Industrial Development Bill: Final Stage

I beg to move

The Programme for Government identified, as a key issue, the focusing of the economic development agencies on the new economic challenges. In taking the matter forward through the Industrial Development Bill, I have considered how the economic development agencies in the remit of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment can be reorganised to meet those new challenges in the most efficient and effective manner.

The Industrial Development Bill will establish a single economic development agency as a non-departmental public body. I recently proposed that Invest Northern Ireland should come into effect from 1 April 2002. The Bill transfers the existing powers in the Industrial Development (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 and the Tourism (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 to Invest Northern Ireland, thereby allowing it to exercise broadly the functions in the current remit of the IDB, LEDU, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, the business support division of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the business support activities of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB).

The Bill paves the way for a new and vibrant economic development agency, and that is the desire of all Members of the House and of the wider business community. I place on record my thanks and appreciation to the staff, and the respective boards, of the existing organisations that have made such a significant contribution to the economic well-being of Northern Ireland.

In establishing Invest Northern Ireland, the Bill will enable that body to respond quickly, efficiently and effectively to the demands of an intensely competitive global marketplace, with the emphasis being on getting the job done, not on bureaucracy.

We are all aware that if we are to make the most of our opportunities, we have to modernise, innovate and seek new and better ways to do the job. The establishment of Invest Northern Ireland will enable us to realise our vision for a new and better Northern Ireland economy.

In conclusion, I thank Members for their interest in and contributions to the various stages of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to the members of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment for their diligent scrutiny of the Bill and for enabling officials and me to give evidence to them. I am also indebted to the officers and members of the Committee for their constructive contributions throughout the passage of the legislation.

I welcome the Bill. The establishment of Invest Northern Ireland is urgently needed for many reasons, but mainly because it is essential in order to refocus our economic development efforts quickly at the beginning of the twenty-first century. I urge the Minister to get things moving as rapidly as possible.

It is essential that, in doing so, full advantage be taken of the greater flexibility of the arm's-length structure of the new agency. In this day and age, the agency must have a hard business nose rather than a bureaucratic one. I compliment those in the existing agencies who did a very useful job in times past. However, in today's world in which things move so rapidly -I think particularly of developments in the past ten years in information and communications technology - we need to be as tough as everybody else in the marketplace.

I draw the Minister's attention to schedule 1, paragraph 2 of the Bill, which deals with the membership of the new agency. We shall always need to have the best possible brains, skills and expertise, not only a spread of knowledge. We were behind the pack before September 11. We needed to make a great deal of progress then. In the slowdown that has occurred in the aftermath of that day, we may be able to catch up. I urge the Minister to ensure that we have the best possible brains on the board of Invest Northern Ireland in the future.

In the same vein, I refer the Minister to schedule 1, paragraph 11. My concern is that someone with a major contribution to make might be excluded on the fairly thin grounds of conflict of interest. I am keen for members of the board to have an interest and, if necessary, a conflict of interest that can be honestly and openly declared. To have the best people on board, it will be difficult to get anyone with insight and knowledge who does not have a conflict of interest to some degree. I strongly endorse the Bill and urge the Minister to move with it as quickly as possible.

Everybody in the House will welcome the Bill. We owe thanks to the Minister and his Department, and to everyone else concerned with its passage. For far too long, we have had too many economic development and inward investment agencies in Northern Ireland. Bringing all of them together to form a one-stop shop is unique.

As someone who comes from the north-west of the Province, I am slightly worried about the final make-up of the new board and the spread of its representation across Northern Ireland. People from the north-west are also slightly worried. They hope that not every decision that the new board may get involved in will be centred around Belfast and the Greater Belfast area. When the new board is up and running, and dealing with economic development, inward investment and job creation in Northern Ireland, I would like to see a mechanism in place in my city of Londonderry, which is the second largest city in Northern Ireland, whereby local people could make local decisions on economic development and inward investment. I do not wish to see a situation, as has happened in the past, in which businesses and industries come to a local area, but, on occasion, because they do not fit neatly into a small box in and around Belfast, people do not run with them. I remind the Minister that this is an opportunity to look at the rest of the Province - how job creation can best be generated, and how economic development and inward investment in the rest of the Province can best be created, thus ensuring that the rest of the Province is not left out.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In general, I welcome the Bill. There was a recognition that there had to be a new "one-stop shop". In that context, the new agency is to be welcomed, and the hope is that it will be much more efficient. I also hope that the mistakes of the past will not be replicated, particularly with regard to the accountability and transparency of the new agency, the targeting of investment in disadvantaged areas and the taking seriously of New TSN requirements.

I have raised one concern on previous occasions about appointments to the board. Any appointments need to be made through open competition, and the new board needs to be seen to be open and transparent. It is imperative that regional offices be opened as quickly as possible. The Minister has been looking at that. Those regional offices should be fully functioning as quickly as possible, so that areas such as Derry, Fermanagh and Tyrone - disadvantaged areas that have not been targeted previously - can be targeted for investment. Go raibh maith agat.

Before I put the question, does the Minister wish to respond?

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission I would like to respond. First, Dr McDonnell has made those points on several occasions throughout the passage of the legislation. It is my hope that we can provide the flexibility that we both understand is required. The organisation has to remain accountable to the Assembly, to the Minister and to the people of Northern Ireland. He will know, as a member of the Committee, that that accountability is not affected or inhibited in any way by the legislation. I believe that the organisation will be more accountable than any of its predecessors due to our current structures. However, at the same time, we wanted to create an organisation that did not have to continuously look over its shoulder, and that could develop some thoughts of its own. It has parameters within which it must operate; that is generally accepted. The Member's point concerning membership and any potential conflicts of interest is a serious one. There is a very difficult balance to strike, because we have already run into such conflicts with members of other boards. It involves a very fine line.

Equally, it is true to say that people who have hands-on experience of business and industry will, inevitably, have some conflict. That happens on the existing boards, and, as I have said, it has caused us some difficulty.

I accept that people who have got their hands dirty and who have hands-on experience need to be involved, and from time to time that poses a risk. That risk may not be apparent when individuals are appointed, but their businesses could develop in certain directions to the point where those companies would be asking INI for assistance, just as certain companies currently ask the IDB for assistance. Therefore, there should be a degree of tolerance in the House. While we must do everything to ensure that decisions are taken properly, openly and transparently, we do not want to close ourselves off from the knowledge and expertise available to us.

If we were to interpret literally the comments from the Member for South Belfast, Dr McDonnell we could argue that no business people should be on the board at all. Clearly such a position could not be supported. I agree with much of what the Member has said on the matter, but other Members have expressed concerns and views on other matters and other boards, and I must get the balance right. If we get the procedures in the organisation right, that might help with any conflicts. We will pay a good deal of attention to that area.

I assure the Member for Foyle, Mr Hay, that the needs of the north-west are currently in my mind, and the Member can take precedence from me. So far, out of the eight members on the board, he has managed to get only the Chairperson and one other. That is not a bad start, and I hope that there will be room for some of the rest of us when the final appointments are made.

However, taking seriously what the Member has said, I know that the regional office issue is of concern to him. The Member knows that several initiatives do focus on the north-west. I am confident that the board will have sufficient representation from that part of the country. I am satisfied that the case will not go by default.

I advise the Member for Upper Bann, Dr O'Hagan, that accountability and transparency will be built into the corporate plan and the operating plan of the organisation. The Member will also be aware that the IDB exceeded targets last year for bringing investment into New TSN areas. We set a target of 75% of visits to New TSN areas, and that was exceeded. We tried to get a target 75% of investment into those same areas, and that was also exceeded. The thrust of that is entrenched in the thinking of the Department with regard to the establishment of the board.

There may be some confusion between the appointments to the board and senior appointments at official level. However, I can think of few other processes that are more open than the current one for appointments to the board. We had a competition last summer, resulting in 156 applications. The competition was widely advertised, and we had a positive response. However, as I reported to the House last year, regrettably we did not receive a sufficient number of applications from women. Out of 156 applications, only 13 were from women. I decided to appoint a shadow board of eight members, when in fact we hoped to have somewhere in the region of 15 members on the board. This was a two-stage process. Because the House had not passed the legislation, we could not assume that the House would accept our recommendation for a 15-person board. We took what was regarded as the minimum number for a shadow board in order to form the organisation. We concluded that it was not possible to complete the appointments to the board on the basis of the applications that we had received, because, although they were substantial, and some excellent people had applied, there was a substantial deficiency in applications from women.

A fortnight ago, therefore, we advertised another appeal for views and applications. We also engaged consultants to assist us to encourage women to apply. I am happy that, so far, 50% of the requests for information packs have been from women. If those requests for packs translate into applications, even at the same rate as those resulting from the last advertisement, an increase in applications by women can be expected. A senior female official is dealing with women's telephone enquiries about the application, and callers have related the concerns that made them feel unable to apply the first time.

We will learn from that information, and we will pass it on to the appointments body for future use. Applications are open until 31 January 2002, so there is still plenty of time for people to request an information pack and to apply. Previous applicants have been re-entered automatically into the competition. Men are not excluded from applying; half of the applications are from men.

Only seven further appointments are to be made, and the board must be balanced according to gender, community background and skills. I might need to exercise my discretion to ensure that a balance exists. Although the scope of this competition is limited, we intend to offer staggered-term appointments so that the entire membership of the board will not be due for reappointment at the same time, because that would result in a loss of continuity. Initially, the appointments will be for two-, three- and up to five-year periods, as provided for in the legislation. We intend to ensure, through the restructuring branch, that a board is in place before the end of March, so that the organisation will be ready to begin at the beginning of April.

Mr Hay mentioned the need for regional offices; I have already given a commitment that the organisation will have a regional dimension. I discussed the matter with the chairman and the new chief executive last week, and they are seized of the urgency and importance of having such a dimension. They are fully committed to ensuring that that element will be provided.

I have avoided indicating the precise location of those offices, because I did not want to get into that argument. The board will put forward its own views about their location. The operation will not be entirely Belfast-focused, and it is recognised that the entire Province is making, and must continue to make, a contribution to our economy. The relevant agencies must, therefore, be organised in a way that maximises that contribution.

TOP

Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill:
Committee Stage (Period Extension)

I beg to move

The Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill had its Second Stage reading on 4 December 2001 and was referred to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on 12 December 2001. That was just before the Christmas recess, and the Committee was unable to begin scrutinising it before 9 January 2002.

The Bill will allow trusts to provide a range of services to carers, and it will include a new statutory right to a carer's assessment. The Committee wishes to give adequate time for the scrutiny of this important Bill, yet it is facing a heavy workload in the coming weeks, which includes a major cancer inquiry report and many departmental regulations. I am therefore seeking an extension of the deadline to 28 February 2002 to allow sufficient time for the Committee to consider the Bill and report on its findings. I ask Members for their support.

TOP

Criminal Justice Reform

I beg to move

I must declare an interest in this matter - I am a practising member of the Northern Ireland Bar.

Following the resolution of the Assembly on 19 November 2001, the Ad Hoc Committee was established to consider the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Criminal Justice Review Implementation Plan. The Committee first met on 26 November, and I was elected its Chairperson. It is therefore my responsibility to present the Committee's report to the Assembly for endorsement.

For the benefit of Members, I will give a brief overview of the background to our proposals and the work that the Committee has done. Arising from the Belfast Agreement, the Government established the Criminal Justice Review Group to formulate proposals for future criminal justice arrangements. The terms of reference for that review set out several key areas for consideration. They included appointments to the judiciary and safeguards for protecting its independence; the organisation and supervision of the prosecution process; lay participation in the criminal justice system; mechanisms for addressing law reform; the scope for structured co-operation between the criminal justice agencies on both parts of the island; and the structure and organisation of criminal justice functions that might be devolved to the Assembly.

The review body reported in March 2000, and it was subject to extensive consultation at that stage. The draft Bill, which the Government have published, is the main delivery mechanism for the review's recommendations. It does not contain all the recommendations - some of them are in the implementation plan.

The Ad Hoc Committee held its first meeting on 26 November 2001 to resolve procedural matters and consider how it should fulfil its remit. At that meeting, the Committee agreed that the timescale for reporting was unworkable. By leave of the Assembly, I am presenting that report today instead of four weeks ago, which was a totally unrealistic deadline.

During its proceedings, the Committee heard evidence from several bodies and received written submissions from others. Those who attended included the Committee on the Administration of Justice, the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Office, and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. I want to place on record the Committee's appreciation of those organisations, without which its report could not have been produced.

The Government set out their response to the review recommendations in the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which is being laid before the Westminster Parliament now. That is the main delivery mechanism. The draft Bill has six parts. In line with the review's recommendations, Part I of the draft Bill makes provision for making appointments to the judiciary and safeguarding its continuing independence. The principal feature here is the establishment of a judicial appointments commission that will make or recommend appointments to specified judicial offices. Those offices are set out in schedule 1 of the draft Bill. The Lord Chief Justice will chair the commission. It will consist of a further 12 members, who will be appointed by the First Minster and the Deputy First Minister. The draft Bill provides for the commission to come into force after devolution.

Procedures for removing persons from judicial office have also been provided for, including the most senior positions - those of Lord Chief Justice and Lords Justices of Appeal. Other features of the draft Bill include amendments to the criteria for judicial offices. It requires that new appointees take a new judicial oath. Lay magistrates will be replaced by Justices of the Peace.

Part II involves law officers and the public prosecution service. Provision is made for the functions of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland to be exercised by a locally appointed person, and for the functions of that office that are excepted under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to be exercised by the Solicitor- General under the guise of the new post of advocate general for Northern Ireland. Part II also establishes the public prosecution service as the single, independent, prosecuting authority in Northern Ireland. It will be the responsibility of the prosecution service to undertake all prosecutions for both indictable and summary offences committed in Northern Ireland. Those were previously the responsibility of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Police Service. Fixed penalty motoring offences will remain the responsibility of the police.

Provision is also made for the establishment of a chief inspector of criminal justice, who, under the terms of the draft Bill, is given a broad remit. The chief inspector must carry out the inspection of many bodies, including the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the public prosecution service, the Compensation Agency, and several others involved in criminal justice.

A law commission will also be created under this Part of the draft Bill. The commission will have a remit to review the criminal and civil law of Northern Ireland - including procedure and practice - with a view to making recommendations to Government for reform, codification, simplification and consideration of legislation. It will consist of a chairperson and four other commissioners, all of whom will be appointed by the Secretary of State.

The draft Bill makes several provisions in relation to youth justice. It provides for a range of new orders that will be available to the courts, and for a system of youth conferencing. The draft Bill also extends the ambit of the youth justice system to include 17-year-olds.

The final two sections make further provisions across several key areas, notably arrangements for the display of the royal arms at courthouses, and the rights of victims of crime to information about the discharge and temporary release of prisoners.

The Committee considered those issues and made 17 recommendations covering several themes of the draft Bill and implementation plan. The first of those recommendations is in relation to the consultation period. The Northern Ireland Office originally provided a period of only four weeks for a response to consultation on these proposals. Although that period was extended, the Northern Ireland Office's attitude towards consultation was clearly at odds with the relevant code of practice. The Committee recommends that the Northern Ireland Office should observe and comply with that guidance in future.

The second recommendation involves the independence of the legal profession. There are several references in the draft Bill to safeguarding the continuing independence of the judiciary and other elements of the criminal justice system. In its evidence to the Committee, the Law Society suggested that it would be appropriate for a similar safeguard to be extended to the legal profession. The Committee considered and accepted that point. The Committee's recommendation reflects that view.

Recommendations 3 and 4 involve supervision of the implementation plan. The Committee was concerned at the lack of a clear timescale for the overall process. Many witnesses echoed that during evidence sessions. To ensure that the right focus is maintained in developing the proposals, the Committee recommends that the Secretary of State should consider appointing a commissioner to oversee the implementation plan and the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill as it moves into practical application.

Additionally, the Committee suggests that the House might play a role by establishing a Standing Committee to ensure that the Assembly has an appropriate level of input in the future development and refinement of a large number of the proposals. In conjunction with others, the Assembly will be advancing many of those proposals.

The Committee recommends clearly that the Assembly should consider the establishment of a Standing Committee at the earliest opportunity. It is a particularly important issue, and I strongly urge the Assembly to seriously consider enacting that recommendation at the earliest possible opportunity.

Recommendation 5 involves human rights and guiding principles. Much of the Criminal Justice Review Group's work was on human rights issues, on which the group made several recommendations. The Committee and others considered the Government's response to those recommendations, which was felt to be somewhat lacking. The draft Bill contains no references to human rights standards at all, and the Committee recommends that the Secretary of State should consider rectifying that apparent shortcoming.

Recommendation 6 concerns the devolution of justice matters - an area that obviously inspired a significant amount of debate in the Committee. Although the Committee agreed that it would have been inappropriate for its report to draw any binding conclusion on the matter, it was recognised that it should be resolved in a timely manner. It was therefore considered that the proposed Standing Committee should have reference to this and should consider the matter further. Again, that impacts on the overall importance of the recommendation that a Standing Committee be set up at an early stage.

Recommendations 7 and 8 concern the office of the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, which will be a key post following the devolution of justice matters. It is important that the Assembly's Standing Orders have the appropriate provision to ensure that that person will be properly accountable to the Assembly. As before, the Committee agreed that it would be inappropriate to set in stone the limits of the Attorney-General's participation in proceedings. However, the Committee highlighted what it considered to be important areas that will need to be thrashed out. The Committee recommends that that work be taken forward by the Committee on Procedures. I am sure that the Committee on Procedures will give the matter its full consideration and be able to present its recommendations to the Assembly in time for devolution of justice matters, which may well take place at some time in the next 18 months.

The Committee also looked at the possible expansion of the Attorney-General's role. The Criminal Justice Review Group recommended a number of areas for which the Attorney-General could reasonably assume responsibility. Again, that should be taken forward following devolution of justice matters, and the Committee's recommendation reflects that fact.

Recommendations 9 and 10 relate to the public prosecution service. The Committee devoted quite a bit of time to considering the proposed new public prosecution service. A number of poignant concerns were expressed. This is not the first time that the Government have sought to bring the elements of prosecution together in a central body. In Great Britain, that goal gave rise to the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service. Those Members who have read the conclusions of Sir Iain Glidewell's review of that particular body will understand that it was not a simple process by any means.

A key element in that process was the issue of resources. The Committee's recommendation seeks an assurance from Government that proper resources will be made available to create a public prosecution service in Northern Ireland. The Committee also considered the issues surrounding disclosure of reasons for not bringing prosecutions. While the Committee notes that there are sometimes clear and legitimate reasons why it is not always possible to provide reasons for not bringing a prosecution, the Committee recommends that greater transparency should be a key feature of the decision-making process.

Recommendation 11 involves the role of the Probation Board. In their review, the Government suggested that the Probation Board should be established as a Next Steps agency. Although the final decision has been left to the Assembly and the Executive, the board is vigorously opposed to such a move. With the House's indulgence, I will quote from the evidence given to the Committee by the chief executive of the Probation Board:

The Committee considered that point, along with the Government's proposals, and is not persuaded of the benefits of the Probation Board's becoming a Next Steps agency. The board should continue to operate as a board, and the Committee's recommendation is that it should remain independent and impartial.

Recommendation 12 relates to openness and transparency. The judicial appointments commission gave the Committee some concerns. In particular, its level of judicial representation led some members of the Committee to consider that the lay element might not be effective. The Committee explored the possibility of introducing a political element but could not agree the precise outworking of the proposal. Instead, the Committee has suggested that the Secretary of State explore that matter further.

Conclusions were reached on the power of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to convene a tribunal to remove the Attorney-General. The Committee considered that it would be appropriate for such a power to be afforded also to the Assembly, acting with a significant majority, in this case a two-thirds majority. The Committee's recommendation reflects that position.

Recommendations 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 concern provisions on restorative justice. It was the clear opinion of the Committee that, although that area could complement the criminal justice system, the framework provided for in the Bill's implementation plan is much too ambiguous. Much work remains to be done in that area, and the Committee's recommends that the suggested standing committee of the House play an additional proactive role, taking a thematic approach to the area of restorative justice and making a positive contribution to the development and outworking of the practicalities of the proposals.

I commend the report to the Assembly and urge all Members to lend it their support. It is an important issue, and the proposals will have a long-lasting impact on our system of delivering justice. It is important that appropriate steps be taken for their delivery.

The Committee could not reach consensus on several proposals. To reflect the view of the Assembly, and particularly the views of the parties, submissions were received from each party and are appended to the report.

That was my brief as Chairperson, but with Members' indulgence I will put on my party hat to speak on several issues.

First, I refer to the issue of symbols, especially the flag and the royal crest. The original review recommendation was that the royal crest should be removed from courtroom interiors. As an Ulster Unionist and, more generally, as someone who believes in the connection between this jurisdiction and the rest of the United Kingdom, I am extremely unhappy - to put it mildly -with that recommendation. It goes far beyond the Belfast Agreement, which enshrined the principles of mutual respect and recognition for different identities. The recommendation - effectively to tear out the royal crest from courtrooms - is in many ways a cultural vandalism of the Unionist identity which is so important to many people and to the majority in this jurisdiction. The Government should give serious consideration to the reversal of that proposal and to effecting that by amending section 62 of the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.

There seems to be no reason why the practice of flying the Union flag above courthouses should be different to that for other public buildings.

It would seem appropriate that the review's recommendation that the flag should continue to fly in line with those proposals and with Government policy should be applied. The Union flag should continue to fly above all courthouses in this jurisdiction on set flag days. I refer Members to Mr Justice Kerr's comments, when dealing with the issue in the High Court. His comments are quoted in the Ulster Unionist Party's submission. If Members consider that quotation carefully they will see that Mr Justice Kerr struck a sensible balance, which should be applied more widely.

It is appropriate that the criminal justice inspectorate will cover almost every criminal justice agency in Northern Ireland, from the Police Service of Northern Ireland to the Forensic Science Agency. The one glaring exception is the Police Ombudsman's office. There would seem to be a strong argument in favour of including that in the list of bodies that will be subject to inspection by the criminal justice inspectorate. The Police Ombudsman's office has nothing to fear; its operational independence will in no way be affected. It is unreasonable to accept that every other criminal justice organisation will be subject to independent and rigorous scrutiny from an outside body, while, for some reason, the Police Ombudsman's office is left out of the loop. I strongly urge the Government to consider amending the legislation to include the Police Ombudsman's office.

Members will know that some of the biggest complaints from constituents relate to criminal justice matters, although, technically, such matters are Westminster's responsibility. However, it is patently obvious from constituents' comments, from reading newspapers and watching television that criminal justice issues - especially the deleterious affect they have on the lifestyle of people in this jurisdiction - are extremely important. It is vital that the House take urgent action to ensure that the transition of those responsibilities to the Assembly can be smooth. It would seem to be an opportunity for the House to demonstrate its maturity and to take responsibility for an area that is so important to the day-to-day lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

There are many areas in which we could try to make a difference. In many cases, Government put forward legislation for England and Wales, and neglect to introduce such provisions in Northern Ireland. Constituents complain to me often about problems with juveniles, noisy children and fireworks exploded by gangs of youths who seem to roam at will. When challenged about that, police officers say that there is nothing that they can do because human rights legislation limits their power to restrict the free movement of those youths. Unless the youths have committed an offence, there is no power available to police officers to challenge them and prevent the harassment that is obviously taking place.

The Government introduced the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in England and Wales and brought forward a scheme of juvenile restriction orders that allowed for limited curfews to be introduced in some areas where juveniles posed a difficulty. After the devolution of justice functions, the House could introduce such measures to this jurisdiction in a speedy and effective way that could make so much difference to the lives of our people. It is essential that the House take on that responsibility at an early stage. I commend the Committee's recommendations and my comments as a party representative.

Like others, I was apprehensive about my appointment to the Ad Hoc Committee because of the potential for disagreement among the parties about the implementation plan for the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the criminal justice review. Therefore, I was encouraged by the constructive attitude of my Colleagues.

The report is a worthy first step towards outlining the Assembly's views and attitudes. It was drawn up on two understandings: first, as the Chairperson of the Committee mentioned, we were conscious that several points in the plan would need further discussion and debate, within parties and in the Assembly, before we assume responsibility in 2003. Secondly, there was a need to monitor the draft Bill and the implementation plan carefully. The latter may require further refinement. The Assembly may need to consider other possible amendments.

The report contains a note of the Committee's concern about the limited period given to produce a report on such a lengthy consultation. We were glad that the extension of the deadline recognised that.

We must make it clear to Westminster and the NIO that the Northern Ireland Assembly must be allowed to play its proper consultative role in the drafting of any legislation on reserved matters, especially when - as in this case - that legislation will directly affect everyone in Northern Ireland. Sometimes I wonder how much of the Committee's considerable work on its report, and the views therein, will even be looked at. That situation must change and due recognition should be given to our agreed reports. I hope, therefore, that Members will agree with the first recommendation.

Recommendation 3 reflects the Committee's opinion that, given the need to maintain the necessary momentum to drive forward the implementation of criminal justice reform, it would be advisable to appoint an oversight commissioner, similar to Patten. Separate resources should be allocated to the post, without touching the resources that were allocated for the plan.

I endorse recommendation 4, because the new criminal justice system will have far-reaching implications for everyone in Northern Ireland. Again, the Assembly must be consulted and allowed to comment on related justice issues, pending the devolution of responsibility for the matter. As the report states, we have a clear duty to be responsive to community concerns and to encourage confidence in the justice system. It should be clear to everyone that the system must be delivered effectively, efficiently, and with full equity. A Standing Committee could be the answer. In that way, the Assembly would be fully online with the Bill by 2003, and it would be able to take over responsibility for criminal justice with confidence.

Recommendation 6 had to be worded to allow further debate on the precise remit and procedures of the department of justice. The appointment and duties of an Attorney-General is another matter to which further thought must be given. It is hoped that the recommendations pertaining to that will be approved.

While declaring an interest as a member of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, I concur with the Committee Chairperson's remarks. I hope that the recommendation to retain the current status of the Probation Board, instead of establishing a Next Steps agency, will be approved. If we change that status, projects must change also.

Under the section heading 'New Approaches', it was agreed that it is vital to acknowledge the inclusion of youth and the youth conferencing system. It is also important to ascertain the appropriate role of the Probation Board. We have a wealth of experience in compiling young people's suitability reports in advance of decisions. Again, I hope that those recommendations will be approved.

Restorative justice has great potential. The system has been hampered by misconceptions and incorrect information. It can work effectively in the criminal justice system. That is why the report recommends that further research be done. Pilot programmes have been carried out in several areas, but the system should be considered on a larger scale. The results of the research could help to correct the current problems of perception. Criminal justice should be transparent to all, it must appear to be beneficial to all and it must be able to uphold the human rights of all. I hope that my party leader will speak about other matters in the report later.

I thank the Committee Chairperson and my fellow Committee members for making the proceedings interesting and largely consensual. In particular, I thank the Committee Clerk and his team for their exemplary work under great pressure - it bodes well for the future of the House. I hope that the Assembly will approve the report.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the report is that the Committee reached considerable consensus on the criminal justice review and the implementation plan, and I pay tribute to the Chairperson, Mr Dalton, for his work in bringing about that consensus. The degree of consensus that has been reached serves as a model for Assembly Members - before the Committee began its deliberations, many people said that it would be impossible for us to reach a consensus. However, we did, and everyone involved deserves congratulation. I also thank the Committee officials for their exemplary work. In a limited time, they worked well, produced a lot of material that was helpful to us and gave us considerable guidance.

There are several pertinent issues in relation to the criminal justice review. I shall deal with one in particular - the judicial appointments commission. It is an important innovation because there has been a serious lack of transparency in the appointment of judges at all levels. Indeed, the entire appointments' system has been shrouded in secrecy, and that must be considered unsatisfactory by anybody who desires openness in Government. Therefore, the establishment of a judicial appointments commission is to be welcomed, but although the SDLP welcomes that, it does not believe that it goes far enough. However, it is a good step forward, and it is progress, given the present opaque system.

The SDLP's submission says that the judicial appointments commission should not be chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. It should have an independent chairperson, or at least a lay chairperson, rather than a judicial figure. We also believe that there should be greater lay membership on the commission, or, at the very least, equality between the judicial or lawyer members and the lay members. The SDLP would prefer to see more lay members than judicial members because the danger in the system that we are reconstructing is that the judiciary will have too much influence, power and control in the appointment of judges. As politicians, we in the SDLP believe that that is too much power to give to that body.

One must welcome the establishment of the commission. However, we can constructively criticise the Government's proposals and hope that those criticisms will be taken on board. We want a judiciary that fully reflects or represents the community. That should be the basic criterion upon which the judicial appointments system should work, and that point should be firmly written into the legislation.

The issue of symbols has been raised, and that is important to many of us in the political arena. In a personal capacity, the Chairperson has quite rightly expressed concern about symbols being destroyed.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>