolved. That is a two-year target: it does not mean that policing and justice could not be devolved sooner. Once again, I stress that unless collective responsibility is shown to exist, it will be difficult to address the sensitive issue of the devolution of policing and justice. Mr Kennedy: The comprehensive agreement suggests that, in shadow form, the Assembly would consider modalities for the devolution of criminal justice and policing, and that, if agreement were reached, the British Government would lift suspension and, presumably, provide the opportunity for more discussion on when the devolution of those matters would occur. The comprehensive agreement is silent on when that would happen, other than using the phrase “as soon as possible”. It is silent on the timescale. Mr A Maginness: I have suggested a proposal. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do you want to put that proposal now and see whether we have consensus? I suspect that we will not, though. Mr Weir: I would not race down to Eastwood’s bookmakers. [Laughter.] Mr A Maginness: It is important that the proposal be made. Policing and justice should be devolved immediately following the formation of an Executive, and, if not, it should be devolved no later than six months from that formation. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Mr Kennedy: There was a wide-ranging discussion on the same issue, either at the last meeting or the one before. Time goes so quickly in the Committee that one loses track. I believe that there was a proposal in the name of the leader of the Alliance Party, David Ford. My memory of it was that it did not gain consensus. It was vetoed because of Sinn Féin’s objections, although it was supported by the SDLP. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): There were two proposals. Mr Kennedy: It would be helpful to revisit that issue. Are we going to deal with different proposals on the same matter every week? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We are dealing with this issue because members requested that all matters with regard to policing be finalised. Policing and justice are the two main issues that are dealt with by the Committee. It is correct that the Committee returns to those issues when further developments have been made. Mr Kennedy: There comes a time when it is appropriate to ask what part of “no” some people do not understand. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): OK. We will consider the two proposals that were made. The Committee Clerk: On 9 August 2006, Mrs Long proposed that a target date for devolution of policing and justice should be set at two years after restoration of the Assembly. There was no consensus on that. Mr Wilson proposed that policing and justice should be devolved as soon as possible. There was also no consensus on that. Mr Kennedy: Do the minutes indicate who objected? The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The minutes record that no consensus was reached. Mr S Wilson: Danny is correct, although the record does not show that. All parties, except Sinn Féin, supported the proposal. Mr Attwood: That is not the case. Mr S Wilson: It was the case. Mr Attwood: It was not the case. Mr S Wilson: You were not here; I was. Mr Attwood: I know that that was not the case. Mr Kennedy: My daddy is bigger than your daddy. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Consensus may not have been reached due to the objections of more than one party. For the duration of this Committee, the minutes have not recorded which parties did not assent to a particular proposal. Is there consensus on the current proposal? Members indicated dissent. Mr S Wilson: I propose that all parties support the transfer of police and justice powers as soon as confidence exists in the community. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is there consensus on that proposal? Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Alex made a proposal earlier. Has that been superseded by Alban’s proposal? Mr A Maginness: Yes. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We cannot proceed any further on that proposal at present. Item 3 on the agenda is “Discussion on Prosecutions”. Alban, the SDLP requested that this discussion be held back until you were present. Mr A Maginness: Why? [Laughter.] Mr S Wilson: Because none of the rest of them knew anything about the issue. They said that you knew marginally more. [Laughter.] Mr Cobain: Alban raised several points on that issue when he was last present at the Committee. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Discussion will focus on the NIO letter, dated 15 August 2006, which is at tab 4 of members’ papers. Mr A Maginness: I had sought information on judicial appointments. The information in the NIO letter is self-explanatory. The functions of the independent Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission have been transferred to the Lord Chancellor’s Office. Once devolution takes place, those functions will fall within the remit of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, at the last meeting, the table was presented in such a way that it was unclear whether those functions would be properly devolved. It is now certain that they will. “It is intended that, when responsibility for justice matters is devolved, these responsibilities would transfer back from the Lord Chancellor to the First and Deputy First Ministers. This would require a transfer Order under section 86 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.” That clarifies the situation. 11.30 am The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We move on to community restorative justice (CRJ) and the residual justice issues that Alex wanted to be discussed. Traditionally, each party, in alphabetical order, gives a short presentation. Mr Neeson: The Alliance Party recognises the contribution that CRJ can make as a complement to existing policing and criminal justice systems. Restorative justice has been used successfully in many jurisdictions, particularly the United States, Canada and New Zealand. It carries benefits for victim and offender alike. However, I must stress that it is suitable only for low-level, non-violent offences. Support for any restorative justice scheme must take into account the continued paramilitary grip on some communities, and the desire of some of those communities to bypass the PSNI and to maintain what are, in effect, local police forces. The Alliance Party believes that the original draft guidelines were a move in the right direction, but that they must be substantially tightened in the following areas: all groups must work directly with the police and cannot be allowed to bypass them by working through intermediaries; training schemes must be approved upfront, rather than merely inspected after the fact; guidelines must extend to cover CRJ projects that deal with non-criminal and antisocial behaviour; a mechanism is needed to vet individuals who work on the schemes to ensure that they are not currently involved in criminal activity or associated with paramilitary organisations; finally, any CRJ scheme that does not adhere to any formal guidelines should be rigorously investigated. The Northern Ireland Office does not seem to have any intention of regulating the involvement of CRJ schemes in addressing non-criminal antisocial behaviour. That remains a major problem, and the boundaries between such behaviour and criminal activity are blurred. There may be a danger that groups may label some actions as non-criminal behaviour, in which case NIO guidelines would not apply. How organisations address non-criminal issues will impact on their overall credibility. Co-operation with the police is absolutely essential; that problem seems to have been significantly tightened in the new draft proposals. However, it must be clearly spelt out that any CRJ scheme can be used only where it has the green light from the police or the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). If either body fails to give direction, no scheme should be allowed to proceed by default. Once again, I stress the importance of staff who work in CRJ schemes receiving accredited training that has been approved in advance. In relation to the independent complaints procedures, there should be scope for a third party to make an appeal, rather than limiting the right of appeal to either the victim or the offender. Vetting is likely to be the most difficult issue with respect to paramilitaries. We do not believe that because someone has a paramilitary past they cannot have a future. Under the draft revised guidelines, only those convicted of an offence after 10 April 1998 will be specifically excluded. We want to ensure that intelligence can be utilised so that those who may not have been formally convicted of any offence since 1998, but who are suspected of being actively involved in paramilitarism, can be excluded. Mr S Wilson: The value of CRJ schemes in Northern Ireland has yet to be proven. The DUP does not take quite the same view as the Alliance Party that such schemes automatically benefit the community. We have reservations about CRJ as a tool within the criminal justice system. The current schemes, whether on the loyalist side or the republican side, have associations with people who were involved in paramilitary activity and who are still associated with groups that would be regarded as paramilitary. The DUP sees the schemes as providing a way to impose a different form of policing on the communities in which they operate; hence the resistance to direct involvement with the police — especially on the republican side and perhaps not so much on the loyalist side. I have reservations about how much of a contribution CRJ schemes can make to crime reduction. However, if schemes are to be authorised and eventually funded, the DUP wants to see the introduction of guidelines similar to those suggested by the Alliance Party. About 80% of the schemes’ current workloads involve low-level, non-criminal, antisocial behaviour, which is totally outside the scope of the guidelines laid down by the Northern Ireland Office. That is a concern because it means that, by and large, those schemes will not have to abide by the guidelines. However, the DUP wants four issues to be taken into account. First, the schemes should deal only with people who have been referred to them by the police or the PPS; they should not take on referrals or cases themselves. That, of course, involves direct interface with the police. Schemes must liaise directly with the police, not simply contact a third party or proxy, such as the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, as had been originally suggested. It is important that there is direct police involvement, otherwise schemes will be seen as an alternative to the current policing arrangements, which is why direct involvement was resisted. Secondly, people who apply to work in the schemes should be subject to the same vetting procedures as those who apply to join, for example, the police or the police reserve. That would deal with Mr Neeson’s concern that there should be access to police intelligence on individuals who may be currently involved in paramilitary activity, even though they may not have not been convicted of an offence since 1998. That is an important safeguard that would allow the public to have confidence that the schemes are not simply a front for paramilitary groups administering their own form of justice. Thirdly, accredited training and accountability are important. Under the new proposals, a complaint can be dealt with initially by the scheme itself, which is not independent accountability at all. The DUP believes that, since most organisations and agencies in the criminal justice system are subject to independent scrutiny, the same should apply to community restorative justice schemes, given the issues that such groups would deal with. The only exception is the Police Ombudsman, and the DUP wants that situation to be remedied. The SDLP, if it wants to be consistent, will want that too. Fourthly, it must first be proven that CRJ schemes have a role to play. If they have a role, it must be an integral part of the entire justice regime. CRJ schemes cannot set themselves up as an alternative to existing arrangements, and they must be subject to the same strictures, restraints and accountability as other elements of the criminal justice system. Mr Raymond McCartney: Sinn Féin supports the concept of community restorative justice. Since its inception in 1999, it has played a meaningful and useful role in improving the quality of life in the communities in which the schemes are based. CRJ is not an alternative to policing; indeed, community restorative justice, by its own definition, does not see itself as such. Sinn Féin agrees that groups must display the highest possible standards. There should be strict guidelines on accountability and on how groups deal with people. Participants should have accredited training. In the context of this Committee and the work of any future Ministry, Sinn Féin believes that community restorative justice will play a crucial role in ensuring, and improving, the quality of life in our communities. Most of the schemes’ work goes unannounced, and funding has only recently become an issue for them. Many of the people involved work on a voluntary basis; a cross-section of the community represents the community. People must be careful that CRJ is not used as a tool to make political points. Mr Attwood: The SDLP supports the concept of restorative justice and community restorative justice. Restorative justice is being mainstreamed into the formal justice system, especially where juveniles are concerned. Raymond said that the “highest possible standards” are required in restorative justice. In that case, and given what the other parties have said, we may be able to reach consensus. We should be able to reach agreement on what “highest possible standards” means when it comes to community restorative justice. There should be an independent complaints system, which is not what the British Government have proposed. An independent complaints system must be established by statute, and the procedure must include the ability to compel witnesses to attend, to seize documents and to investigate fully any allegations. That is not what the British Government have proposed in their model, which gives the role of administering complaints to another public body. If the threshold is highest possible standards, the SDLP agrees with the DUP that those standards must apply to all the work of community restorative justice schemes. Given that 80% to 95% of the work undertaken by schemes is non-criminal — and we must discuss what that means —all that work, as well as any criminal matters referred to the schemes by the state, must be governed by regulation. 11.45 am Having the highest possible standards will require, as the Alliance Party said, a body dedicated to managing the schemes to ensure that they comply with all necessary financial management and human rights standards. A different body will be required to inspect the schemes to ensure that they continue to meet the highest possible standards. I hope that we can agree on that issue. There are other examples of how the highest possible standards might be fulfilled, but I do not have the time to elaborate. Perhaps some work could be done in order for us to reach consensus. The relationship with the police is central. The British Government’s protocol does not address the matter properly. Although they now accept, under the protocol, that there will be no third-party reporting of crime to the police, they have introduced the vague term “direct communication with the police”. “Direct communication” could mean many things. If it does not mean a full relationship with the police whereby they are informed and assisted in the investigation of crime, it is a reworking of the failed approach that was adopted in the McCartney case; a third party was used to bring evidence to the police, and no evidence of any use was brought through that third party. Unless “direct communication” means full co-operation with an inquiry into a crime, we could end up with a sham that would legislate against the proper conduct of restorative schemes. Unless there is an end to exiling, we could end up with restorative schemes where some people in the community are not signing up to proper practice in relation to how people are treated, including vulnerable young people. Policing arrangements must be accepted in order for community-based restorative justice schemes to prosper properly. Unless all parties advise people to join, and assist, the police, North and South, restorative schemes may operate in a way that does not accept the rule of law, lawful authority and proper policing. Until a proper environment is created, there are real risks that some restorative justice schemes may create more problems than they solve. Mr Kennedy: Members of the Policing Board have worked hard on this important subject. They have given a useful response to the Government’s draft guidelines that is worthy of sensible consideration. The UUP strongly believes that the police, as the civil power, must retain prime responsibility for law and order. There is no doubt about that. The UUP sees some value in the schemes’ work. All schemes must work in conjunction with, and with the direct involvement of, the PSNI. There must be proper vetting. We want to reserve our position regarding the date that has been suggested for the involvement of people with pre-1998 paramilitary/criminal backgrounds. We have serious reservations about that. We agree with the SDLP about the end of exiling. The police, as the civil power, must not be undermined or circumvented by the work of any community justice schemes. Mr Neeson: I am interested in Mr Attwood’s suggestion of an independent complaints system. Who would set that up, and what would its responsibilities be? Mr Attwood: An independent complaints system would be set up by the British Government at Westminster, because it would have to be legislation-based. A complaints system based on statute would create certainty and avoid doubt. The body would be dedicated to complaints and would have no other responsibilities. It would have the powers to compel witnesses, to search property and to seize documents. Unless the body had such powers, a complainant could allege that an alternative justice scheme did something in error, and the scheme could refuse to co-operate with the complaints body by saying that the body did not have the power to make it co-operate. The scheme could refuse to provide documents, saying that the complaints body did not have the power to seize those documents. The complaints system would fall into disrepute very quickly. The British Government have suggested that people who have been convicted of serious criminal acts might be involved in restorative justice schemes. There is a community imperative that if people who are involved have had a criminal past but have moved on from that past, there must be a statute-based complaints system, with all necessary powers, to protect vulnerable people, especially young people, The probation model does not move us very far. Mr Cobain: Mr Attwood is correct. We could reach consensus on the issue if all parties hold to what they have articulated this morning. Restorative justice, as a concept, could be of tremendous assistance to the police in large working-class areas where antisocial behaviour restricts quality of life compared to middle-class areas. There is no doubt about that. In such areas, traditional policing simply does not work. Mr Wilson said that CRJ has yet to be proven. I work with Greater Shankill Alternatives, which is a professional, open organisation that can verify that its scheme works; its records are open for anyone to examine. Members of the management committee come from a wide cross-section of the community. It is not a paramilitary-run organisation. I can speak only from the loyalist perspective; I cannot speak from the republican perspective. It is run by individuals who believe that restorative justice can deal with antisocial behaviour and low-level crime in working-class areas. Mr S Wilson: How can the success of community restorative justice schemes be measured? Mr Cobain: It can be measured in several ways. The schemes work independently on one-to-one programmes and processes with young people who have been involved in antisocial behaviour. Some of those young people become trainers for other kids. That is documented. I take Alex Attwood’s point, and there are safeguards all the way through the procedures. The Northern Ireland Alternatives organisations keep records: outputs are checked independently and, if needed, can be verified. We need to work on restorative justice. It has potential for people in working-class areas who engage in antisocial behaviour. Alex referred to an independent complaints procedure, which is essential, because these are vulnerable youths who have entered schemes voluntarily. That is an important point: people are not forced onto these schemes. Those who want to attend Alternatives can do so freely. An independent complaints procedure is a good idea, and all the strict guidelines that Alex articulated must be in place because these schemes deal with vulnerable youths. Community restorative justice schemes are an essential extension to the criminal justice system. They alone cannot deal with antisocial behaviour; it does not work like that. Every participant in a restorative justice scheme must be referred by the PPS or the police. Individuals who have committed low-level offences, but do not have those referrals, should not get places on the schemes. Accredited training should be mandatory for individuals on community restorative justice schemes. If individuals want to participate in the schemes, they would agree to follow a set training procedure, so that they are trained to do a particular type of work. Up to now, the concept of community restorative justice has been a bit of a hotchpotch. It has not been organised and funded properly, because political tensions take away from what could be an important contribution to society. Mr McCann: For many years, the area that I live in has had serious problems with antisocial activity. There is an active CRJ group in the area. It is recognised widely, and we have debated the issue at Belfast City Council, that the community, possibly more than any other measure, has the answer to dealing with antisocial activity. The members of the CRJ group come from the local communities and, as a non-violent organisation, it is trying to deal with antisocial behaviour. Believe it or not, I have been told that, on occasion, the PSNI has been encouraged privately to go to the CRJ group, as it is seen as the most effective way to deal with a complaint. Many SDLP supporters in my constituency use CRJ regularly and are happy with the way in which their complaints are handled, which usually involves mediation between the person offended against and the offenders. Some areas have used CRJ to try to clear up antisocial activity, and their record is better than that of the PSNI. 12.00 noon The majority of people in my constituency see the PSNI as being part of the problem. Many of those involved in antisocial activity are working as low-key agents for the PSNI and are therefore allowed a free hand. There is a raft of issues to consider. A former SDLP councillor has had contact with CRJ, as have other groups that deal with, for example, neighbourhood watches. Although there may not be cross-party support, other parties have made use of CRJ. Antisocial activity is a blight that has to be dealt with, and it can only be dealt with by the community itself. We should consider how we can support the community and its CRJ schemes, because they play an active role in trying to overcome the blight of antisocial activity. Mr Weir: I want to pick up on Fred’s point. Most of us are aware of CRJ groups, but no one has dealt with all 18 of them. However, we can draw a number of conclusions. Although we are not accusing any CRJ group of being run by paramilitaries, our experience is that it is difficult to find a scheme in which at least one person has not, at some stage, been involved with paramilitaries. That is why people are concerned about CRJ. Some people involved with the schemes must have mixed motivations. Some may well be genuinely concerned about their community and tackling antisocial behaviour and crime in order to benefit their community, but others may want to help paramilitary groups to retain control in their areas. Everyone is not involved for the same reasons. Although the jury is out as to why people are involved in CRJ schemes, an overall view must be taken. If we do not get this right, some groups may make a valuable contribution but many might make the situation worse by undermining the rule of law and by setting up CRJ as an alternative to the law. The opportunity for restorative justice to make a valuable contribution hinges on the safeguards and protocols that are put in place. Alex made a reasonable suggestion that the way in which to progress is to take seven or eight different proposals —the Hansard report will detail them — on specific aspects, principally concerning the protocols, to see if there is consensus. We could probably reach consensus on two or three proposals — for example, training. Although parties will have different views on the remaining proposals, it would still be useful to test them. Alex’s proposals tended to focus on areas where it was felt that there were deficiencies, for want of a better word, in the Secretary of State’s or the Government’s position. Therefore, it would be productive to bank something by way of consensus that would direct the Government. If there is disagreement on issues such as vetting or on the primacy of the police, the parties will have the opportunity to say where they stand. There may not be agreement, but at least there will be an opportunity for people to publicly express their opinions. Mr A Maginness: Everybody accepts the value of restorative justice; it has been proved throughout the world. However, the real contentious issues concern community restorative justice. There is a restorative justice system in the criminal justice system, through the very successful youth conference service, for which the Youth Justice Agency of Northern Ireland is responsible. That arose from the Criminal Justice Review and has been proved to work well. The system is not yet available throughout Northern Ireland, but that is work in progress, and the entire community will, at some stage, be able to access it. It should be noted that the service has been independently evaluated. The high rate of victim participation is indicative of the fact that it is working well. There is a high rate of satisfaction among victims that the service has produced positive results for them. Equally, offenders have derived considerable satisfaction from the service because it has acted as a brake on further criminal and antisocial activity in the community. The service has been very positive in trying to divert young people from criminal activity. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) also does good work on diversionary activities for young people. We must bear in mind that such work is also part of restorative justice. We are dealing with the discrete area of community restorative justice, which is contentious, but we should emphasise our support for restorative justice in the criminal justice system as it now evolves. Going back to the main point, I endorse what Raymond has said. If we are to use community restorative justice, we should aspire to the highest possible standards. There should be a truly independent complaints system and proper, worthwhile and effective training for those involved in the schemes. There should be a proper vetting system for those running the schemes. It is crucial that the engagement between the schemes and the police is clearly seen to be good and positive. Mr Attwood: I will fast-forward things and take up Peter’s point. As there seems to be potential agreement on one aspect of the issue but not on the other, I have drafted two proposals. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Could I bring Raymond in on that point? Mr Raymond McCartney: People generally feel that community restorative justice schemes are a good concept, although I accept that party political perspectives can influence opinions, as Peter mentioned. However, CRJ must be given space to allow it to work. Fred mentioned referrals to CRJ schemes by the PPS. If someone wants a neighbourhood dispute to be resolved, the last thing that they want is to go to the PPS, which may take six months to act. We have all witnessed the work of the PPS in the Magistrates’ Court and other places, and no one wants to wait six months for a resolution. We must be careful, because in one breath we say that CRJ schemes are a good idea that should be supported, but in the next mention guidelines and procedures that will, by design, strangle them. Recently, an 11-year-old girl in Derry who wrote on a wall ended up being fingerprinted and having a sample of her DNA taken. That situation would have been dealt with in a better way through community restorative justice. We must be careful when using words and phrases such as “vetting” and “use of intelligence” to decide who can work in CRJ schemes, as they are designed to make it impossible for people to work unhindered. The same applies when talking about independent complaints procedures controlled by the British Government, as if, in the past, all independent complaints procedures were above and beyond reproach. We must bear in mind that CRJ schemes have been running for over seven years in some areas. Despite all the nit-picking and scrutiny, it must be recognised that people have not come up with too many examples of where the schemes have got it wrong. I declare an interest, as my brother Noel, as Alex knows, heads one of the schemes in Derry. People may produce some examples of where schemes have gone wrong, but, in the main, they work well where I live. Any degree of failure or breakdown would be constantly reported and magnified in the papers, and that is not happening. There must be recognition that the schemes work. We must give them space to work. There should be guidelines and training, and the highest possible standards should be set. However, standards should not prevent people involved in CRJ schemes doing their work. Mr McCann: Following on from what Raymond said, Sinn Féin has no difficulty with the proper registration and oversight of CRJ schemes. However, one thing that is probably missing from this discussion is any input from the groups themselves. Perhaps representatives from Community Restorative Justice Ireland and other CRJ schemes could appear before the Committee to discuss the issue and submit themselves to our questioning and scrutiny. That may enlighten members on the excellent and, as Raymond said, hard and committed work of people who are involved in community restorative justice. Mr Weir: Without wanting to pre-empt anything that Alex may propose, we have identified seven issues that could perhaps be considered as proposals. Two or three proposals may achieve some degree of consensus; I suspect that the others will not. The first proposal is that all community restorative justice schemes should be accountable and subject to an independent complaints commission. The second is that training should be accredited and provided outside the scheme itself; there should not be self-training. The third proposal is that the vetting of anyone who wants to be involved with CRJ schemes should be of the same standard as applies to those applying to join the police force. Fourthly, all protocols are to be equally applicable to all aspects of work, including antisocial behaviour, to remove the dichotomy between criminal and antisocial behaviour. The same standards should apply to both. Fifthly, there should be direct contact with the police on all issues being referred to them. Sixthly, the police should have the prime role within any of the schemes. Seventhly, referrals should come from the Courts or the legal system — which gives a wee bit of flexibility as to whether referrals come from the police, if they feel that they are not criminal matters, or from the PPS. 12.15 pm Mr Kennedy: It might be helpful if we could get a note of all of the proposals and then, after lunch, we could go through them and see if we could resolve any of the issues. It would give us a period for reflection over lunch to see if progress could be made. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Alex, do you want to say anything at this stage? Mr Attwood: Yes. Just to simplify things. There are three areas — and I think we could reach consensus on one of them. We might reach consensus on the other two. We could get consensus on a proposal — taking what Peter has said — that agrees that there should be the highest standards governing CRJ schemes. That would include an independent complaints system, training and outside accreditation of the work, referrals from the Courts and the inspection mechanism. We could get agreement on those because they are at the more functioning end of restorative justice schemes. The second proposal, again, borrowing somewhat from Peter, would say that confidence in CRJ schemes requires acceptance of the rule of law and full co-operation with police and justice agencies. It would be a shortened form of what Peter said. I do not think we will get agreement, but the proposal needs to be tested. The third proposal is on vetting — again, I do not think we will get agreement — nonetheless, a proposal might be framed. However, by way of comment on what Peter has said on vetting, the SDLP has concerns about current vetting procedures. For example, we believe that the police occasionally rely on what they call intelligence traces and that those have become a mechanism whereby people do not get employment. I know from hard evidence that so-called intelligence traces are spurious, inaccurate or mischievous. On one occasion, they amounted to somebody being seen in the company of somebody else in a bar. That is not an intelligence trace: that is tittle-tattle, and there is no basis for relying on it. The above example shows that intelligence traces can impede somebody who is innocent in getting gainful employment in certain sensitive jobs. I do not think we will agree on vetting. As Peter and Sammy know, the Policing Board kept its options open on the subject because there was not going to be consensus on it. The same will happen here — over and above the much more fundamental issue of who should, or should not, be involved in the schemes. In any case, legislation due to come onto the books next year will mean that people with certain backgrounds before or after 1998, whether in Northern Ireland or in Britain, will not be able to work in a relationship involving children, because the law is being toughened up significantly. Anybody in any part of the North, or in Britain, who may want to work with children and who has a criminal record will not be allowed under the law here or there to work with vulnerable people. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do you have a particular proposal on vetting so that members can think about it over lunch? Mr Attwood: I will come back to you with the wording, Mr Chairman. I have the wording for the other two proposals but not for this proposal yet. I need to work on that. Mr Raymond McCartney: I also suggested the possibility that consideration be given to inviting CRJ groups along. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Does anyone have any other proposals? Mr Kennedy: The UUP will consider all of the proposals, but it wants to add a further proposal that this Committee should condemn the practice of exiling and demand that it be stopped forthwith. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We now have four proposals. Mr Raymond McCartney: On a point of information, Chairman. What is the link between community restorative justice and exiling? If exiling could be discussed in the context of residual justice issues, then I would agree to it. However, we must be careful that, on reading Hansard, it does not appear that members implied that some sort of relationship exists between community restorative justice and exiling. Mr Kennedy: If members wish to consider the matter separately as a residual justice issue, I am content with that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We shall separate the two issues. We will adjourn for lunch and return at 12.45 pm. The Committee was suspended at 12.21 pm On resuming — 12.46 pm The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have four proposals. Sammy, do you want to open the discussion? Mr S Wilson: A couple of composite proposals were to be put forward. Peter had about seven proposals, some of which can be encompassed in one proposal. We would be happy to support that. Mr Attwood: I have drafted a proposal: “The Committee agrees that the full range of highest safeguards and standards should apply to community restorative justice schemes including: an independent statute-based complaints system; accreditation from, and training governed by, an independent dedicated agency; an independent oversight mechanism with all appropriate powers; referrals to the schemes by the justice system; and that a protocol should govern all the work of schemes.” Mr McCann: I made a proposal regarding CRJ groups appearing before the Committee. Sinn Féin believes that they would provide valuable evidence that would otherwise be missing when the Committee makes decisions. We suggest that groups are asked to make written submissions. Sinn Féin feels that the Committee could not make decisions until there was evidence in the form of submissions from restorative justice groups. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are you saying that the Committee could not reach a conclusion on the proposal today? Mr McCann: Yes. Mr Kennedy: Minister of State David Hanson has completed the consultation on the draft protocol for community-based restorative justice schemes. There was considerable input into the consultation exercise, and all that information is already available. I do not see how this Committee, with time being against us, would have the wherewithal to pursue that proposal. Mr S Wilson: I am at a bit of a loss to understand the purpose of Fra McCann’s proposal. The phrase that Alex Attwood used about the “highest possible standards” was actually Sinn Féin’s phrase. The rest of the proposal, as I understand it, is to flesh that out. Indeed, the proposal deliberately avoids some areas, which, I suspect, may have been contentious. I accept that Sinn Féin have difficulty with parts of what the DUP, the UUP, the Alliance Party and, perhaps, even the SDLP have said. The highest possible standards means that there should be a complaints procedure for people who are unhappy with the service they received from a CRJ scheme. The staff should be trained to the highest possible standard, working to guidelines that covered all the schemes’ work. I do not know why we need to bring groups here and take evidence from them. Fra McCann said that he has considerable knowledge of the scheme in his constituency. I imagine that that would enable him to make a judgement on the contents of Alex Attwood’s composite proposal, which includes several of Peter Weir’s points. He should have no difficulty making a judgement without having to invite witnesses to give evidence. Mr McCann: Having considerable knowledge of CRJ schemes and speaking on their behalf are two very different things. I have said that I am willing to drop my request that CRJ groups appear before the Committee, if submissions could be sent in instead. Sinn Féin cannot make up its mind, or take any decision, without that valuable input. Danny Kennedy mentioned the draft protocol launched by David Hanson. Many CRJ groups are part of CRJ Ireland, and they have difficulties with the protocol, as does Sinn Féin. Therefore, the party will not be bounced into accepting any protocol without first hearing the voice of, or receiving written submissions from, CRJ Ireland or other CRJ groups. Mr Attwood: I invite Fra to withdraw his proposal for the following reason. Unlike the Subgroup on the Economic Challenges Facing Northern Ireland, this Committee chose not to invite many witnesses and request submissions so that members’ minds could be kept focused on the task at hand — dealing with barriers to the restoration of government. I had to swallow that decision, despite the fact that I was anxious to have MI5 representatives in the North and the Chief Constable appear before the Committee when it dealt with national security issues. I had to pull back because I recognised that in order to bore down into those issues and reach conclusions, the Committee had to work quickly and tightly. If the Committee allowed a submission on CRJ issues, it would also have to be open to receiving submissions on other agenda items. Thus, the Committee’s work would have to be reformulated in a way that would work against it. Furthermore, community restorative justice has been one of the most high-profile issues of the past eight months and longer. My proposal is not suggesting that we sign up to the Hanson protocol; nobody is suggesting that. Everybody knows where the balls lies on this matter, and there is enough competence around the table — and certainly enough capacity in each party — to allow us to assess the situation and reach agreement. Mr McCann: I am prepared to withdraw my proposal that the Committee should invite CRJ groups to give evidence in person, but I still believe that written submissions are necessary. The subgroup heard from witnesses and received submissions, and that helped members to form opinions on different matters. The problem with this issue is that we are making a decision based on other people’s opinions, not on the opinions of the groups involved. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): One of the Committee’s initial concerns was that if one party wanted to invite a witness to appear, another party might request the appearance of another witness to balance that presentation. That would involve many different groups being called as witnesses, and, given that some agencies would be slow to respond, the entire process would be delayed. For that reason, the Preparation for Government Committee adopted a different approach to the subgroup. How do we get round that? We wrote to the Secretary of State, and we received a response; we must now decide whether we want to write to some of the CRJ schemes. Mr Kennedy: All political parties around the table are aware of the pluses and minuses of CRJ groups. We all have some knowledge and appreciation of how they are viewed and are aware of their strengths and failings. Political lines are being drawn on the issue. It is a pity that Sinn Féin is using a basic holding tactic to stymie proper discussions. There is an opportunity to make progress on what ought to be a non-contentious issue. Alex Attwood has produced a composite proposal that, in a true sense, makes an honest attempt to find common ground. Some aspects are missing that I, as an Ulster Unionist, would have liked to have seen included, but I am prepared to give it a fair wind to see if some level of agreement can be reached. By the use of a basic tactic, the issue is going to be kicked into touch and no progress will be possible. Mr Neeson: Community restorative justice is not a new issue. Alex’s proposal tries to include experience from other parts of the world where CRJ has proved to be valuable. I have difficulty in understanding why we cannot reach consensus. Although I raised issues during my presentation that were not included, Alex is trying to put forward the bare principles in order for CRJ to have the highest standards. The best thing to do is to find out whether there is consensus. If there is not, I will have great difficulty in understanding why. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Alex, will you read out the proposal? The Clerks were unable to write down the full details. Mr Attwood: “The Committee agrees that the full range of highest safeguards and standards should apply to community restorative justice schemes including: an independent statute-based complaints system; accreditation from, and training governed by, an independent dedicated agency; an independent oversight mechanism with all appropriate powers; referrals to the schemes by the justice system; and that s protocol should govern all the work of schemes.” The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any issues that members would like to waive or withdraw from the proposal? 1.00 pm Mr Raymond McCartney: Many issues will need to be clarified, and the projects themselves could clarify them. Is Alex suggesting that no person has the right to go to community restorative justice to seek mediation without first going to the justice system? Mr Attwood: No, that is not what I am saying. Mr Raymond McCartney: Your last point was: “referrals to the schemes by the justice system”. Mr Attwood: I assume, from your experience in Derry, that you know how restorative justice schemes work, unless something is happening in Derry that I am unaware of. This is how it will work: somebody in Derry, for example, goes to the restorative justice scheme. If the matter is criminal, it should be referred to the police, or the restorative justice scheme should say that it cannot go near that matter because it is none of its business. I assume that that is what is happening in Derry because we are told that that is happening. Mr Raymond McCartney: You said “referrals”. That is a broad term. Did you mean all referrals? Mr Attwood: No. The justice system would refer matters that it believes are criminal in nature but that are best dealt with by community restorative justice schemes. It means that schemes themselves do not have the power to deal with a criminal matter. That should not be a threat to anybody — Mr Raymond McCartney: I never said it was a threat; I just wanted it to be clear. I thought you meant that all matters should be referred downwards, and that people should not go directly to community restorative justice. Mr Attwood: No; as I outlined in my statement — Mr Raymond McCartney: Someone said earlier that they wanted that to happen, and I wanted to make sure that you were not agreeing with that. Mr Cobain: We must be careful about this. Individuals cannot say, “I want to participate in the community restorative justice system because I have done x, y or z.” without going through the police or the PPS. That is not where the Unionist Party is coming from. In our view there has to be a structure: everything has to go through the police or the PPS. No one should be able to go to a community restorative justice scheme without going through the proper channels. That is why I said that community restorative justice should not be something that hangs somewhere outside the criminal justice system. It should be an integral part of both the restorative justice system and the criminal justice system, and we have to get that into our heads. Mr Attwood: Community restorative justice schemes deal with cases referred to them by the justice system, but referrals can be made in several ways. They can be made through the restorative justice scheme, an individual going directly to the police, or through some other mechanism. The point is that the authority to deal with the matter by the community restorative justice system is via referral of the matter from the justice system. Given that a criminal matter would be involved — however that is defined — that would be the right mechanism. Mr Raymond McCartney: If I understand Fred correctly, were I to ask community restorative justice to intervene or mediate in a neighbourhood dispute tomorrow, his belief is that the matter should be passed on immediately to the justice system. Are you saying the same? Mr Attwood: Any matter that can be defined as criminal under the legislation — Mr Raymond McCartney: That is not the point. Mr Attwood: Sorry, that is the point. Mr Raymond McCartney: It is not the point. The point is that it may not concern a criminal offence. Mr Attwood: The point is that, for example, if you have been assaulted in a dispute over a fence, and it is left up to you to define whether it is a criminal matter, we will end up with abuse of the system. For that reason any matter — any matter — that can be deemed to be criminal in nature has to be referred to the justice system before authority is given to a community restorative justice scheme to deal with it. Mr McCann: Who defines what is criminal? Mr Attwood: It is not going to be defined by community restorative justice schemes. Mr McCann: You have answered the question. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have probably reached a conclusion. Do we have consensus on the motion that Alex has moved? Members indicated dissent. Mr Attwood: The second proposal is that the Committee believes that acceptance of the rule of law and full co-operation with police and justice agencies are essential to the proper working of community restorative justice schemes and public confidence. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Mr McCann: Could we have copies of these proposals? Alex is reading something out. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That is the way it has always been. Members give their statements verbally. We do not have the opportunity to circulate them at this stage. Mr McCann: I appreciate that, but we are being asked to agree to something that Alex has just written down and has verbally given to this Committee. That makes it very difficult. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Would you repeat that, Alex? Mr Attwood: I will — the Committee believes that the acceptance of the rule of law and full co-operation with police and justice agencies are essential to the proper working of community restorative justice schemes and public confidence. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do we have consensus? Members indicated dissent. Mr S Wilson: The DUP would like to make a further proposal — vetting for anyone who works in community restorative justice schemes should be carried out by the police. Mr McCann: Sammy is a specialist at these wee late ones. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Did everybody hear that clearly? Mr Cobain: The area of employability and human rights is a minefield, and we have to be absolutely clear about it. I accept what Sammy is saying, but for people to agree to the proposal they would have to be sure that it could be carried out. Mr S Wilson: If people apply to join the police — Mr Cobain: Vetting for employment in the security services is taken as read, but if everybody going for a job had to be vetted it would be a different story. Mr S Wilson: There are certain jobs in the Civil Service that the same vetting would apply to. This is simply a way of getting around the issue that Danny raised — that if somebody had been guilty of a criminal offence before 1998 and was still involved in criminal and paramilitary activity for which they had not been convicted, and there was intelligence that they were still involved, then we obviously do not want them to be part of the community restorative justice scheme. The only way to assess them would be to use police intelligence when vetting takes place. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): We have a proposal. Do we have consensus? Mr Attwood: No, because we do not believe the police want to have that job in the first place. Members indicated dissent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Fra’s proposal was that the Committee should request written evidence from community restorative justice groups. Members indicated dissent. Mr Kennedy: We do not have the time. It would create a precedent for the Committee. All parties are aware of their own views and the workings of those particular groups and I am not sure that anything new could be provided. Mr McCann: Earlier, Danny mentioned the recent Hanson document. It is possible that if the groups read their submissions to the Committee that might change minds and influence the likes of David Hanson to deal with the matter in a different way. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That would seem to be a debate for Belfast City Council. This Committee has a different role. There is no consensus on the issues. If there are no further proposals, we can move on. Mr Kennedy: Chairman, I had one proposal at the end of the discussion. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Will that come under the next subject of residual justice issues? Mr Kennedy: Yes. Mr A Maginness: The SDLP is in favour of Danny’s proposal on the practice of exiling. Mr Kennedy: It was a straightforward proposal that the Committee condemns the practice of exiling and calls for it to be ceased forthwith. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Are there any other comments? Have we consensus? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members want to raise any other justice issues at this stage? Mr Attwood: I want to make two points on residual justice. Alban has a couple of points to raise too. I do not know if the Committee will agree on either, but consensus may be easier to achieve on one than on the other. It would be useful to tell the British Government whether there is an agreed view. My first point is that there is confusion and, arguably, duplication of effort in the work of the district policing partnerships (DPPs) and community safety partnerships (CSPs). Members are aware that there can be tension between the two authorities and, at times, some confusion of roles. As the British Government are intent on re-organising local government in the North, this is the right moment to examine the tension between the two partnerships and consider ways of rationalising and streamlining them. It should be done in a way that makes more sense of their roles and, in particular, given the high profile of the policing issue, protects and enhances the authority of the DPPs. My second point may be more controversial. In previous negotiations with the British Government, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government and others were concerned about the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) not giving enough reasons for the collapse of trials and for prosecutions not being brought or not being pursued. I raise the issue now for this reason: in light of recent cases, when limited information was given to the people in the North on prosecutions that collapsed, might the Committee suggest to the British Government that issues surrounding the provision of information be re-examined. Sometimes the SDLP and others were voices in the wilderness when arguing with the British Government about providing information. However, I sense that because of the collapse of one recent trial, and the potential collapse of other trials involving the police, others may now share our concern. For example, Ian Paisley Snr met the Attorney General to express concern about what was happening in relation to one recent case and to discuss what further information should be placed in the public domain. Perhaps the Committee would agree to a generic motion asking the British Government to review the issues around providing reasons for failures to prosecute or for collapses in prosecutions, in order to better inform the public. The SDLP has always thought that not correcting the failure to provide sufficient information would hamstring the justice system. Recent, and I suspect upcoming, events will demonstrate that this is a potential Achilles heel for confidence in the administration of justice. 1.15 pm Mr Cobain: We are back to the issue of intelligence. Some of the cases that were not pursued had an intelligence background and we are back to what Sammy said — there are some issues that the Government, or our police service, are not going to divulge. We are just wasting our time. I am all for having as much transparency as possible, but it is just not possible where people are working for the security services, because people’s lives are put at risk. Mr S Wilson: I had not intended raising the second point, but the first point that Alex raised is an issue that the DUP also would be concerned about, regarding the efficiency of administration and the conflicts that can sometimes arise between DPPs and Community Safety Partnerships. Policing is now regarded as more holistic; it is not just about looking at the policing aspect of a problem but also at what other agencies might do. For example, closing down a rat-run might have been a policing issue in the past, but now, another agency could deal with it. The artificial distinction made between DPPs and Community Safety Partnerships — and I suspect the reason was political — really does not work. If money is available for safety issues, which can improve policing, make policing easier or help the police achieve targets or objectives set locally by DPPs, then we really have to get to a situation where we amalgamate the two bodies. The DUP would be very supportive of any proposal to reconsider the DPPs and Community Safety Partnerships with a view to merging them. I would like more time to think about the PPS and reasons that cases collapse. I do not know if we are going to get anywhere on the matter because even the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the House of Commons could not get an answer — the Attorney General simply refused point blank to give reasons. The Assembly is unlikely to get reasons either. I share Alex’s concerns on the point. It does lead to a loss of confidence in the whole justice system when a case collapses, or is not proceeded with, and no indication is given as to the reason. If it is due to national security then you are never going to hear anything other than that it is a “security issue”, and that would be the end of it. I cannot see any reason that there could not be transparency in cases that do not impinge on national security. National security is only one of the reasons that cases collapse. If a case collapses because of police incompetence then people should know about it. If we are going to come back to this, I would prefer to have a chat with some of my party colleagues before voting on a particular proposal, because it might well be that we can reach consensus. Mr Raymond McCartney: Sinn Féin has no trouble supporting the second proposal. However, the Committee wants to return to it. My party wants to explore the first proposal further. Perhaps Alex would explain why he believes that the two proposals should be amalgamated. Mr Neeson: I want to give the first proposal further consideration. However, there are issues with regard to the rule of law that I want to explore. Mr Attwood: I shall leave the proposals on the table pending the parties’ consideration of them. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Shall we proceed to discussion on justice issues? Mr A Maginness: I referred to the work that has been done on conferencing by the Youth Justice Agency. It would be worthwhile if the Committee were to note the work and progress that it has made in that regard. The Committee must support and commend that work because it is an important development. Indeed, so is the work that the PBNI has done with offenders and ex-offenders. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do you want to make a proposal? Mr A Maginness: I just want the Committee to note the work that has been done and the progress that has been made. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Is the Committee agreed? Members indicated assent. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The Committee will return to the proposals on community safety and district policing partnerships. Sean, did you want to raise an issue? Mr Neeson: There is ambiguity about what is required from Ministers in the Pledge of Office as regards the rule of law. The pledge requires commitment to the rule of law. My party believes that the wording should be stronger; instead of asking Ministers simply to commit to the rule of law, the Pledge of Office should be amended to contain a commitment to “uphold” the rule of law. There is a big difference. The Alliance Party is also concerned about what the Government mean when they talk about signing up to policing. My party believes that in order to sign up to policing, people must accept the Police Service of Northern Ireland as a regular, consistent organisation. Support for it should be based locally and centrally. It is important that parties recognise the Police Service of Northern Ireland as the sole and exclusive legitimate policing agency in Northern Ireland. It is important that, when Ministers take office, they sign up to our proposal that they must uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Parties who take their seats in Government should also be prepared to become members, not only of the Policing Board, but also of district policing partnerships, and take up their quotas therein. The Alliance Party considers those to be important benchmarks that are necessary for a return to Government. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): That item was under “Any other business”. Mr S Wilson: Would Sean go beyond that definition? Upholding the rule of law, as he has described it, seems to mean simply supporting the institutions, district policing partnerships, the Policing Board, and so on. I believe that it must go much further than that. Public representatives must encourage people to join, give evidence to, and report crimes to, the police. They should be obliged to do more than just support institutions. They should, on a day-to-day basis, show that they recognise the police as a legitimate authority. Mr Neeson: I do not disagree. Implicit in what I said is that if people are prepared to become members of the Policing Board and district policing partnerships, they are, by example, encouraging people to support the institutions. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): The issue was discussed at the meeting on 14 August 2006. However, it did not gain consensus. Can a proposal be made today with regard to the issue? Mr Neeson: The Alliance Party believes that those are the benchmarks for parties taking part in the Government. Mr S Wilson: Rather than leave it hanging, could we have a formal proposal that the Committee believes that for parties to be included in Government it is essential that they support the institutions of the police and give public encouragement to citizens to support the police and accept their authority. Mr Neeson: The essential thing is that the word “commitment” is very loose. That is why we use the phrase “commitment to upholding the rule of law.” The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I have a funny feeling that the wording is not going to be the issue. I doubt if we are going to get consensus on this. We should just put it to the floor at an early stage rather than going round the houses. Do we have consensus on that particular proposal? Members indicated dissent. Mr Kennedy: What a remarkable prophet you have become, Chairman. [Laughter.] Mr Wilson: There was a momentary silence there. I thought, “We’ve got them.” [Laughter.] The Chairman (Mr Molloy): I did not think it had moved that quickly. OK. That brings us to the end of that particular issue. Do members want to continue with what is next week’s business with regard to criminality, decommissioning and paramilitarism? Mr Kennedy: Can we do that next week? We can save ourselves for that. The Chairman (Mr Molloy): Do members have any other business? No? Next week’s issues for discussion are criminality, decommissioning and paramilitarism. Adjourned at 1.27 pm. |