Northern Ireland Assembly

Is it in order for the Minister to repeat statements that are patently and clearly inaccurate, misleading and - at the risk of using unparliamentary language - untrue?

Mr Haughey must be given the opportunity to rebut the statements that were made earlier.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my clear recollection - and I think that Hansard will bear it out -

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. How can you say, in all saneness, that the Minister is entitled to rebut things that have been said when they were not said, as the record will make clear? Why does he not come to the real issue - this meeting of the Forum? When did it meet, and when did it give approval to this?

Dr Paisley, I do not believe the latter part of that to be a point of order. I will look at Hansard. Can we please let Mr Haughey continue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a very clear recollection that the words "Loyal Institutions" were used. Now I am no expert on the Loyal Institutions, but I understand that they embrace the bodies that I have referred to. If all these bodies were to be included in the Civic Forum - I refer to the statement made by Dr Paisley about a number of bodies and sectors in civic society not represented in the Forum, and I think that Hansard will bear that out as well - that Dr Paisley and Mr Robinson wished, would that not double or even treble this scandalous waste of money that they complain about?

The second absurdity given voice to by Mr Robinson was that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister appointed their cronies to the Forum - that the Forum was "sanitised" by the deliberate exclusion of those whose views did not accord with those of the First and Deputy First Ministers. In fact, 54 of the 60 members of the Forum were appointed by processes devised by those sectors of society themselves, over which neither the First Minister nor the Deputy First Minister sought, had, were given or wanted any influence whatsoever. They were appointed independently. If it should be the case that those members of the Civic Forum broadly reflect the views of civic society - more than 70% of whom are in favour of the agreement - then DUP members will simply have to live with that, as they do generally in the community at large.

However, it seems strange to me that Mr Robinson, having claimed that this body was appointed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and consisted largely of their cronies, then went on to complain that it would be far too independent and that it could not be given any freedom to look at issues that it might wish to look at because it might be far too independent. One must deplore and regret the decline of the powers of Mr Robinson, but that is a matter for his party and his associates to deal with.

Let me move to a finely crafted and intellectually compelling address to the House by my Colleague and Friend Carmel Hanna, who suggested that the Forum might be enhanced by an ability to look at Third-World issues and regretted that perhaps, under present arrangements, it might not be as outward looking as it should be. May I suggest to Ms Hanna, and the House, that in addressing European issues the European Union takes a close interest in Third-World issues such as aid and assistance and that those might well fall within the competence of the Forum to address.

I turn now to the issue that has given rise to the most hue and cry from DUP Members: when this issue was looked at by the Civic Forum. The First Minister assured the House that the Civic Forum addressed this issue on 20 December at Balmoral. Mr Robinson is perhaps technically correct in that it was not - [Interruption].

Order.

Mr Peter Robinson used the terms "grace" and "manners" when talking about the intervention of the First Minister earlier. Of course, grace, manners, good humour, tolerance and open-mindedness are so characteristic of the DUP that one understands entirely Mr Robinson's point of view. With regard to this uncharacteristic guffawing and bellowing, one has to wonder just how deep it goes - [Interruption].

The more you say, the better.

The venue was Balmoral. The date was 20 December. It was not a plenary meeting of the Civic Forum. All members of the Civic Forum were invited to the meeting. It was a very full meeting of the Civic Forum, and all members of the Civic Forum had an opportunity to look at the issue. This fact totally destroys the argument made by the DUP.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If the veracity of the First Minister - a spokesman of the House - is such an important issue, perhaps he will now tell us what the motion before this non-plenary meeting was.

That is not a point of order.

The point-of-order system is being abused because these people do not wish to listen to - [Interruption].

Order.

Are you embarrassed? Do you want to be?

Embarrassed? Does Dr McCrea understand the meaning of the word "embarrassed"? I doubt it. I hope that the time consideration will make allowances for all of this codology.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you inform the House how long this debate can go on? Please inform the Minister.

Again, Dr Paisley, that is not a point of order. The debate will go on until 4.00 pm.

Go on. The more you say, the better.

That is something that I could not say for you, Dr McCrea. If you had kept your mouth shut, this country would be a safer place.

The First Minister commented on a number of the drafts of the motion that were prepared by officials. He considered some of these earlier drafts to be too restrictive in terms of the freedom that would be allowed to the Civic Forum. The original motion - which was submitted to the Business Committee - was a draft which had not yet been considered by the Executive. The Business Committee was aware of that. On foot of the discussion at the Executive, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister agreed to consult the Civic Forum on the motion before tabling it. The proposed motion was, therefore, withdrawn.

The motion was amended at the suggestion of the Civic Forum. The reason for this was that the second paragraph of the motion was regarded as being too restrictive or uncomfortable for it. It was concerned at the potential for being overwhelmed with requests for consultation from the Assembly. It was decided that built into the second paragraph should be the words "shall be invited" so that the Forum could, if necessary, prioritise the requests being made. The Forum further asked for the arrangements to be reviewed, and the Executive, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were glad to agree to that.

Peter Robinson referred to the Civic Forum as a potential second chamber. The Forum's officials have assured us that they have no intention of trying to be a second chamber. Rather, they want to be a resource to those who are developing policy. They want to be a body with the time and space to deliberate on difficult or cross-cutting issues and to provide a view that reflects the considered response of a diverse range of interests in this community.

An allegation was made that the Forum was hand-picked by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I have already dealt with that issue. The evidence is there that processes were set up in order to ensure that the Forum would be representative of a broad range of interests in the community.

There has been a considerable misrepresentation of the situation regarding the Orange - [Interruption].

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not prepared to speak against the background of this cacophony.

I have called for order several times. Please continue, Mr Haughey. I know that it is difficult with this background noise. [Interruption]. Order.

There has been considerable misrepresentation of the position vis-à-vis the Orange Order. The Orange Order was invited to be part of the consortium that nominated members to the Forum. The report agreed by the Assembly provided that the cultural traditions group of the Community Relations Council, along with major cultural organisations, should be invited to form a consortium for the purpose of nominating four individuals from the cultural sector. It was anticipated that the major cultural organisations would include the Orange Order. No applications were received from organisations directly related to the Orange Order, or from the Orange Order itself.

In a Forum of 60 members it will never be possible to represent every single interest in the community, but among the members now appointed there is undoubtedly a very broad spectrum of views and experience. A formal review of the structures and effective operation of the Forum will be carried out within one year of its becoming operational. That will provide an opportunity to reconsider the membership.

A further point made by Mr Robinson and Dr Paisley was that the Assembly should control the Forum agenda. I know that control plays a very big part in the thinking of the DUP, but not such a large part in that of other Members of this House who are properly, and in a principled way, democratic. The DUP is saying that it does not want to hear what it does not want to hear. I have to say that that is a major surprise, coming from people with the reputation for open-mindedness, tolerance and the fair consideration of all points of view that has become so justly characteristic of the Democratic Unionist Party.

David Ervine made reference to the ability of the Civic Forum to stick its nose into the affairs of the general community. That is exactly what the Forum was set up to do - to stick its nose into all kinds of affairs, and to let this Administration know the views of a wide range of interests in the general community.

Monica McWilliams said that the Forum had its origins in the agreement, and, as the First Minister said, there is no intention of attempting to fetter or circumscribe the independence of the Civic Forum in regard to the work that it chooses to undertake.

Mr Poots referred to quorums. As I understand it, the Civic Forum does not have a quorum system, and we are not aware of any Forum meeting that had to be abandoned because of the lack of a quorum. If Mr Poots has any evidence or information to the contrary, perhaps he would make it available to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Dr Paisley referred to the question of the smaller evangelical Churches. The five Church nominees were selected by a process developed by the Churches Consortium. The Churches Consortium had 12 members and was chaired by an official from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It was made up of five representatives from the Irish Council of Churches, five from the Roman Catholic Church, one from a grouping of churches known as the Caleb Foundation, and one from an organisation of smaller evangelical groups known as ECONI. They agreed that the five nominations would be as follows: two from the churches associated with the Irish Council of Churches, two from the Roman Catholic Church, and one from the smaller evangelical denominations. To fill the last place, an advertisement was placed in the regional papers, so that anyone from any of the smaller evangelical churches could apply. The representative from the smaller evangelical churches on the Forum is Pastor David McConaghie.

The allegation has been made that the Forum is simply a fallback for people who failed to be elected to the House. Members of the Civic Forum were appointed on the basis of their experience and ability to contribute to discussions of important social, economic and cultural matters. The six appointments made by the First and the Deputy First Ministers were intended to complement the selection of the nominating bodies. Representations were made to the First and the Deputy First Ministers and any perceived gaps were filled.

If the Member who raised the issue is referring to the leader of a political party - Gary McMichael - it was considered desirable for the UDP to be represented in the Forum by its leader. The First Minister was perfectly entitled to make that decision.

The question was raised about why the Civic Forum was to give its views on the Programme for Government before proper arrangements were in place. The drafting team for the Programme for Government had to complete its consultation by 15 January 2001. Arrangements for the Civic Forum were not in place by that date, and in the interim the First and Deputy First Ministers invited the Civic Forum to respond to the draft Programme for Government.

I would also point out that there have been 160 responses to requests to comment on the Programme for Government.

That covers most of the points that were made. I recognise that much of the brouhaha that came from the DUP Benches has nothing to do with the Civic Forum at all. It has more to do with the party's ongoing search for some kind of partisan advantage. That this disfigures the business of the House on a regular basis will come as no surprise to Members.

Will the Member give way?

No. I have all the information I need.

I should also refer to the further point made by Mrs Nelis in connection with the North/South consultative forum. At the last plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, in September 2000, it agreed to initiate a study on the North/South consultative forum. Progress is being made on the study, and a report will be made to the next plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, following which a statement will be made to the Assembly.

If I have missed any points - and some serious points were made here today in spite of all the brouhaha - I will search Hansard and make sure that the Members who raised them get a written reply.

In conclusion, I commend the motion to the House.

There is still time left. I take it that Members, as in another place, can use that time.

No Member has asked to speak after the winding-up speeches. On that basis, I will put the amendment Question.

That does not matter. In another place, they just have to stand up and can use the time.

Of course, the reason no Member put his name down to speak after the closing speech of the Minister is that no one could anticipate whether the Minister would use all the time available. However, in another place, it is quite in order, if a Minister's closing speech does not utilise the time allotted for the debate, for anyone else who wishes to speak to be allowed then to do so.

The convention in this place is different from that in another. The convention here has always been that when a Minister has finished his winding- up speech the Question is put.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister seems to think that when he is winding up he should give way to nobody. I tried to make him give way. I want to put it on the record that what I said in the House about the other churches was the truth. I know all about it. What he said was totally inaccurate.

Order.

In fact, it was not just inaccurate - it was false.

That is not a point of order.

Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.

In view of the assurances given by the Minister I seek leave to withdraw amendment No 2. Unlike Members of the DUP - [Interruption].

Order.

Unlike Members of the DUP, Mr Deputy Speaker - [Interruption].

Order. The Member who moved the second amendment has sought leave to withdraw it. Are Members content?

No.

Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and negatived.

In addition, the Civic Forum shall be invited to offer its view on specific social, economic and cultural matters where the Assembly has by motion so requested.

I wish to raise a point of order. As it may require some sort of consideration, I will be happy to wait for a ruling.

During the course of our debate on the Civic Forum the First Minister made statements which clearly were inaccurate. They were compounded by the Junior Minister in his response. The Library does not have any minutes of Civic Forum meetings, but I have received paperwork via a member. That paperwork makes it clear that the issues which the First Minister and the junior Minister indicated had been raised, discussed and decided upon by the Civic Forum were never on its agenda and were never decided. The House has been misled. The Speaker should look into the matter and decide if flagrant disregard of accuracy is permissible for an Assembly Minister.

Obviously, I cannot respond to that immediately. Please make those papers available to the Speaker's Office. We will examine Hansard.

TOP

Draft Financial Investigations Order

I beg to move

As Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee I have the role of presenting the Committee's report to the Assembly. I will declare an interest before progressing further. As a barrister, I am a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland and of the Bar of Ireland.

It might be helpful for Members if I set out some details on the workings of the Committee. The Assembly established the Ad Hoc Committee on 11 December 2000 with the remit to consider the draft Financial Investigations (Northern Ireland) Order 2001 and to report to the Assembly. The draft Order aims to make the present legislation more effective and strengthen the measures available to deprive convicted criminals of the profits from their criminal activities.

The Committee's first meeting was held on 19 December 2000, and we met another four times - all in public session. The Committee considered the draft Order and debated its purpose, and the changes to the legislation. As a result of extremely tight deadlines, the Committee decided to invite 16 organisations to provide written submissions. These are listed in the report provided to Members. The Committee received 11 written submissions and took oral evidence from Customs and Excise, the Northern Ireland Bankers' Association, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the RUC and the Law Society of Northern Ireland. This was a well-balanced and good spread of organisations considering the tight deadlines the Committee faced.

For the sake of completeness, all the written submissions, the minutes of evidence and the minutes of proceedings have been included in the report. After hearing oral evidence on 8 January and 9 January, the Committee carried out an article-by-article consideration of the draft Order on 16 Janaury.

Overall, a majority on the Committee supported the draft Order and backed the drive to prevent criminals profiting from criminial activities. However, individual Committee members had concerns, particularly in relation to solicitor/client confidentiality and legal and professional privilege. These are recorded in the report.

I will deal more specifically with the individual draft articles. There are eight articles in the draft Order, and there was a general welcome for the instrument. There was no disagreement over the principle that it is right and proper to prevent criminals profiting from their unlawful activities. The Ad Hoc Committee believed that the law should be strengthened to deal more effectively with criminals who used more sophisticated means to dispose of their ill-gotten gains. That degree of increased criminal sophistication was emphasised by the RUC in its oral and written submissions to the Committee and in the evidence presented by Customs and Excise.

There was no division in the Ad Hoc Committee regarding articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the draft Order. However, there was division in the Committee on article 6, which deals with general solicitor circulars and which I will address at a later stage. Although there was division in the Committee and a fairly robust debate, business was conducted in a good and responsible manner by all members.

The draft Order is intended to amend the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and aims to prevent criminals from benefiting from their criminal activities. Evidence given by the RUC and Customs and Excise indicates that the Order has been increasingly effective in achieving its aims.

Draft article 3 amends article 49 of the 1996 Order. This was generally agreed by the Committee. The draft article enables a Customs and Excise officer - the equivalent of a superintendent in the police force - to apply to a County Court for the appointment of a financial investigator to assist him. It also makes new provision for the County Court to authorise named police and Customs and Excise officers to exercise two of the powers available to financial investigators, namely the power to undertake a trawl of all financial institutions and solicitors. These are referred to as general bank and solicitor circulars.

The Committee raised no objection to article 3, which deals with the appointment of police and customs officers. However, other points of concern were raised, and the Committee made the assumption that these concerns could be addressed. However, members did emphasise that those empowered under the amended draft article should be properly trained and au fait with the code of practice governing the activities of financial investigators. The Committee noted the concerns of the Northern Ireland Bankers' Association, which gave evidence to the Committee - and in particular, its concern about the time period for compliance with general bank circulars.

The Committee recommended that there be some mechanism whereby the code of practice can be amended to include an application for an extension of the time period for compliance in line with the views expressed by the Northern Ireland Bankers' Association. The association's supplementary written submission is on page 71 of the report. The final paragraph states:

While the Committee understood the concern of the Northern Ireland Bankers' Association, it did not seek to include in the legislation any provision for the extension of time for compliance with a bankers' order. However, in ease of the Bankers' Association and the problems that might face bankers complying with time limits, the Committee suggested that a mechanism whereby the code of practice could be amended to include an application for an extension of time for compliance should be part of the code of practice.

Draft article 4 amends article 50 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 to provide financial investigators with the same rights of access to material under a production order as are currently available to the police. The Committee had no objection to draft article 4.

Draft article 5 amends schedule 2 to the 1996 Order. The effect would be to broaden the power of a financial investigator to require a bank to provide him with specified information. The amendment broadens the power so that such a requirement could be imposed on any person carrying on relevant financial business, as defined by the Money Laundering Regulations 1993.

That amendment broadens the area of investigation of a financial investigator to include any relevant financial institutions, and not just banks. That is a material change in the legislation. Those who submitted evidence to the Committee said that they would welcome that change and thought that it would be helpful in the fight against crime. It also broadens the range of information that the banks or financial institutions must provide. The Committee had no objection to draft article 5.

Draft article 6 enables a financial investigator, where he believes that a person has benefited from serious crime, to require a solicitor to confirm whether, during a specified period, the person was his client in respect of non-contentious business such as the purchase of land or property or the carrying out of investments, et cetera. If so, the solicitor would be required to provide certain information about his client and the nature of any transaction that was made.

Article 6 caused division in the Committee. However, there was a majority in favour of the draft amendment and there were various arguments on both sides. Article 6 represents the most contentious part of the draft Order. It represents a new area in which a financial investigator can investigate. He can conduct a trawl of solicitors throughout Northern Ireland in an attempt to get information on certain types of non-contentious business carried out by solicitors on behalf of people who may be involved in criminal activities.

I refer Members to the RUC's written submission on page 77. It says

We would contend that the proposed new powers will enhance the effectiveness of the existing powers. In particular, the ability to trawl all financial institutions should prove of benefit, as will the ability to require a solicitor to confirm if a person was his client and to obtain details of transactions carried out on his/her behalf in respect of certain types of businesses."

The RUC's submission is strongly in favour of the draft article, and the submission speaks for itself. However, I refer to page 74, paragraph (f) of the Human Rights Commission's written submission, which states:

That reflects the view expressed by the Human Rights Commission. I refer Members to page 80 and 81, which deal with the Law Society's written submission to the Ad Hoc Committee. At paragraph 3.4 it states:

In the summary on page 81 the society invites the Committee to consider supporting the position of the society on the following points:

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>