We are in danger of adopting an almost tit-for-tat attitude towards the violence. All violence should be condemned completely, and this is clearly not a one-sided issue. As Mr Dodds has said, there are ongoing attacks on the Protestant community, and it is important that people have a proper perspective on the problems. MLAs should give whatever help and assistance they can in that area.

Can the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister tell the House how both communities have reacted to their recent initiative, and can they give Members some indication of progress on the various issues that were raised by both communities?

First, I join with Mr Cobain in underscoring the point that if we are condemning violence, we all have to condemn all of the violence, all of the threats and all of the sectarianism - whoever the victims or the perpetrators may be, whatever names the perpetrators work under and whatever the code words are that they use. We all must be clear on that.

Regarding the community reaction to the range of measures that was shared with all the community interests in recent months, there was a broad welcome for the package of proposals and the work that was to be done. That was not because it was a fully fledged package in itself, but because it set out the various issues that needed to be explored, and the mechanisms and means that would give, not only Government, but the communities the capacity to do that. There was a broad welcome, not so much for the content of the package, but for the context that it appeared to be part of - seeing an end to the protest, allowing a school to get back to business and allowing families to try to restore some sense to their lives. It also allows the communities to address the different problems that affect them.

People have shown an eagerness to work well with the community action project to make progress at various levels. We wish, in particular, to encourage dialogue at community level, and to support any efforts to establish a community forum.

Mr Cobain raised some specific measures towards the end of his questions, including the road ramps for the Ardoyne Road and Hesketh Road areas. The first ramps were installed last Monday. However, work was temporarily suspended on Wednesday. Contractors have been asked to recommence work as soon as possible. Obviously, the design has been completed, and the statutory processes have been gone through.

Regarding the Alliance Avenue intersection, work is generally on track, but there are issues concerning liaison and brokerage with the local community interests that need to be addressed. Relevant communications are continuing in that regard. The Department for Regional Development and its Roads Service are handling the work in that area.

Other related measures on traffic calming are also on track, with design work under way and with the appropriate consultation to follow. The work on the community action challenge is continuing, and I note the Member's, and the Minister's, specific support for that work. All of us need to understand and appreciate the role that the community action project has. Some sections of the media misunderstood the role and remit of the project. In an area as delicate and complex as this, it is important to appreciate fully the specific roles that people are undertaking.

On other issues, Members will be aware of the range of education support measures that were announced by the Minister of Education following the Executive meeting before Christmas to help schools and youth services across north Belfast. There have also been several follow-through issues on the social services side, with some involving other services as well.

I welcome the united condemnation by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the sectarian murder of Daniel McColgan, and their absolute rejection of threats to anyone, especially teachers and school children in north Belfast. That example is important for the whole community and particularly for the suffering family of Daniel McColgan. It is a good example of one voice speaking for the community. Long may that continue.

I also welcome the meeting that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have had with representatives from the ICTU. What progress, if any, was made with the trade union movement on using an opportunity to express publicly the united opposition of the trade union movement to threats on public sector workers? Is it a matter of urgency for the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to set up a cross-community forum to create a genuine and sustained dialogue between the two communities that could lead to a permanent solution to the problems of sectarianism that have bedevilled north Belfast for so many generations?

The Member has raised a couple of issues, including the meeting that we had with the ICTU. That meeting was notable in that its representatives were joined by the national general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, who had come over for the occasion. It is a mark of the seriousness with which the Communication Workers Union regards the weekend's appalling murder that he has come here.

The ICTU is planning its own measures; it will hold a two-minute silence tomorrow at the time of the funeral and it also plans rallies on Saturday. The Member will understand my caution because we could not be seen to be supporting or calling for what amounts to strike action on Friday. People will want to take whatever measures they can to show their support for what is happening.

The Member also mentioned dialogue in north Belfast. Dialogue is important and we have encouraged that where we can. There are two aspects to that, and it is sometimes difficult to keep those two aspects separate in one's mind. First, there is the question of the community representatives from Ardoyne, upper Ardoyne, and the Glenbryn and Hesketh area whom we met in November. We encouraged them to work toward the establishment of a joint community forum in their area. Our senior liaison officer, who is mostly based in the Crumlin Road area, has been in regular discussion with both communities on this issue. The communities are in contact, and discussions are going ahead.

Some informal meetings have taken place, but it must be left to local people to develop the forum. Last week, we made it clear that we are ready to offer assistance and to facilitate development. We also offered to support mediation if that is the appropriate way forward. Our basic stance is to encourage the communities to develop. We hope that that will move forward appropriately.

In addition to that community forum action, there is development under the aegis of the North Belfast Community Action Project that deals with the development of a strategy for community and social issues across north Belfast. There have been discussions with elected and community representatives about the development of that strategy. Through the work of the project, elected and community representatives will contribute to the development of a plan and a community forum.

It would be nice if those forums were up and running now. People have not been slow in developing them, and progress has been made since November. It is unfortunate that violence broke out last week, but the development of the forums will go ahead; I look forward to their establishment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving us the opportunity to ask a supplementary question.

I send my condolences to young Daniel's family, the postal workers with whom he worked, and his colleagues in the Communication Workers Union. This young man was killed early on Saturday morning for no other reason than that he was a Catholic. He attended Hazelwood Integrated Primary School and Hazelwood Integrated College in north Belfast. That brings it home to us that a young man, who spent his life in integrated education, mixing with Protestants and those from other religions, was cut down in his prime at the age of 20. Integrated education did not help him.

I thank the Executive and the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister for the measures that have been taken, and for what has happened so far.

Over the weekend there was much talk of threats against teachers, and about whether threats were made. We need to value teachers, irrespective of their religion or the type of school in which they work. They teach today's children, who are tomorrow's adults; some of those children will one day become leaders and will sit in this Chamber.

Do the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister believe that the initiative led by Rev Dunlop is focused on the right issues? Do they believe that the methodology used lends itself to drawing up wish lists for community development? Would it not be better to focus on relationships between the two traditions in north Belfast, working on a micro level now rather than on a macro level in six months' time?

I thank the Member for his questions and, in particular, for his earlier remarks about how brutal and futile the murder at the weekend was. That view is shared by all of us in the Chamber.

The role of the community action project is to deal with the issues that were expressed by a range of interested parties during the contact work by the First Minister, our officials and me. We want to make progress in that regard. As Billy Hutchinson pointed out, some issues do not reflect only the separate and diverse community needs, they raise the need to develop dialogue and better community relations. We want to do that; we therefore support the development of community forums as a means of providing that dialogue at all levels to deal with all the issues.

The community action project will not simply be a vehicle for drawing up a wish list. It is an effort to ensure that communities feel that they are being empowered and enabled to deal with the issues that affect, concern and frustrate them. It is hoped that they will have a real and meaningful sense that the Government will be good partners and supporters in that regard. It is not only important that people try to achieve mutual respect and trust, people in north Belfast need a sense of assurance that all the diverse authorities, be they devolved or otherwise, have a real sense of people's anxieties, fears and hurts. That applies to all sections of the community in north Belfast.

The community action project is just one contribution. It is not the sole contribution or response to the problems that exist, just as it cannot fall only to the devolved Administration to respond to the problems.

I join in the condemnation of the brutal murder at the weekend. It took place inside the boundaries of Newtownabbey Borough Council, an area that I have represented and know very well. It was cowardly, stupid and idiotic. From a purely Loyalist point of view it was self-defeating. There are no words that be can be used to adequately condemn the senseless killing of this young man.

It is ironic that on a gable wall in the Republican Bawnmore estate adjacent to the Longlands area, there is a slogan that says "White City prepare for another death". That type of sinister slogan does nothing but create and add to the tension that exists in the area. At this time the people in the White City area of Belfast are on the edge. They are tense and worried, because they are constantly under attack. As I have said in the past, it is a city under siege.

Tomorrow's funeral will go past their front doors. That has thrown up security worries. What happens if some Republican activists latch on to this funeral? What happens if, as they have done in the past, they use schoolchildren for their own political ends? Is there going to be further trouble in the White City? Are the people of the White City going to be afforded the protection that they need? One of the difficulties we have had in north Belfast - [Interruption].

Order. I normally take points of order. On a previous occasion there was a clear point of clarification that was necessary.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

I will take your point of order. However, I suggest to the House that it continue in the composed fashion that it has entertained up until now.

I will take that as read. Other people were given a chance to ask questions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. The Member has not used that opportunity.

I trust I have made it clear what I think is the wish of the House, and that is to continue in the composed way in which this difficult and sensitive matter has been addressed up until now.

I was simply going on to say that although I welcome many of the well-meaning and positive projects that are in place in north Belfast, I believe that one of the difficulties is that the infrastructure cannot be put in place overnight. In many respects, we need a quick fix that can restore the confidence lost by the community in north Belfast.

For example, the Police Service does not like static patrols in north Belfast. However, a static patrol can give confidence to the people living in some of those areas. I wonder whether the Executive and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister could take that on board. Infrastructure cannot be put in place overnight, but is there some sort of quick fix available to ensure that something could happen in the short term?

In his comments, Mr Agnew dwelt on the tension that undoubtedly exists in many parts of north Belfast. There is a very real concern, shared across the House, that the violence should end and that we should not find ourselves in a spiral of tit-for-tat violence. There is no doubt about the tension or the serious reasons for it. One can only appeal to people to be calm, to restrain from using violence whatever the circumstances and, indeed, not to be on the streets in the evening unless it is absolutely necessary. Where possible, there is a need for parents to keep children who might otherwise get involved in violence at home. The past week has demonstrated how even comparatively small incidents can quickly develop into large-scale violence.

Mr Agnew spoke of a quick fix to create confidence. I wish that it were possible. If there were anything that we could do quickly to produce that result, it would be done. Since November, the Administration have brought forward measures to try to inject confidence into the community by showing that we are aware of the problems - several of which are of long standing - that they have our sympathetic concern and active involvement in the matter and that we have done what we can to create confidence. One ray of encouragement from last week's event is that there has not been a resumption of the protest at the Holy Cross Girls' School in the Hesketh area. There was concern and fear that there was violence in the neighbourhood, but the protest that had been operating there until November did not resume. We are glad of that, and we are glad that folk there have exercised restraint.

I should repeat what I said in an interview last week, and it should have been said earlier today: we appreciate the work of so many community workers in north Belfast. We appreciate what the area's MLAs have done to encourage restraint and to deliver confidence to their communities and supporters. We want to encourage that good work.

TOP

Before we return to the normal business of the Order Paper, I ask the House, having in this exceptional way expressed in words its concern and feelings about the events of the last week, to stand for a minute in reflection on these and all the matters that have been spoken about and, particularly, in condolence with the family of Mr Daniel McColgan.

Criminal Justice Reform

The review on criminal justice was part of the Good Friday Agreement. At the time I said that policing and criminal justice should be discussed together, because I do not always think that the citizens of Northern Ireland realise that if we do not get the criminal justice system right, there is no point in concentrating on policing alone. I am concerned that, to date, there has not been the same public debate on criminal justice as there has been on policing - [Interruption].

Order.

I want to consider the appointments, training, transparency and accountability of the judiciary. Representation and the symbolic nature of emblems have been discussed, as has the implementation of the recommendations; however, a matter that has received little attention so far is witnesses and victims and the services provided for them in the courts.

I welcome the criminal justice review's recommendations on judicial appointments. Indeed, they are long overdue in Northern Ireland. I have also looked at the Northern Ireland Court Service's screening policies, and I am concerned that some of the recommendations seem to be taken more seriously than others. Needless to say, the law profession is more concerned that both barristers and solicitors should be considered for future appointments.

However, the numbers of people from ethnic minorities and women in senior judicial positions have not been dealt with in the debate so far. The Northern Ireland Court Service's screening policies on the issue of equity highlight the issues of religion and ethnic minorities, but they do not pay the same attention to disability or gender. I am concerned that they say that these recommendations will positively contribute to fairer participation in future but that no impact assessment is required on the eligibility criteria or equity monitoring, and yet on the issues of the oath of allegiance and symbols in courts, they call for a full impact assessment.

If we are looking at the criminal justice review in the round, it would have been useful if the Committee had had the opportunity, because this publication has been on our desks for some time, and the policies have been screened by the Northern Ireland Court Service to see whether there will be a change in the future.

My concern comes from those who have been before the courts in the past. Concern is expressed outside Northern Ireland. If we are to broaden eligibility and introduce some element so that the composition of the judiciary truly reflects the composition of society, that should be based not just on religion, which has been the focus of the debate to date, but on gender.

If anyone has looked at the papers in the last week, they will note the concern that has been expressed in some of the comments that have been made by the judiciary, not only recently, but in the past, where rape and sex abuse cases have been in front of the courts. That is why I am concerned about the Judicial Studies Board, although it makes a recommendation that the induction training be mandatory, and the criminal justice review suggests that the induction training should be mandatory. However, the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill does not require this. I am strongly in favour of training, because I do not believe, as the criminal justice review does, that the judiciary should just talk to the judiciary. That has been a problem in the past, and it has been the same in the medical profession. They ought to broaden that out in training.

I had an opportunity to participate in judicial studies training in relation to my research into domestic violence. It was important that a full day that I spent with other agencies from the community had a serious input to how the judiciary dealt with domestic violence thereafter. I hope that it also had a serious outcome. The Judicial Studies Board's make-up does not extend to academic input, although the criminal justice review suggested that it might. I fear that it may not, and then an opportunity would be missed.

With regard to appointments and training, if we in Northern Ireland do not open up the judiciary, move it out, make it representative of the community and make it more understanding of the problems that are faced in our society, then we truly have missed an opportunity. If it is said of the police, then equally it should have been said about the judiciary. As I have said, the judiciary have gotten off lightly in the public debate on this subject.

The judicial appointments commissioner in Northern Ireland has been appointed. It will be interesting to see Mr John Simpson's future work. I welcome the Commission's intention to extend its eligibility, as a major criticism has been how closed the judiciary has been in the past; a criticism that came from inside and outside Northern Ireland.

Future transparency has been a major issue, and I have had difficulty in understanding the decisions made by the Department of Public Prosecutions. I have on occasions written to the DPP - and herein lies the issue of independence - after I received requests from victims for information on why the DPP decided not to prosecute. I have been alarmed at its conclusions on those occasions.

In turn, the DPP has reviewed its decisions not to prosecute. In future, that procedure to write on behalf of constituents should not be left simply to Assembly Members whose constituents are concerned that there have been no prosecutions. Little information is published, and it is difficult for anyone to understand at the end of the year which cases have been prosecuted. I have often had to request statistics from the DPP asking whether the charges had been downgraded. Of course, the DPP denies the existence of such a word. It has had to trace the statistics manually in order to follow through on prosecutions from start to finish. There are real concerns, and the situation has not increased victims' confidence. If the criminal justice system is to make itself more understandable, accountable and transparent, it must have victims' confidence.

It is to be welcomed that reports will be published and that there will be a code of practice, which at present is simply downloaded from the Crown Prosecution Service. I am not aware whether the Department of Public Prosecutions has had many codes of practice of its own. I hope that that will now change.

I would be concerned if, in future, the DPP claimed security as a reason for not prosecuting. We know that in the past that has not increased confidence. There may be a valid case for not publishing reasons, but if the DPP is to be as open and transparent as it now promises to be, that information should be available.

At the back of the report, where agencies' evidence is detailed, there is a recommendation that the word "realm" in the judicial oath be replaced with the word "jurisdiction". The judiciary adopts many Latin terms and antiquated language, and we have the opportunity to change some of that.

The use of symbols is also mentioned and will be assessed for equity, and impact statements will be made. Enough has been said about that matter in the Assembly. The concerns voiced by many of the witnesses and victims have not been about what is hanging above them but rather the trauma they face each and every day that they attend court. As victims, they have had the courage to give evidence, and too often they have had to sit in the same room opposite offenders and perpetrators. They have also been told that, although they are victims, they are only as good as their witness evidence. That attitude in the courts must change. Modern facilities should be provided in which victims feel safe so that they can give their evidence in a way that works for them not against them. My concerns lie with the practicalities of facilitating victims.

The Committee paid some attention to the issue of the oversight commissioner. The appointee could be male or female; however, the language of the report implied that only a man may be appointed.

We must also look at the courts' role in rehabilitation and reintegration as well as in prevention, and for that reason the issue of youth conferencing and children was stressed. The recommendation to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 would have been useful, and I am concerned that it was not taken up.

Issues relating to young people must be addressed. The Assembly has discussed the report from the Committee for Health, Social Service and Public Safety on secure residential accommodation for young people, especially those who come before the courts. Day after day, magistrates and judges tell that they are frustrated about how to deal with them.

There are some proposals about custody care orders. There was some concern that the word "custody" was used in front of the word "care". However, the matter must be fully debated. Given the lack of secure accommodation and resources to date, the report may end up as a group of mere recommendations, without serious resources being provided to deal with young people.

Restorative justice must be debated further. This should not be the last word on it. If we are to proceed with confidence, we must engage seriously in the debate on rehabilitation and reintegration. As we saw during the Christmas holiday, the juvenile justice system clearly is not working, when young people are absconding or being released on parole. The recidivism rate is so high that we must question the diversionary and other programmes that should be there to deal with the kind of behaviour that leads to a career in crime early in a young person's life.

The Probation Service should remain independent. Anything else may lead to its being accused of colluding with the court system or being biased or one-sided. Throughout the troubles, the probation service was independent, and that enabled its staff to go into places and talk to offenders in a way that would have been enormously difficult if they had been associated with the judiciary or the Court Service. Together with the probation service we must build more partnerships with communities.

Although I am not a member of the Ad Hoc Committee, I am pleased that it was able to arrive at a consensus on the recommendations, because that is difficult to achieve across the parties. However, I am concerned that insufficient time was given to local community safety partnerships. These seem to be such a problem for policing, and if we do not take them up in relation to criminal justice and prosecution, it will be only a one-sided discussion.

If we are to have equality before the law, and if the judiciary is to be independent and impartial, we must increase the level of confidence in the criminal justice system enormously. It has been at an all-time low. I am glad to see that the Ad Hoc Committee has recommended that there should be a Standing Committee on criminal justice. If we are to look at all the issues - prevention, rehabilitation, reintegration and sentencing - we need such a committee. We should not leave it until we have a devolved Department, because no one knows when that will happen. The sooner the Assembly gets its hands on criminal justice, the better, because some matters and recommendations have been left for the judiciary to deal with. Any criminal justice review that suggests that the judiciary is best dealt with by the judiciary needs to take a serious look at itself.

I agree with the comments made by several Members on the contribution of the Committee Clerks. I also want to acknowledge the work that was done by the Committee members. As other Members have said, it is not insignificant that there was a level of agreement that might not otherwise have been reached, especially as the criminal justice review was a product of the Good Friday Agreement.

It is a reflection on the development of thinking across the parties in the Assembly that a degree of agreement was reached. Although I do not overstate the degree of agreement, neither do I underestimate it. People may travel different roads to reach the same conclusion. The important thing is that the same conclusion is reached: a representative, accountable, transparent police service or criminal justice service in Northern Ireland. Whatever path we may travel, the point that we have reached is significant for all of us.

Despite that, I do not travel in great confidence. The last justice matter that the Chamber discussed was a criminal injuries compensation reform. On that occasion, the Chamber achieved consensus on criminal injuries compensation proposals. Despite that consensus, no later than 19 December 2001, Mr Des Browne MP, the parliamentary under-secretary of state for Northern Ireland, wrote:

A short time after unanimity was achieved on the Floor of the Assembly, the British Government had dismissed it. It was not only that the British Government rejected the Assembly's proposals for changes to criminal injuries compensation reform; they even rejected deferring those proposals pending transfer of the criminal justice function, which the Government stated in the criminal justice review response they intended to transfer within 18 months. That reflects the response from the British Government to past criminal justice changes in the North. Therefore, the Assembly cannot travel in any confidence that this British Government will behave any differently on this matter.

It is an example of Ministers in the North genuflecting to the needs of 10 and 11 Downing Street rather than a response to the politics of agreement - an advantage achieved on the Floor of the Assembly in that matter and in others. The Assembly will see whether, on this occasion, the British Government determine differently. If they do, there are several urgent matters referred to in the response by the Ad Hoc Committee and several other matters that arise from the criminal justice review.

The Ad Hoc Committee makes several strong assertions in its report on how the Government should amend the implementation plan and draft legislation. The first is overseeing the implementation plan. The Ad Hoc Committee notes the dearth of clear deadlines for the implementation plan and the lack of clear targets for the Criminal Justice Review Group's recommendations. It says that the Government should give

The strength of those statements by the Ad Hoc Committee reflects a higher degree of consensus on overseeing the criminal justice changes than might ever have been conceived by any British Government while it referred the draft Bill and implementation plan to the Assembly.

Further consideration of those recommendations uncovers their range, complexity and their inter-agency nature. When the Assembly considers that in 18 months' time it might be responsible for those recommendations, it seems that the need to have - objectively and particularly - an overseeing mechanism is strong and compelling.

In that regard, the British Government should recognise the level of consensus and respond appropriately.

The statements on human rights and guiding principles in the Ad Hoc Committee report also impressed me. Human rights issues and disputes have been at the core of conflict over the past 30 years. Despite that, the Committee had the understanding, on a consensus basis, to assert that the Secretary of State should consider revising the clauses of the draft Bill to include references to the accepted human rights standards that acknowledge that human rights are central to the criminal justice system.

The British Government say that they want to affirm policing and criminal justice changes in the North, however they come about. To do that, they should respond to the fact that this Chamber was able to conclude that human rights should be at the core of the new criminal justice system. I am surprised that the Chamber could achieve that level of understanding and consensus. If we are able to do that, it ill behoves the British Government to ignore it, given that it was achieved in spite of great difficulties.

In one way, however, I am not surprised that agreement was reached. As Ian Paisley Jnr and others will confirm, the Northern Ireland Policing Board is considering a code of ethics that mainstreams human rights standards into the policing service to protect both the citizen and the police officer. It goes way beyond the human rights standards and codes of ethics in virtually any other police service known to the board. If that level of agreement on codes of ethics and human rights standards can be achieved on the policing issue, and if agreement can be reached on future criminal justice structures, the British Government would be insulting the good work, good principles and high values of the Assembly if they did not respond by mainstreaming human rights, both in law and in the implementation plan.

I could list a wide range of areas where that could be done. If we are to achieve agreement we could perhaps borrow from the example of the Policing Board, where the draft code of ethics that is currently on the board's agenda includes human rights safeguards and requirements in respect of defence lawyers, those who have been detained and those who have been charged. Those recommendations come from the changed management team in the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). If they are good enough for the Police Service - as they appear to be - those good standards should also apply to the criminal justice institutions.

That is not to say that we agree on all matters. Clearly, we do not. Duncan Shipley Dalton and Gregory Campbell - and I anticipate that Ian Paisley Jnr will do the same - disagree with our view and that of the Criminal Justice Review's recommendations on the working environment. We are told that, because the constitutional position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom has been confirmed in the referendum, we must accept everything that those Members interpret being British to mean, including the display of symbols, emblems and flags.

We differ because we interpret the principle of consent as consenting to the constitutional position as part of the UK, not accepting all expressions of what it is to be British in Northern Ireland. Those who do not accept that interpretation should perhaps consider the equal validity given to the principle of parity of esteem in the Good Friday Agreement.

The principle of parity of esteem is given equal validity when it comes to the issue of the display of flags, emblems and symbols. However, if Members do not agree with that argument then, with some caution, I refer them to page 174 of the report where the Human Rights Commission moves the display of flags, emblems and symbols beyond the issues of consent and parity of esteem.

The outline principles are, the Commission says, necessary to reflect the independence of the judiciary, of the courts and of due process. A wide range of international instruments is mentioned; from the UN Declaration of Human Rights to the UN International Covenants and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. All state that to be seen to be an independent judiciary and an independent court service, that court service must be independent. As a consequence, it should be free of symbols that might identify it as being less than neutral. So, from wherever they travel to reach it, I hope that Members come to the conclusion that good international standards and practice are consistent with the true interpretation of the Good Friday Agreement. In other words, without vandalising or interfering aggressively with emblems or symbols, court buildings, courtrooms and all to do with the precincts of a court should be free of symbols. I should like to think that the British Government will conclude as I have outlined.

My third point - and I have sympathy with what Monica McWilliams said - concerns the judiciary. One of the core values of our new political and policing orders, and of the future justice order, must be the accountability of those structures. That is a core value of the Good Friday Agreement, and it informs the practice of the various institutions set up under it. The judiciary is one of the most unaccountable institutions in this jurisdiction, in the South and in Britain. It is much more unaccountable than any police service or public- sector body of which I am aware on these islands. It is a body of people with unfettered power, immense resources and standing, whom few cross. The criminal justice review gives us the opportunity to begin to ensure that our judiciary is accountable in a way in which no other judiciary in these islands is, though all of them should be.

However, the British Government's responses do not follow the recommendations of the review. Consistent with some of the Ad Hoc Committee's statements, we must ensure that the draft law is changed so that the judiciary reflects the community and all judges are subjected to training in human rights. All appointments must be the responsibility of a commission for judicial appointments, which must not just advise on appointments but make them. The judicial and legal membership of the commission must not have undue influence, power or number. Consistent with some of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee and with the review of the criminal justice system, we hope that the British Government will hear these arguments.

I have two final comments. The first takes account of the prosecution service, because although the main concerns about the administration of justice in the North have revolved around the activities of the Police Service, many people are concerned that it has been the further efforts of the judiciary at times, and the prosecution service at other times, that have created an environment in which those who are entrusted with upholding the law have broken it, occasionally abused human rights and not been held properly to account by those whose responsibility it is to ensure that they are. In the first instance, that means prosecution when appropriate and, secondly, conviction when the evidence leads, beyond a reasonable doubt, to that conclusion.

Although we may not have agreed on how to come to that situation, people are beginning to conclude that we have reached it. That was seen in the reaction to the collapse of the prosecution of the late William Stobie. Nonetheless, the proposals in the criminal justice review that are to some degree endorsed in the Ad Hoc Committee's report mean that the proposals in the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the implementation plan do not lead to an accountable prosecution service. That is reflected in recommendation 10 of the Ad Hoc Committee's report that states that

That does not mean that reasons should always be disclosed when cases do not result in a prosecution. It means that there should be a presumption that the reasons will be disclosed, even though in some circumstances with just cause they will not be disclosed, not least to protect the victims. The presumption should be disclosure, whereas, at the moment, it is non-disclosure. Given the hint that that reflects the Assembly's consensus view, the British Government should amend the legislation.

With boring monotony, I will conclude as I have other speeches on justice and human rights. The SDLP is of the view that the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill and the draft implementation plan are closer to the criminal justice review than the original Mandelson Bill and the original implementation plan arising from Patten were. They are closer, but not close enough. If the British Government use the Ad Hoc Committee's report as an example of where a higher degree of agreement is important to sustain confidence in the new institutions, the law and the plan should be changed. They should revisit some of the review's recommendations because, if they do not, we will be left with the hollow apology of T E Lawrence that

"the old men came out again and took our victory to re-make the likeness of the former world they knew."

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>