I too wish to associate myself with the comments of several Members who congratulated the Committee staff, especially the Committee Clerk. I understand that he does not believe in Santa Claus because he was still emailing people about the report on Christmas Eve. He was certainly hard done by over the Christmas period. However, it probably saved him a bit of expense on his credit card. It is important that we pay tribute to the work of the staff because given the timescale available to us for this so-called consultation - and most of the people who gave evidence criticised the timescale - the work of the Committee Clerk and his team was exceptional.

Mr Attwood and several other Members mentioned the high level of agreement across the Chamber and, more importantly, in the Committee. Perhaps Mr Attwood was being self-effacing, because I noticed that he did not always attend Committee meetings - maybe that was his recipe for ensuring that there was that high level of agreement.

Nonetheless, we should be honest about the report. We should not get too carried away when discussing what the Committee agreed on - the Committee agreed to differ. It agreed to include members' different political points of view as an addendum to the report, in order to get consensus on other areas where there was broad- brush agreement. Let us not get too carried away with self- congratulation. The champagne can be put back on ice because it is not required just yet.

Although the report was about agreeing to differ, there was some agreement. Everyone was frustrated by the lack of consultation time that the Northern Ireland Office Ministers allowed the Committee. They were unforthcoming in allowing for consultation on this Bill and other matters. They have demeaned the word "consultation".

The Committee agreed that it could not recommend many elements of the draft Bill, especially those relating to the so-called restorative or community justice programmes, because they were too vague and poorly thought out. That is a positive negative point. However, it was important that the Committee agreed not to ratify restorative or community justice simply because the option was there. The Committee recognised the usefulness of establishing a consultative or standing committee to make a more protracted examination of criminal justice issues as they arise.

Anyone in the Assembly can see that the Bill has been poorly thought out, and that it is cluttered and vague. That is because there was such a lack of time, prior to the review of criminal justice, to allow the Committee to be properly consulted as the Bill was put together, and to help to develop it. The establishment of a Standing Committee might allow us to deal at length with the issue of criminal justice. Every Member has touched on issues that affect us all.

Aside from those broad-brush agreements, the Committee was united on few matters. However, it is important to note that, because of the draft Bill's failures, the Committee report falls well short of endorsing it - I welcome that. That point should not be lost on the Northern Ireland Office. It should be a central consideration for anyone who wants to argue in support of the draft Bill in the House of Commons. Anyone who might wish to twist that fact by claiming that the Assembly endorsed the draft Bill should remember that the report makes it clear that no endorsement was given.

Various parties wanted to exercise political influence over the area of criminal justice and the appointment of senior judges. However, there was strong disagreement about who should have that influence. I can understand why the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP would be relaxed about political control over senior appointments at the moment. However, that approach applies in the short term only, because after the next election those parties may not be in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. They should think long and hard about whether the control of justice by them, as politicians, is in the long-term interests of Northern Ireland. They must think about whether the criminal justice system should be handed to politicians, especially if one of the positions in that Office happened to be filled by Sinn Féin/IRA. It is important that people reflect on that and recognise exactly what they are doing.

The politicisation of the judiciary must be rejected at all costs. Witnesses put that view to the Committee, time and time again. The Law Society of Northern Ireland came before the Committee to talk about the politicisation of the legal profession. It said:

The Law Society further added that

That is not my position; it is the position of the Law Society, the body that speaks for practitioners from a variety of backgrounds in Northern Ireland.

The Law Society took the same position in minutes of evidence from a Committee session on 29 November 2001:

If the Law Society is not good enough for some people, what about the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission? When Prof Dickson gave evidence to the Committee on 29 November 2001 and was asked about the issue of politicisation, he said:

Prof Dickson did not make those comments lightly. He recognised the dangers contained in the Bill if it were to be implemented in its current form. The House should be aware of that. By endorsing the report, that awareness is flagged up, and anyone who wishes to quote from it and use the Assembly's position on the report recognises that it is not an endorsement of the Bill as currently drafted. Surely that weight of evidence counts for something when one considers the background of the people who submitted that evidence?

The Secretary of State said that he did not want Northern Ireland to become a cold house for Protestants. The recommendations in the draft Bill and in the implementation report would make the courts a very frosty place for the Protestant community. There is a failure - and I fear that it was repeated today by Members on the opposite side of the House - to recognise that the removal of the Union flag, the attack on, removal and denigration of the oath, and the removal of the symbols of the Crown are offensive to the Protestant community. Of course they are. The failure to recognise that the suggestion is in itself gratuitously offensive shows how far we still have to go in Northern Ireland. I hope that parties will reflect on that. Nationalists in this place must ask themselves if they really want a Northern Ireland that is a cold place for the Protestant community. If they do, the ramifications are appalling.

Mr Attwood referred to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on the issue of flags and symbolism. When evidence from representatives of the Human Rights Commission is studied, it can be seen that the commission's position is based on a false premise. It describes controversial symbols. The flag of the state, no matter who describes it as controversial, remains the flag of the state. It is unlike other controversial symbols that may represent one section or other of the community. The commission has done itself a gross disservice by describing the national emblem and symbols of the state as controversial items that can be easily dispensed with.

There is a lack of consistency from those people who wish to see the removal of the Union flag and the crest of the Crown. That inconsistency is amplified when those same people are silent on the recommendation that the Irish language be introduced into the courts. I would take criticisms much better from those people if they were prepared to argue that there should be no symbolism of any kind at all - at least that would be consistent.

However, to say absolutely nothing, and to support proposals calling for the elevation of the Irish language and Irish Nationalism in courts that have had a devaluation of Britishness, shows a great inconsistency on their part.

I am pleased that the new courthouse in Belfast is soon to be bedecked with the royal crest to identify it with this state, which is only right and proper. Although the issues of symbolism will draw most of the public attention, it is important that we do not ignore what is at the heart of the draft Bill - the creation of a single prosecution service. That procedure is, however, old, and it should not be inflicted on Northern Ireland. We heard much evidence to demonstrate that when it was inflicted on England and Wales it became an unmitigated disaster. Members should look at the evidence presented by the Glidewell report, to which the Committee referred.

In my party's submission we indicated that we were extremely concerned that we were about to repeat the fundamental mistakes that were made in England and Wales in relation to the working of the Crown Prosecution Service. Do not take my word for it - take what Glidewell said in his report. He said that, overall, the Crown Prosecution Service discontinues prosecutions on an average of 12% more cases now than it ever did. The likelihood of getting successful prosecutions under the Crown Prosecution Service system actually goes down, which is not in anyone's interest when we see the rising crime wave in Northern Ireland - increasing motor vehicle crime, and violent crime against the person. It is not in anyone's interest to see a mechanism put in place that reduces the ability of the prosecution to get a successful result.

The Glidewell report states:

We would be very foolish if we did not learn from the experience of England and Wales. It is clear that, in the Bill, the resources are not placed at Northern Ireland's disposal to ensure that we have a single prosecution service that will actually work. That would result in a Crown Prosecution Service that would be a disaster.

Mr Alban Maginness said that it would be a renewal of the prosecution service - I think that it would be a wrecking of the Crown Prosecution Service. He said that it would be a revival of the system - I believe that it would be a requiem for the system. It would be wrong to impose something on Northern Ireland that was tried and tested elsewhere and which proved to be an unmitigated disaster. I hope that others will recognise that these problems are real. If we go down the road of implementing major change by introducing a single prosecution service, and by implementing major change to the prosecution service as it currently stands, we stand to be indicted later on by a failure of that system to actually achieve results - results that bring about justice and integrity in the criminal justice system.

The report also made some other important recommendations that must not be ignored too hastily. Recommendation 11 supports the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, and my Colleague Mr Campbell has already indicated our party position on that. We are pleased to endorse the work of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and to endorse the recommendation that it should remain independent and impartial. It should not be replaced by what it describes as a Next Steps agency. I also believe that recommendations 15 to 17 on restorative justice indicate that the Committee had absolutely no satisfaction with the proposals on restorative justice, indicating that a great deal more work needs to be done by the Northern Ireland Office before a recommendation of moving to such a system could even be contemplated. That work on minor crime needs to be done over a long time.

Some Members have mentioned the issue of the transparency of decisions. We should tread carefully on that, because we could create a system where, willy-nilly, the reasons why prosecutions did not take place would be published.

I put on the record of the House the evidence that was supplied by Mr Kerr, a magistrate and a practitioner in the Criminal Bar Association, who said that there are compelling reasons for not always giving an explanation. A reason for not prosecuting might often appear to denigrate an injured party or victim, and that may be unnecessary and stressful for them.

An assessment of a witness might conclude that he or she is incapable of giving the necessary evidence, and it would not be in anyone's interest to humiliate a person further by telling him or her that. Indeed, the Department of Public Prosecution's (DPP) policy is that every case must be examined to see whether it falls into that category, and if it does not, reasons are given where possible. The Bar Council of Northern Ireland believes in openness where possible, and it approves of that course of action.

Will the Member give way?

I will, but may I first make the point? I do not want the Member to misunderstand. In principle there should be as much openness and transparency as possible, but we should be aware of the dangers of creating a precedent or saying that all information must be made available, although that might be very dangerous.

The Member and the person who represents the Bar Council may not be aware that the DPP recently changed its policy of interviewing witnesses. Until then, decisions on whether to proceed with prosecutions were based on written evidence that was in front of it.

I am aware of one case in which a witness had cerebral palsy, and the assumption was made that she might not be a competent witness. It was only when I asked for the decision to be reviewed that the witness was interviewed and the discovery made that she was very competent. In turn they had to review the decision not to prosecute. That leads anyone to conclude that if the system were more transparent, people might not have as many concerns about constant final decisions not to prosecute. It is now policy for all witnesses to be interviewed before decisions are made on whether to prosecute.

I thank the Member for the intervention, which shows that when treading on sensitive ground, it is important to strike the proper balance. The comments from the Criminal Bar Association tried to strike that balance, and it is important that Members bear that in mind when arguing for changes.

All in all, a vote for the report is a vote for more consideration of the Bill and for giving the Assembly the right to drive that process of investigation. A positive vote tonight will indicate that the Assembly does not endorse the draft Bill and rejects significant chunks of it. However, it permits parties to agree to differ on those issues, and it is critical of the Northern Ireland Office's handling of the matter.

I take the opportunity to thank the Committee members, including those who served as deputies or who made a contribution to the debate and to the Committee's discussions. We worked reasonably well as a Committee. Although it is true to say that there is no complete consensus, we tried to achieve consensus on some of the broad-brush issues, and in our report we put forward to the House as positive a view as we could. I greatly thank the Committee's support staff who, as other Members have said, worked extremely hard and were extremely helpful to me as Chairman and to the other members. I also thank the Assembly's research and library services staff for providing a legal adviser who was an extraordinarily useful and valuable addition to the Committee and to me personally. I do not have enough time to cover everybody's contribution. However, I will work back through some of the points raised.

I am a little confused about Mr Paisley Jnr's point about the judicial appointments commission. The Committee broadly recognised that it did not want to overpoliticise the appointment of the judiciary, but there was an acknowledgment that in any democracy the appointment of members of the judiciary is necessarily a political act. Appointments are made by members of the political institutions in some form or other. Although, technically, it is the monarch who appoints senior judges, in reality this is done on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor or the Prime Minister. Therefore, in that sense it would not be such a shift to move that responsibility in Northern Ireland towards the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

I am surprised by Mr Paisley Jnr's comments about this matter when the DUP's submission recommended that the judicial appointments commission could consider having members appointed using the d'Hondt formula. Perhaps he was saying not so much that he is opposed to any concept of political involvement in the appointments but rather that the political involvement should be widespread and reflect all aspects of the community.

The Committee was well aware of the point made about the Glidewell report. The issue was raised on several occasions by Mr Paisley Jnr and by other members of the Committee. It is of great concern. It is important that in introducing a public prosecutions service to Northern Ireland that service should be properly funded, organised, structured and be able to complete its work effectively. There are many lessons to be learnt from the Glidewell report and from the experiences of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The Government have assured the Committee and myself on several occasions that those lessons have been learnt and will be applied. We will have to wait with some trepidation to see whether that is the case. I hope that the Government will take our concerns into account.

As regards the points made by Mr Attwood, I cannot resist the urge to respond to the reference to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission's point about what it describes as the partisan display in a courtroom. The human right it relies on is one of equality before the law, which is reflected. Equality before the law and independent, impartial tribunals support a human right that is reflected in many international standards and that is one that everyone would support.

I fail to understand how the Commission stretches that right by saying that to include display of national symbols in a courtroom would somehow undermine that equality and impartiality. If one were to apply that logic then almost every state that displays any form of national or state symbol in its courtroom would necessarily be breaching that human right. It does not surprise me that a body that has not managed to figure out its own remit cannot work out how to apply human rights standards. However, that is another point.

The Committee felt that many of the timetables being laid down and the targets being set by the Government were not clearly identified. There was a relatively ambiguous identification of exactly what the Government intended to do and when. We felt that an oversight commissioner would be an appropriate way to focus the Government's mind on this. The Committee also felt that the Assembly could play a more active role in this through the formation of a Standing Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has suggested that the Assembly should consider setting up such a Committee at an early stage. I would go further and say that the Assembly should set up such a Committee. It would be a valuable Committee of the House and would offer us a great opportunity to scrutinise the work of Government in introducing this legislation.

Prof McWilliams raised a point about having a reflective judiciary. The Committee discussed the issue, however it was not something that we reflected in the report. It was recognised that the reflectiveness of the judiciary should involve more than just a Catholic/ Protestant perspective. There are also issues such as ethnic minorities and the appointment of women to the bench. Few women are appointed to the bench in Northern Ireland, and this does not reflect well on the legal profession considering how many extremely able female practitioners are involved. We would all welcome that.

There is an opportunity to expand appointment to the bench to those people who would not previously have been appointed. Academics who are legally qualified but have not practised for any length of time would be eligible, and in due course that would broaden those who are appointed.

The point raised by Prof McWilliams about victims was not something that came up in the Committee. It was recognised that there was a greater focus on the victim, especially in relation to the release of prisoners and information given to the victim, as well as information in relation to the public prosecution service.

Mr Paisley Jnr and Prof McWilliams raised the issue of transparency. The Committee accepted in principle that there should be an intent to be as transparent as possible in relation to whether prosecution decisions are made. We also took into account the evidence given by the Bar Council. We were concerned and did not want to create a situation where a victim who had already suffered and been humiliated would suffer further by being told that their evidence was not sufficient on which to base a prosecution. That could be detrimental to the well-being of that individual, when they have already had a difficult time. There is the need to have balance.

However, Prof McWilliams's point that witnesses should be interviewed by a public prosecution service, and that there should be close involvement of any public prosecution service with the victim at all stages during prosecution, is important. That would come up for a Standing Committee and would need to be looked at in due course. I hope that the public prosecution service, rather than being a disaster, would be an opportunity for us to create a far more effective prosecution service in Northern Ireland. In some ways the original review did not go as far as I would have if I had been given a broad brush to paint with, but you travel the road as far as you can.

I am surprised to find myself agreeing with so many points raised by Peter Weir. I can agree with him on some occasions - whenever he is talking sense. On this occasion, most of his points were very valid. The Committee stressed that judicial appointments should be made purely on merit. It is essential that the merit principle is underwritten in the appointment of members of the judiciary, and that is also reflected in the Bill. The Committee agreed that that should remain a core principle of appointment.

Mr Campbell mentioned symbols. I have spoken about symbols, and I do not think that I can usefully add to what has been said. The Unionist representatives in the House have given good flight to our feelings on this matter. The Government, and Nationalist parties, need to consider very carefully what effect that will have on the Unionist community, and I hope that they will consider that. I would not go so far as to use the description of a "cold house". I do not feel that Northern Ireland has become a cold house, but I am concerned about the amount of oil left in the tank at this stage.

Alban Maginness made a point about the destruction of articles of architectural heritage. That was welcome and showed great maturity on his part, and I think the House will welcome it. No one would wish to see a Taliban-style destruction of the royal crests and symbols that are built into the very fabric of buildings in Northern Ireland. That did not happen in the Republic of Ireland when it entirely changed jurisdiction. I hope that we will not see that in Northern Ireland.

I urge Members to take into account the issues that we were able to reach agreement on, look at the overall importance of the report before the House and see fit to support it.

<< Prev