We in the SDLP believe that there are three ways to approach the problem of symbolism. In no order of preference they are: parity of symbolism, which means having symbolism representative of the Irish Nationalist political tradition and the British Unionist political tradition; complete neutrality, which the present proposals prefer for courtrooms, is worth considering, and it is something that the SDLP believes has the potential to create a unified approach in the community; there could be new and agreed symbolism, which, again, the SDLP says is worth exploring.

The SDLP does not prefer any one approach above the others. We ask political parties to look at the proposals and decide which is best in relation to symbolism. The agreement has created a new political dispensation in which parity of esteem is regarded as a fundamental principle - parity of esteem between the two major political traditions in this society. Therefore, one has to have an approach that meets the principle of parity of esteem. The Government's proposals on flying the flag over courthouses, for example, is wrong because again we are dealing with one symbol representative of one political tradition. The continuance of symbolism on the exterior of buildings is wrong.

Would the Member agree that the sight of stonemasons chiselling marble plaques off the inside of courtrooms - plaques that have been in place for many years and that are part of our architectural heritage - is something that no party would wish to see?

The SDLP is not the Taliban - we do not go in for the demolition of pieces of historic architecture. However, in relation to the overall issue of symbolism, one has to take on board the three methods by which we believe the whole problem of symbolism can be approached and resolved amicably in our divided political community. I would like Mr McFarland and his party to consider that point because progress can be made here. The basic ingredients for reaching consensus across the political divide are in the context of those three approaches. We are not in the business of wrecking, and where there is something of architectural merit we are certainly not going to insist on its destruction. However, as the Chairperson of the Committee said, symbolism is important. We have to try and reach consensus on that particularly sensitive and difficult issue. Perhaps at some stage our society can be mature enough to reach agreement on that.

The criminal justice review is renewing, not destroying, our judicial institutions, and it is renewing our judicial system. It modernises our criminal justice system and brings in best practice from all over the world, and that must be welcomed. It is a positive and constructive development.

The separation of the prosecution service from the office of Attorney-General is important, and the creation of an independent prosecution service is of great importance to this society. The proposals in the criminal justice review do not go far enough, but at least we are going in the right direction.

The Probation Board should not become a Next Steps agency as proposed by the Government. The board is opposed to that; it believes that its independence would be diluted, and I am glad that the Committee agreed to support the Probation Board on that point.

As far as restorative justice is concerned, the Committee reached a consensus. That is important, because here is an innovative area to which we all can contribute. That is very important, especially in the context of dealing with juvenile crime. We need new approaches. The orthodox approach to dealing with juvenile crime has not worked. Therefore, we need something new, and this is one way to do it. I agree with the criticisms that were made in Committee. The sections on restorative justice are not precise enough, they are vague and muddled. It is important that the Government clarify that.

As far as the Standing Committee is concerned, the Committee agreed to put that matter to the Assembly. There was agreement, not that a Committee actually be set up, but that the Assembly consider setting one up. The SDLP is sympathetic to that, but it remains to be seen what that Committee would do, what its terms of reference would be and so forth, until a final decision is made by our party.

Finally, let me reiterate that this is a good report from a hard-working Assembly Committee. I welcome it on behalf of the SDLP, and I look forward to further progress being made on criminal justice.

I join with the other Members who have paid tribute to the Committee Clerk and the other Assistant Clerks of the Committee who were faced, along with the Committee members, with a substantial number of documents and approaches from individuals and groups who wished to make presentations, all of which had to be dealt with in a very limited time. At the outset, that period was universally regarded as being outrageous, and we are glad that it was extended to some degree. I am not entirely content with the time that we were given, but at least it was an improvement on the previous position, which was totally and utterly unacceptable.

There have been some comments in the debate about the degree of unanimity in the Committee's approach to the issue, and, of course, there was some degree of consensus. However, I caution against reading too much into that, because of the practical viewpoint that one could look at the issues either in the Assembly or out there in the real world. The issues that are likely to cause real division are ones that we did not grapple with in the initial stages. It is somewhat premature to praise consensus when the really difficult issues are yet to come before us.

I am not one to lambaste consensus; where it is possible, I favour it. However, I make a cautionary note on the issue. I need to talk about several matters, many of which, including community restorative justice and the Probation Board, I could elaborate on for some time. I shall deal with those matters later. My initial point relates to the future of the prosecution service: I hope that there is consensus in the House and in the community that any prosecution service, if it is to be successful, must be adequately staffed and resourced. The Committee touched on the matter, and I imagine that that requirement will receive widespread support.

I shall move on to the hoary chestnuts, such as symbols and the royal declaration. Mr Dalton made comments that were based on his political party affiliation rather than as Committee Chairperson. He said that the removal of symbols was not provided for in the Belfast Agreement, and that the matter was beyond its remit. Issues such as the criminal justice review, which go to the heart of society, are being built on the Belfast Agreement. We are told that the criminal justice review must gain the confidence of all parts of the community, yet the underlying premise of the review is an agreement in which there is not much confidence.

The criminal justice review and the Assembly, and all legislation that flows from it, are built on the premise that they require the confidence of all parts of the community, yet the womb from which they have come does not have the confidence of all sections of the community. Neither the Chairperson, nor anyone, needs be surprised that the report causes deep concern in the Unionist community, because it has come from the womb of something that is entirely objectionable. There are deep reservations and animosities toward the Belfast Agreement in the Unionist community.

The issue of removing symbols arose several times during Committee evidence sessions, including the meeting with the Northern Ireland Court Service on 4 December. I asked Mr Lavery of the Northern Ireland Court Service the following question:

He replied:

When the nettle is finally grasped, we shall have to analyse the fact that a cold house exists in Northern Ireland. When, four weeks ago, the Secretary of State said that he wanted to avoid the creation of a cold house, he used the wrong tense. It is not a possibility; it is a fact, and one that must be rectified. A cold house exists for the Unionist community. Despite the emergence of Nationalism in court systems in other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Scotland, and although the political manifestations of Nationalism have fluctuated and changed from year to year, there has been no demand for the removal of the royal emblems there.

That should alone have sufficient weight to warn against proceeding towards the removal of symbols from existing courts.

The royal declaration is a related issue. The declaration is seldom used in today's courts, and yet it appears that change is being contemplated simply to placate political opinion within a section of the Nationalist community. What is the purpose? It is to turn the heat further down in the cold house that exists for the Unionist community.

Community restorative justice has been mentioned, and the issue came up several times in the evidence given by various parties. We need to be clear on the matter. From speaking to many people in the Probation Service and to the lay people involved, I get the impression that restorative justice per se will be supported. They want to pursue it and take best practice from other countries to try to implement it in Northern Ireland.

An issue that does not have widespread support, however, is that of "community" restorative justice. That issue has been utilised by one political party - IRA/Sinn Féin - and it is prevalent in a particular section of our community. It has all sorts of resonances throughout the community, and people are deeply unhappy and discontented at the possibility of some form of community restorative justice coming into the field of our consideration.

There is genuine consensus on the matter of the Probation Board. When the board gave evidence, it said that it did not want to become a Next Steps agency. It did not want to be removed from its present position, and there will be strong support for that view. My party is not in favour of a change of status for the reasons outlined.

Go raibh maith agat. On behalf of my party, I echo the thanks expressed to the Committee Clerk and his team, Library and Research Services and the legal advisers to the Assembly for their assistance. The Ad Hoc Committee had a difficult task in an impossibly short time frame, but it succeeded in performing its task, and I am happy to endorse the report on that basis. It will remain a matter of conjecture whether, had the Committee been given more time to explore individual and party views, some of the areas of common ground - though I do not want to overstate that either - might have unravelled. Nonetheless, heads of agreement were identified, and that should be helpful in processing the legislation and in the development of the implementation plan.

While recognising that the need for change has been highlighted, my party has a considerable number of concerns.

Change must be welcomed. Nonetheless, this must be seen as work in progress, and we must take a focused approach to addressing the outstanding issues. Some of the more contentious ones have already been referred to.

The broad areas of concern are the prosecution service, the judiciary and issues of human rights and equality. Parties will bring their own analyses to bear, and I hope that their sum total will allow us to proceed. The outcome will be a much more representative, transparent and accountable criminal justice system. Despite party differences that is certainly a common goal.

The fact that the review group, with some outside contributions, essentially consisted of the people who had previous responsibility for criminal justice meant that its remit was seriously damaged from the beginning. Though it is possible to welcome aspects of the report, the problems that remain could well propel us into the sort of acrimonious debate that we had over policing.

People have quite properly argued for proper resourcing of the prosecution service. We can agree to that. However, the question of transparency was effectively ducked by the review group and the NIO in their response, and this is reflected in the draft legislation and the implementation plan. In essence, we have little more than a simple name change. Serious issues arise from decisions by the prosecution service not to prosecute in circumstances that go to the heart of confidence in the justice system. The NIO indicated that it had accepted a recommendation from its own review group of greater transparency and more explanation of decisions not to prosecute, yet it is now being seen to be doing precisely the opposite. Is this not an example of total arrogance? Does it not care? Does it think that people will not read this documentation, and even if they do, will the NIO simply steamroller ahead?

Clear problems of accountability and transparency arise from that attitude. The Finucane case alone shows the type of issues that can subvert the creation of an independent criminal justice system which has integrity and is able to serve the entire community.

People generally welcomed the introduction of a judicial appointments commission. However, concerns have been raised, with a degree of unanimity, that the Lord Chief Justice will chair that body and have the power to appoint five of the 11 positions. One can reasonably anticipate a corporate approach to the appointments process. There is a real possibility of little or no change and another lost opportunity.

The fact that human rights training will be a voluntary rather than a statutory requirement for the judiciary begs questions about the commitment of the NIO to the Good Friday Agreement. I hope that in its approach to the legislation the British Government will take a different view and reflect in the legislation the expectations and commitments that arose from the Good Friday Agreement.

In conjunction with other parties, Sinn Féin will be lobbying and campaigning, and will hope to influence MPs' deliberations on the Bill. These are crucial issues, especially given the experience of alienation and the manner in which policing and criminal justice has been subverted to a counter-insurgency project that gave rise to a catalogue of scandals over the years.

Reference has been made to emblems and symbols. Sinn Féin has serious concerns about the approach that has been taken. The Good Friday Agreement provides clear direction on the matter - and we agreed that. Notwithstanding the DUP's arguments about whether everyone agreed with it, three out of four voters agreed with it. While it is healthy practice in democratic discussion and decision-making for people to have a contrary view, when a decision is made by such an overwhelming majority we are entitled to see all parties accept that decision if we are going to institutionalise the process of conflict resolution. If people constantly undermine it, challenge it, deride it and deny it the legitimacy that it is entitled to, they will contribute only to undermining people's confidence in politics as a means of resolving the conflict and the division in our society.

The issue of a neutral environment in the court system is critical. The royal crest adds nothing to the administration or the experience of justice. Almost half of the community who live in the North are alienated from that promotion of one aspect of political opinion in the Six Counties, and we have to take account of that. It is not beyond us to create a neutral environment. We can achieve it without removing anyone's rights, and we can do it in a manner that reflects the rights of everyone.

The issues of the Royal Courts of Justice, the Crown Court, Queen's Counsel and the use of the British royal crest need to be addressed. They need to be taken out of the criminal justice system, which is meant to be in common ownership. It is meant to be a shared experience for everyone in the community whether you are Republican, Nationalist, Unionist or however you describe yourself. We need to be prepared to face the issue and to develop systems that will allow everyone to become part of the criminal justice process and to give equal allegiance, support and authority to it.

The fact that the draft Bill and the implementation plan failed to make recommendations about membership of exclusive or oath-bound organisations also needs to be addressed, because the criminal justice system, as it has evolved over the years, is subject to the same distortions and the same under-representation as other structures of government or the legal system. We should seize the opportunity to do something effective, constructive and positive about that.

Members also referred to the restorative justice system. Sinn Féin's position on that is very clear. Restorative justice is a progressive development recognised and practiced in many societies across the globe. It is in our ability to create that synergy between policing, justice and the legal systems in which there could be an institutionalised role for restorative justice, though not in the manner in which it has developed at present. Restorative justice is at least a positive development in respect of punishment beatings and informal justice systems, but it is not by any means the end game. Insofar as restorative justice deals with the reality that we have failed thus far to find unanimity on policing and justice, there is clearly a role for it.

It is our function to remove the conditions whereby informal responses emerge and to put in place agreed responses, which could, should and will incorporate restorative justice as an institutionalised response to antisocial behaviour in our society in a humane, peaceful and non-violent way. We should continue to study that subject and to approach it with a positive perspective.

I draw attention to the absence of proposals for co-operation on an all-island basis. The review group took time to make its report, and the NIO took an even longer period to study it, only to find that there were no structured proposals for co-operation on an all-island basis. This was omitted despite being specifically included in the Good Friday Agreement as part of the review group's remit.

Joint studies completed almost four years after the agreement indicate considerable resistance to the process of change and harmonisation on this island. That is to be regretted, and it is an issue that my party will return to strongly. Go raibh maith agat.

At the start of the debate I declared that I had two interests, and I notice that others who spoke did not. I am a non-practising member of the Bar Council, and I am a member of the Council of Legal Education. This should be borne in mind as I make my remarks.

I welcome the report. It has been said that there are a number of aspects that everyone in the Chamber can agree with. The reference to support for longer consultation is important. There is also opposition to making the Probation Board for Northern Ireland a Next Steps agency. The House can unite behind a wide range of the issues contained in the recommendations.

However, the real value of the report is in the submissions of the various parties and organisations, because, as has been indicated, there is a range of issues in the criminal justice proposals on which it would have been difficult, indeed impossible, for parties to reach agreement. Several of those issues have already been mentioned.

There is also a range of issues on which it is difficult for the report to comment fully at this stage because the key test will be in how they are operated in practice. I welcome the recommendations on youth conferencing that indicate that legal representation must be made available to young people, and on the role of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland.

The proposer of the motion, although he was not speaking in his role as Chairperson of the Committee, indicated that the key test of youth conferencing will be the extent to which it reduces youth crime. That is what people on the streets will be looking for. It would be wrong of us to draw conclusions before the system has been put in place.

I agree with the comments regarding the chief inspector of criminal justice. It is a mistake not to include the Police Ombudsman's role. I hope that the chief inspector of criminal justice will perform the duties in a way that commands greater public confidence and support than the Police Ombudsman has been receiving recently.

If there is to be a new prosecution service, it is important that it does not fall into the traps that the Crown Prosecution Service has encountered in England and Wales. It must be adequately resourced.

It is important that I place on record some of my concerns about the criminal justice review. These must be taken on board by the Government when they come to consider closely the level of implementation. It is right that the report recommends a strong, early consultative role for the Assembly, and I welcome the idea of a Standing Committee. It should be up and running as soon as possible. At this stage I urge a note of caution in the early devolution of criminal justice matters, whether to a department of justice or to the ever-expanding activities of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

It would be farcical to devolve powers to an Executive that contains a party whose commitment to justice is reflected in the kangaroo courts of the punishment beating squads.

The focus of the report is wrong on inclusiveness in the legal profession. In particular, it has indicated support for the simplification of the dress code of members of the Bar by the removal of the wig and gown. In the grand scheme of things that may be a relatively minor point, but it does stray into the civil remit and would be opposed strongly by the Bar Council for a range of reasons.

As well as missing the target of inclusiveness, the deteriorating level of funding available for legal trainees has not been examined. Bursaries for trainee solicitors and barristers at the Institute of Professional Legal Studies have decreased from 75% some 10 years ago to less than 33% today. As a society we pride ourselves that we get more people from working-class backgrounds into third-level education than any other part of the United Kingdom. If a barrier is then erected that eventually will limit the number of people entering the legal profession, that is the key test of inclusiveness; not changing the dress code in court.

I welcome recommendations 15 to 17, where a note of caution is sounded on restorative justice. As indicated by a Member who spoke previously, restorative justice has had a bad name in Northern Ireland. Gregory Campbell noted the difference between the concept of restorative justice and its practical implementation. The report recommends the greater use of pilot schemes and studies into restorative justice before any action is taken. Restorative justice should be court-controlled, and certain sectors of the community should not be given a free hand - that would be disastrous for justice in Northern Ireland.

I raise a concern about the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession. It is welcome that the report highlights the importance of the legal profession's independence. Any follow-through as to what that means in practice is sadly lacking. Here I diverge from Alban Maginness, who indicated that he wanted greater lay involvement in the judicial appointments commission. Among the Unionist community, concerns were raised during the period of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that judicial appointments were susceptible to pressure and influence from the Government of the Republic of Ireland. Whatever the truth of that perception, it existed. In moving away from that subtle pressure to a more open and transparent pressure by the appointment of a large percentage of lay people, there is a danger of perpetuating a political pattern. If growing cronyism is to be reinforced, with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister having responsibility for almost half of the appointees to a judicial appointments commission, or even through representation of political parties, the independence of the judiciary will be threatened.

One Member said earlier that his key concern was to see a judiciary that was reflective of society, a viewpoint with which I disagree. It is not that I do not want a judiciary that is reflective of society, but the key test of any judiciary must be that people are appointed on merit.

Leaving appointments largely in the hands of the judiciary and the two legal professions provides greater opportunity for ensuring that the key test is merit, rather than some form of political balance or political correctness.

Finally, I want to talk about the erosion of Britishness that is contained in several aspects of the report, which have already been mentioned. Mr Maginness gave us three options. He seems to have studiously ignored the fourth, which is that the courts acknowledge that we are part of the United Kingdom. On issues such as the oath of allegiance to the Queen, the flying of flags and the continuance of the display of royal arms in courtrooms, we must acknowledge that we are part of the United Kingdom.

It seems that the solution that has been offered - whereby royal arms are left on existing buildings, but no new buildings will have them - is an indication, not of our Britishness, but that we are moving into some sort of neutral state with a gesture to the past from the Government. The Secretary of State was concerned that "a cold house for Unionists" would be created; to allow these recommendations to go through would create arctic conditions for Unionists.

The report does not contain the obvious decline in Britishness that was associated with the Patten report. It is more subtle in its proposals. However, moving from a situation in which every symbol of Britishness is dropped to a situation in which our Britishness suffers death by a thousand cuts is not acceptable. The House must send a clear message that the acceptance of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom should pervade our society. The retention of what is already there is important. Parity of symbolism is not something that the House should accept. In moving forward from the report and whatever criminal justice measures the Secretary of State and Parliament consider implementing, it is important that we address those concerns to ensure that we have a criminal justice system that delivers for the people, rather than dealing another hammer blow to the Britishness of this country.

As we will have ministerial Question Time at 2.30 pm, it would be inappropriate to call another Member to speak. We will resume this debate at 4.00 pm after Question Time, and we will suspend the sitting until 2.30.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that a private notice question was tabled and was scheduled for approximately 4.00 pm. Can you confirm that?

I believe that that is the case. Thank you.

TOP

Oral Answers

Education