Speech on Final Stage of Department of Justice Bill

Speech by David Ford MLA delivered to Northern Ireland Assembly on Tue 1st Dec 2009

Speaking in support of the Bill, Alliance Leader, David Ford MLA said "Having just listened to Mrs Kelly, I am glad that I heard Mr Durkan say earlier that the SDLP supports the Bill.

"This is the fourth substantive discussion that we have had on the Bill, and we are all noticing that certain arguments occur time after time. There has been much attention in the media on justice issues, but, although people may not be demanding that justice be devolved, they are demanding that we deal with the issues of justice that concern them. Devolution is needed so that we can make the criminal justice system work better and ensure that there is a link-up between the criminal justice system and the aspects of devolved government that relate to it.

"Criminal justice is the key to carrying through on issues that Departments already deal with, yet there is a distraction between the work of the Northern Ireland Office and the Executive. Devolution is necessary to show that the Assembly and the Executive can tackle the difficult issues that face us and reach agreement. Most of all, the devolution of justice powers would send out a powerful message to those on either side of the community who seek to bring down institutions that those of us inside the Assembly should be seeking to build up to ensure that they deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. That is why my party has placed so much emphasis on agreement on policies.

"As Stephen Farry said, devolution will not happen on one day when something is announced, a Minister elected, a Department set up and that is it; devolution must deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. The previous Environment Minister went against the wishes of the majority of the Assembly on the matter of an independent environment agency, and there are difficulties between the Education Minister and her Committee on education matters - we saw that in the Assembly this morning - but justice is too important to have that happen. That is why there must be the widest possible agreement on the policies that will be implemented so that if devolution happens soon, as I trust it will, it will deliver for all the people of Northern Ireland, it will contribute to stability in society, and it will not merely create difficulties and show the kind of problems that have occurred elsewhere.

"As Mark Durkan highlighted earlier, there may be an issue around agreeing the programme, between the constitutional position as to when a Programme for Government, or an addendum to it, is agreed and the political negotiations. However, if we cannot agree on the widest possible cross-party basis and on the policies that will be implemented by a Department of justice, there is no point in seeking devolution, as we would be even worse off. That is why, in August, I wrote to the other four parties on behalf of my group seeking discussions about the policies that might apply. Since then, we have had engagement with the DUP and Sinn Féin; we have had no engagement whatsoever with the Ulster Unionist Party or the SDLP.

"The SDLP, as an Executive party, may not wish to discuss a matter that might become a responsibility of the Executive with a party that is currently outside the Executive. That may be a logical view, and we heard from Mrs Kelly the SDLP's belief that the almighty d'Hondt prescribes that it should have such responsibility. However, it ill becomes Ulster Unionist Members, every time we have a debate on the subject, to complain about non-engagement, although they send their party leader to meet the Prime Minister regularly.

"Members from that party say that they are keen to discuss matters with everyone, and yet they do not actually engage when they are asked to do so. That makes me wonder whether there is any sense at all in what is being said about that; whether there is a disconnect between the Ulster Unionist Party's leader, who does not reply to letters, and its Back-Benchers or "Middle-Benchers", who sit in the Chamber and say that they want to engage; or whether it is an example of what I gather is now the parliamentary term of "hypocrisy" on their part."

Ian McCrea: "Will the Member give way?"

Basil McCrea: "Will the Member give way?"

David Ford: "I think that Mr McCrea was just beaten to it by Mr McCrea, but I will give way to both Members."

Basil McCrea: "Since you are having a go at me and my party -"

David Ford: "I am giving way to Mr Ian McCrea."

Ian McCrea: "If I understood him correctly, the Member said that no engagement has taken place between his party and the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party. Has he requested any meetings with those two parties to try to engage with them?"

David Ford: "Mr Ian McCrea must not have heard what I said earlier. I said that I wrote to the other four parties in August and have had engagements with two but not with the other two.

"I will now give way to Mr Basil McCrea. There are too many McCreas around here.

Basil McCrea: "Since I have the opportunity and we are talking about August, I ask Mr David Ford to clarify whether, on 4 August 2008, he stated:

"'The Alliance Party will not be taking the Policing and Justice Ministry. This Executive is failing in its duties'."

"Does he resile from that position?

"Secondly, on the matter of engagement, I made it clear in my contribution to this debate that the language that is used in the Assembly and in other forums has a material impact on whether we can establish good relations. Frankly, Mr Ford, you are not encouraging me very much.

Mr Deputy Speaker: "Order. Mr McCrea, all remarks should be made through the Chair."

David Ford: "I must say that merely pointing out the facts and getting that kind of response does not suggest that the intemperate language is coming from this corner of the Chamber.

Dolores Kelly: "Given Mr Basil McCrea's intervention, I would be grateful if Mr Ford would clarify the Alliance Party's position. Mr McCrea has just quoted Mr Ford's view that the Executive are dysfunctional. What has Mr Ford said to deny that the Alliance Party will not take the justice Ministry?"

Dr Stephen Farry: "Give him a chance."

Dolores Kelly: "You got a chance and did not answer that question."

David Ford: "The answer to the point that was made just now by Mr Basil McCrea was given about four hours ago by my colleague Stephen Farry. In his contribution to the debate, Dr Farry pointed out the total difference between the proposal made in the summer of 2008 of having a part-time Minister with no real powers and the subsequent legislative change that was made at Westminster that ensures that the Minister of justice will be a full Minister in the Executive. Mr McCrea can read Dr Farry's and my comments on that in the Hansard report tomorrow and perhaps that might enlighten him.

"I do believe that the issue of confidence -"

Basil McCrea: "Will the Member give way?"

David Ford: "No. Give me a chance.

"The issue of confidence is not an issue of what may be seen as the situation on the ground; it is an issue that relates to whether those in the Assembly and the Executive can work together, show constructive engagement, deal with the problems that affect our constituents and show a degree of leadership. Cheap sniping may be satisfactory in the kind of debating society debates that we have on Private Members' motions, but there are far more serious things to be addressed in our society. There is a vital need to show that the Assembly can work, that people can engage constructively and that those who are seeking to bring down the institutions, with all that that would mean for every part of this society, are defeated."

Simon Hamilton: "Does the Member agree with me that government in Northern Ireland in any way, shape or form will never be an easy proposition given our recent history? Furthermore, at Second Stage, the First Minister stated that the current Executive have reached 451 decisions compared to the 320 that were reached by the Executive headed by the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP and have done so in a shorter period. Does the Member recognise that by that barometer the Executive are not dysfunctional? Does he also agree, despite declaring regularly, like a stuck record, that the Executive are dysfunctional, that Mrs Kelly's party seems to have no hesitation whatsoever in seeking a second place on the Executive?"

David Ford: "I thank the Member for his statistics. In the first Assembly, when he was far too young to be there, I had one of my staff assess the success of the then Executive, who were comparing the number of Bills that they had passed with those of the Scottish Parliament. The number of Bills was relatively close, although the number of clauses was about one third of those in Scotland. Scotland had managed to abolish feudal land tenure while we were changing the name of the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to the Department for Employment and Learning. I would not go with numbers alone unless we know the quality of those decisions.

"There is a fundamental issue about whether people who complain about the difficulties of the Executive - the Alliance Party has certainly complained about that - are doing so in the spirit of seeking to make matters better or to make matters worse. Confidence will come only when we show that we can agree and implement policies at Executive level on the important issue of justice and that we can then see the legislature passing Bills that will change the law to improve the circumstances of the people of Northern Ireland, who expect us to do that for them. The Bill is merely one stage in that process. It is not agreement on a programme or an addendum to the Programme for Government; it is not the resolution that seeks the transfer of powers; it is not the election of a Minister; and it is not the financial deal that has already had a degree of success. It is just another stage. As was said earlier, it is simply a brick in the wall that needs to be built.

"The devolution of justice will not constitute an instant solution to all our problems. Despite the financial package, it deals largely with the past, and money will remain tight for the institutions of the justice system as for every other Department in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the UK. Devolution will not be a solution, and resources will not flow rapidly from it. We will not have the sort of money that will put a police officer on every street corner, as some people seem to believe. Changes will take time, and the difficulties that are being experienced in dealing with issues such as antisocial behaviour will not be changed instantly. Crime will still exist, and all criminals in Northern Ireland will not hang up their masks and their jemmies on the day that devolution happens. However, devolution will give us the opportunity to make the necessary reforms: reforms to the institutions; improvements to the speed of justice; and the ability to get institutions of justice relating to, for example, the institutions of the mental-health system or the Youth Service, where there is much crossover. However, we are not yet making the changes that are needed for those reforms.

"Devolution will be a major opportunity for this society, and we must take it. If we do not, we will be pedalling backwards and telling those who seek to bring us down that we cannot achieve anything in this place. That is the fundamental difference between those who criticise the Executive from an entirely negative point of view and those of us who seek to make things better.

"The Alliance Party feels that an addendum to the Programme for Government must be put in place. That would provide the stability to ensure delivery and would subsequently ensure success for all the people of Northern Ireland.

"As we move towards the vote, the House is facing the question of whether the Bill is better than doing nothing, because that is our option today. The Ulster Unionist Party is so opposed to the Bill that, although it supports the principle of devolution, it has said that it will oppose it. The SDLP opposed the Bill at its earlier stages, and it still has its reservations. It tabled amend ments that it had a right to debate and which I accept entirely as someone who has similarly proposed unsuccessful amendments to other Bills. However, the House made its decision.

"We now need to see whether that means that there is a collective moving forward, because there are also lessons for the DUP and Sinn Féin. I welcome the fact that some progress has been made in today's debate about the devolution of justice as, indeed, appears to happen when the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are together. However, it really is time that Back-Benchers and people in different sections of those two parties stopped dragging in all kinds of extraneous issues. The agreement that we have witnessed between the DUP and Sinn Féin on the four occasions on which we have debated the matter in the Chamber is in marked contrast to what happens when television cameras are pointed at Members and microphones are stuck in their face. That is when all the additional issues come in, whether those be parading, the RPA or education reforms. If we wish these institutions to be successful, we simply cannot afford to see that kind of tit-for-tat catcalling.

5.15 pm

"It is time the leaderships of the DUP and Sinn Féin put their parties in line. It is time they sat down and engaged seriously with each other and with the other parties in this place on what the policies would be and show that the kind of negative attack that has come from other parts of this end of the Chamber was not justified. We are now at the point that we should be moving forward to devolution. The Bill gives us the opportunity to do that, and now is the time for leadership to be shown by the Department that has put the Bill forward - the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister."

Related Link:

[Hansard 1 Dec 2009 | Final Stage of Department of Justice Bill]