Official Report (Hansard)

Session: 2008/2009

Date: 21 April 2009

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:

Mr Raymond McCartney (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Alex Attwood
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mrs Carmel Hanna
Mr Danny Kennedy
Mr Nelson McCausland
Mr Alan McFarland
Mr Alex Maskey
Mr Ian Paisley Jnr

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr McCartney):

The Committee will now discuss matters relating to the devolution of policing and justice powers. We shall work through the category-2 list of issues. Will Committee members please declare any relevant interests?

Mr McCausland:

I am a member of the Belfast District Policing Partnership (DPP).

Mr A Maskey:

I am a member of the Policing Board.

The Deputy Chairperson:

In Ian Paisley Jnr’s absence, I declare that he is also a member of the Policing Board.

Issue A was resolved on 27 January 2009, so we shall begin with issue B. I shall ask each party to comment in turn. I shall then take further comments, before we move on to issue C. Issue B asks:

“Who might be responsible for appointments to the judiciary?”

I invite the DUP to make its position known.

Mr Hamilton:

In order to be consistent with the principle of keeping the judiciary free from political interference, the DUP believes that the issue has been dealt with satisfactorily in legislation.

Mr A Maskey:

Sinn Féin also believes that issue B has been dealt with in legislation.

Mr McFarland:

For the record, may we remind ourselves of what that is again? If someone is reading Hansard, it may be useful to know exactly what —

The Deputy Chairperson:

Issue B asks:

“Who might be responsible for appointments to the judiciary?”

Mr McFarland:

No. What does the legislation state exactly?

The Deputy Chairperson:

I am sorry. My apologies.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

I do not have a copy of the legislation on me, Alan.

Mr McFarland:

If someone reads the Hansard report of this meeting in three to four years’ time, and a Committee member has stated that issue B is covered by the legislation, it may be useful were the report to show exactly what the legislation states.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

We should agree to attach an annex to the Hansard report that details what the legislation is. That would save us from having to read it into the record now.

The Deputy Chairperson:

If anyone is reading the Hansard Report of this meeting in three or four years’ time, questions may be asked as to why.

Mr McFarland:

Out of interest, is a copy of the legislation available?

The Committee Clerk:

I do not have a copy of the legislation with me, but I can supply copies to members later today, if that helps.

Mr McFarland:

Can the Committee be refreshed on the legislation by someone who is familiar with it? Are appointments to the judiciary currently the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission (NIJAC)?

Mr Hamilton:

Yes, in part.

Mr McFarland:

Who is responsible for the rest of the appointments?

Mr Attwood:

The Judicial Appointments Commission will make all judicial appointments in the North, save for the position of Lord Chief Justice, whom the Queen will appoint, on the Prime Minister’s recommendation.

Mr Hamilton:

I was about to say that. [Laughter.]

Mr Attwood:

I was simply trying to help the words out of your mouth.

The Deputy Chairperson:

What is the position of the Ulster Unionist Party?

Mr McFarland:

We are happy with that.

The Deputy Chairperson:

What is the SDLP’s position?

Mr Attwood:

I refer the Committee to the SDLP’s previous position.

Mr McFarland:

Which was what?

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Happy with nothing. [Laughter.]

The Deputy Chairperson:

OK. We shall move on to issue C, which asks:

“What should be the relationship between SOCA and the Security Services and the Minister/Department/Assembly?”

That issue is linked to issue N in the category-1 list. Issue N asks:

“What needs to be done to ensure that attention is given to having appropriate measures in place to address issues such as the role of the security services?”

Mr Hamilton:

This is a matter on which we await Government indication, as well as memorandums of understanding, and so forth, that the Secretary of State made a commitment to share with the Committee in due course. Therefore, in many ways, we cannot take a firm view on issue C until we have received all that information.

Mr A Maskey:

Sinn Féin adopts a general position on the likes of SOCA, in that those matters should be dealt with by a democratic and accountable policing service. Therefore, the work of SOCA should be mainstreamed.

Mr McFarland:

The UUP presumes that the system for the new Department will mirror the system that was introduced among SOCA, the security services and the policing system. That system has memorandums of understanding and protocols in place.

Mr Attwood:

What is the current position with the memorandums of understanding? Are they still being hidden from the Committee?

The Committee Clerk:

When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Committee before the Easter recess, he indicated that the various memorandums of understanding were still being worked on, but that those would be supplied to the Committee. The Committee took the Secretary of State at his word at that stage, and I have not had any further correspondence to indicate that the memorandums of understanding have now been finalised.

Mr Attwood:

Have they been supplied to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM)?

The Committee Clerk:

I am not aware of that.

Mr Attwood:

Can we enquire as to whether OFMDFM has had sight of the memorandums of understanding?

The Committee Clerk:

The Secretary of State originally indicated that he wanted to share them with the First Minister and the deputy First Minister before sharing them with the Committee. However, the Committee wrote back and said robustly that it wanted them to be shared simultaneously. That is the formal position.

Mr Attwood:

That is our formal position, but is it his?

The Committee Clerk:

I cannot answer for the Secretary of State.

Mr Attwood:

That is why we should ask OFMDFM whether it has had sight of the memorandums of understanding. The memorandums of understanding have long been available, and they have been long refused to us. I am curious to know, and it would be interesting to know, whether OFMDFM has them. If it has, it would create leverage for us to be able to say to the Secretary of State that we want them. That would put the Committee in a very strong position.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

We had a very helpful debate on that before. Roles, and the standings of people in each role, were recognised. I realise that Alex is anorakish on the issue of memorandums of understanding, and he is entitled to be so. However, a reasonably good understanding of where the issue lies came out of previous meetings.

Mr Attwood:

We should still ask, in order to find out whether we are being kept somewhat in the dark while a bit of light is being shone elsewhere. If we do so, we can see what the consequences are. It is only when we see what the memorandums of understanding say or do not say that we can judge whether the relationship in issue C is, as the SDLP views it, structured appropriately.

The Committee Clerk:

Do you want the Chairperson’s letter to be sent only to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister, or do you want a follow-up letter to be sent to the Secretary of State, given that he indicated in his oral evidence that the Committee would be furnished with the memorandums of understanding?

Mr Attwood:

I want a letter to be sent to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister and to the Secretary of State.

The Deputy Chairperson:

We shall move on to new issue D, which combines original issues D and E. New issue D asks:

“What needs to be done to ensure the maintenance of existing North/South policing and justice agreements, and is there a requirement for a Justice Sector of the North/South Ministerial Council?”

Mr Hamilton:

Obviously, there are existing North/South relationships. Did not we ask to get more detail on what those relationships are? If we have not asked already, I suggest that we do so, in order that the Committee might have a better understanding of what those agreements are, and how they currently operate. The DUP is not convinced of the need for the issue to be dealt with through the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC).

Mr A Maskey:

Sinn Féin believes that the existing arrangements should be maintained and continued under a new Minister and a new Department, and that a justice sector of the North/South Ministerial Council is required.

Mr McFarland:

The Ulster Unionist Party is comfortable for the existing arrangements to continue. It would be useful to know in some detail exactly what those arrangements are, and we asked for that information some time ago. We, too, are not convinced of the need for a justice sector of the North/South Ministerial Council.

The Committee Clerk:

As has been agreed, a letter is to go to the Secretary of State about the memorandums of understanding. As I understand it, the justice agreements are protocols, and the Secretary of State also promised to provide the Committee with those protocols. Therefore, both issues can be addressed in the letter that the Committee will write to the Secretary of State.

Mr Attwood:

The SDLP believes that there should be a North/South justice sector. A mechanism now exists for that matter to be opened up for discussion through the second phase of the review of North/South arrangements, which OFMDFM has said is scheduled to report by the end of 2009. I am highly dubious about whether it will report by then; nonetheless, it represents another mechanism by which such a proposal can be advanced. The SDLP has written to the relevant people to say that a North/South justice sector is one of the outcomes that we will look for from the second phase of the North/South review.

The Committee should try to push the boat out a bit, because the North/South element of the British-Irish justice agreement will fall once justice powers are devolved — that is what will happen. If no new North/South justice agreement is in place for elements that are North/South as opposed to British-Irish, on the day of devolution of justice powers, gaps will exist in the justice arrangements and protections on the island of Ireland. Those gaps may extend to understandings between justice structures in the North and the South over, for example, protection of children or vulnerable adults. I do not think that anyone will have an issue with ensuring that arrangements for the protection of vulnerable adults or children are in place, but, at present, the North/South parts of the current justice arrangements will fall on devolution day.

The Deputy Chairperson:

To inform us on that issue, we need to see the protocols.

Mr Attwood:

Those papers have been before the Committee on a number of occasions. Simon Hamilton’s request is nothing new. We have received that information on numerous occasions, and we have questioned officials on the protocols on a number of occasions. The fact is that part of the North/South justice arrangements will no longer exist on devolution day, because they are in the gift of the Northern Ireland Assembly. On that day, on the island of Ireland, people will be less protected as a consequence. If we are serious about our business, we should state that we cannot have a situation whereby, on the day of devolution policing and justice powers, people, North and South, are less protected than they were on the day before devolution.

Devolution of justice powers may be four, five or six months away, so we need to be satisfied that arrangements for that day will be in place. On that day, it will require the agreement of a justice Minister, a justice Department, or the Executive to have the arrangements in place; otherwise, we will let down the citizens of the North and the South.

These are common-sense observations, not highly political ones. Therefore, we should ask the British and Irish Governments, and the Executive, at what stage they are at in having in place North/South justice arrangements that take into account matters that will fall on devolution. That is just common sense. Therefore, we should write to all three Executives — Dublin, London and Belfast — to ask whether the arrangements will be in place on that day and whether the protections under the current justice arrangements will continue to be in place on that day; otherwise, a message will be sent out to the people that they will be more vulnerable as a consequence. We cannot send out that message.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

We must be careful not to invent a bogeyman. I understand what Alex is getting at, but the arrangements are less bureaucratic and more practical. There is now practical co-operation between the Police Service and the guards. Information is shared daily without there being the need for legislation.

We need to set a safe parameter for some of Alex’s concerns, as they may not be as real in practice as they are in theory. Nevertheless, we should keep a cautious eye on the issue, but, at the same time, we should not allow ourselves to get into a whole flap or create a concern that, suddenly, paedophiles will be rampant on the day of devolution of policing and justice powers. There are issues that should always warrant watchful concern.

Mr Attwood:

Ian is talking about the arrangement between the police, North and South, but that is a separate issue. The North/South policing agreement will not fall on devolution day, because that is an arrangement between the PSNI and the gardaí. However, what do fall are the elements of the justice agreement that was signed off between the British and Irish Governments. On devolution day, elements that are relevant to the British and Irish Governments will continue to be in place, but elements on the justice side that are relevant between the North and South will fall. Therefore, the policing side is already taken care of. As such, it is none of our business, because it is the responsibility of the Garda Síochána Commissioner and the Chief Constable.

However, arrangements on the justice side will fall. We should consider whether we are satisfied that the necessary arrangements are in place for the day on which justice powers will be devolved. I understand that that is not the case. However, as an NIO official told the Committee, it will not be difficult to put the necessary arrangements in place. Therefore, we must ensure that the arrangements are in place. We can send some letters, which can be gently written, to ask what is being done about those elements that may fall. By doing so, we will ensure that the necessary arrangements are in place on the relevant day.

Mr A Maskey:

I do not see that being a problem, but I do not object to our writing a letter.

The Deputy Chairperson:

New issue E will be dealt with at next week’s meeting, at which the specialist adviser will present a paper based on a previous evidence session.

We now move on to new issue F, which asks:

“What, if any, consideration should there be of the Ashdown Report on Parading, and is there a need for further clarities of the powers to be devolved, and, if so, should they include matters relating to the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, flags and symbols and recruitment to the PSNI?”

Mr Hamilton:

The Ashdown Report is important for policing in general. If we are to devolve policing and justice powers, the sore that is parading must be dealt with. We need to assess the consequences in the context of the new issue E, which concerns financial provisions. It is important that we clarify the current status of the Ashdown Report, because I do not know whether any attempts have been made to do that. However, the report will have a bearing on our conclusions, so we should chase that matter up.

Mr A Maskey:

How does Simon suggest that we chase that up?

Mr Hamilton:

The Chairperson or the Committee Clerk should contact the Ashdown review body and the Parades Commission to clarify when a report is expected. The Committee should then consider the report’s ramifications, because it will have a bearing on future policing: the role of the police; the impact on resources; and so on.

Mr A Maskey:

I consider that to be a category-3 issue, but I have no problem with our making a call or writing a letter.

Mr Hamilton:

The matter can be dealt with. The ball is not really at our foot.

Mr McFarland:

The parading issue must be sorted out. We cannot devolve policing and justice powers yet leave the parading issue twisting in the wind. I understand that the Parades Commission will exist until December 2009. We need to discuss the Ashdown Report and how to deal with parading. Agreement on flags and symbols was reached in 1998 and should be left alone, and the current system of PSNI recruitment ceases in 2010, when the Patten arrangements finish. At that stage, I presume that a normal recruitment pattern will be followed.

Mr Attwood:

Four or five weeks ago, somebody said that the Ashdown Report would be published this month, and I disagreed. In fact, the Ashdown Report should not be published ever.

The Deputy Chairperson:

We recall your wisdom.

Mr Attwood:

I hope that that will transpire. However, I am sure that people will eventually feel an obligation to Lord Ashdown to publish the report. I felt that it would be published at this stage, because it would simply become another feature in the forthcoming election.

I agree with Alan that we need to bore into the matter. Simon is right when he says that we need to contact Lord Ashdown, or somebody, to determine the report’s current status and the time frame in which it may or may not be published. We should consider new issue F further in the near future.

The Committee Clerk:

There is a handling issue to consider as to whether the Committee can engage directly with Lord Ashdown, because the Government commissioned Lord Ashdown to produce a report. The Committee might be better to write to ask the Secretary of State what his understanding is of the report’s status and when he expects to receive it. Any letter should reflect the fact that there is potential implication for the financial aspects of devolving policing powers, and the Committee has always appeared to recognise that. Obviously, depending on the report’s recommendations, those implications could be greater or lesser. Given that the Committee wishes to write to the Secretary of State on a number of other issues, all could be captured in one letter to the Secretary of State, rather than its trying to engage with Lord Ashdown.

It is fair to say that the Chairperson had a brief telephone conversation a couple of months ago with Lord Ashdown that did not reveal a great deal. I imagine that there may be more prospect of getting something from the Secretary of State.

The Deputy Chairperson:

It will be a long letter.

We now move on to new issue G, which asks:

“In the context of Recommendation 26 of the Committee’s original report, to which Department should the Public Prosecution Service be attached?”

Mr Hamilton:

The use of the word “attached” is somewhat misleading. It is not really “attached” but independent and separate. However, there is obviously a budgetary issue to consider, and the DUP’s position has been stated before. We believe that the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) would be a possible place to put the Public Prosecution Service (PPS). There have been suggestions about putting it into the justice Department, but the DUP’s position is that it suggests DFP as the place to put the PPS.

Mr A Maskey:

Sinn Féin’s view is that it would be better placed in OFMDFM, because that would provide some symmetry with the position of the Attorney General.

Mr McFarland:

There must be a perception of some sort of independence, and it would be useful if a non-involved organisation were to administer it. It is just a matter of budgeting and looking after the PPS, but one would not want people to chop budgets, or be perceived to be chopping budgets, or to interfere with the PPS. The Ulster Unionist Party is probably also comfortable with putting it in DFP.

Mr Attwood:

The SDLP prefers for it to go into the Department of justice, as that is the natural place for it to reside. The evidence of the director of the PPS does not stack up. He said — as far as I recall and subject to the Hansard report — that if it went to the justice Department it might, interfere with the PPS’s independence. I do not understand that argument, given that the Committee agreed for a huge range of justice agencies to be attached to the justice Department, yet nobody from any of the other organisations said that that would give rise to any interference with its independence, or to its freedom to act as it deems appropriate. That was a curious argument from the director of the PPS.

It is equally curious that people want the PPS to go to DFP, because that is not a natural place for it to reside. Nobody has made the argument that other justice agencies should go to DFP. When Simon Hamilton mentioned DFP as a possibility in a previous Committee meeting, it struck me as being a curious proposal, and I wonder who knew about it in advance. The SDLP’s preferred option is for the PPS to be attached to the justice Department, but definitely not to DFP.

The Deputy Chairperson:

We move on to new issue H, which asks:

“In the context of Recommendation 27 of the Committee’s original report, about examining the independence and accountability of the Public Prosecution Service, before, and following devolution, what consideration should be given to this matter, pre-devolution?”

Mr Hamilton:

It may be worth giving some consideration to that matter, although I am not sure about the practicalities of doing so. Perhaps we should commission some research in order to arrive at options. Has any such research been done?

The Committee Clerk:

Substantial amounts of research were commissioned previously by the Committee. Those pieces of research, which have been distributed to the Committee from time to time, particularly at Mr McFarland’s request, deal with the relationship between the Public Prosecution Service and the Assembly. For example, they include some comparisons with other legislatures. The distinguishing feature in this case is that the Attorney General, who would be responsible for reporting to the Assembly, is not an elected member of this legislature. There are some differences, and the comparative analysis does not provide much help in this instance. However, the matter of the independence of the PPS is rehearsed in those research papers. I am happy to redistribute those materials to members if they wish, but I know that they were given out at least once before.

Mr Hamilton:

I will reflect on those papers.

Mr A Maskey:

I am not sure what else can be done about that matter. There is a lot of information available, and when we resolve the accountability issue, the matter will have been dealt with, in my opinion.

Mr McFarland:

This is a key issue, along with the relationships with the judiciary. It is absolutely correct that politicians should not try to second-guess individual court cases. However, there are some in the judicial system who do not want any oversight in respect of their policies and how they carry them out. In due course, the Assembly will wish to talk to key players in the PPS and the judiciary about why — in broad terms, rather than in respect of individual cases — they follow particular policies.

I appreciate that that is a very sensitive area. Other legislatures have sentencing advice committees that steer the judiciary. However, it is early days for us, and we are likely to end up with an agreed system whereby the Attorney General reports to the Assembly. However, we should put down a marker that, as the situation evolves, we are likely to want to have robust discussion with key players about major issues of concern to the electorate. That might include the Director of Public Prosecutions talking to Committees.

The Deputy Chairperson:

How that will evolve after devolution is a separate matter. In this instance, we are talking about the situation pre-devolution.

Mr McFarland:

At the moment, I understand that the Attorney General answers for the DPP on the Floor of the House. I am just putting a marker down. My guess is that the political parties will want to hold discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions, perhaps in some other format.

Mr Attwood:

Given what Simon and Alan have said about research and the importance of this matter, we should schedule an early meeting for a discussion on it, so that each party can scope out the relevant issues, as they see them, in respect of the future of the PPS. It is impossible to do that in any detail by going through the list of issues that is before us, but perhaps we could take some time to scope out, as parties, what we believe the issues to be.

It may be that we could agree that that there are two, three or four issues on which we could do some early work. We should do that work because, over the past 10 years, although attention has been on the Police Service, no similar attention — despite various people’s efforts — has been given to the Crown Prosecution Service or the Public Prosecution Service.

Devolution could allow us to do much in the short term to improve the speed and the administration of justice, and public confidence in the Public Prosecution Service and the administration of justice. We have a lead-in time of a number of months, or longer, before devolution, allied with the oversight of SOCA and the security services, North and South. Therefore, that is one of the key areas on which we could do some useful work.

We have done some useful work on the financial side, about which we will hear in the near future. This is a priority area, and, in order to grapple with it, we should schedule a Committee meeting during which parties could scope out what they regard as the relevant issues and assess whether a programme could be worked up.

Mr A Maskey:

I have no difficulty with that sentiment, but we need to be careful, because it is not our job to overhaul the PPS. We are considering lines of accountability, and so on. I would not stop anyone from having a 45-minute conversation today, but I have no difficulty with coming back to that issue in more detail. In any of these discussions, it is my understanding that we should take as long as we need. I caution that we are not here to overhaul the PPS — much as I or anyone else may want to do that, or may have to do it at some point.

Mr McFarland:

That is a useful idea. It would pay us to do a bit of homework and return to a discussion about that issue with more time allocated.

The Deputy Chairperson:

We will return to that issue. We could also discuss the format of such a discussion.

Mr Attwood:

The Committee Clerk could schedule an agenda within two or three weeks that is dedicated to —

Mr A Maskey:

Why not just deal with it in the same running order as it is appears today? I am not stopping anyone from having a 45-minute conversation today.

Mr Attwood:

I am certainly prepared to have that discussion now, or any day. I am just being courteous to the other parties that may not have done preparation on that specific issue before today’s meeting.

The Deputy Chairperson:

We will return to that issue. As outstanding matters condense, we will have more time to discuss it.

We turn to new issue I, which is:

“In relation to Recommendation 30 of the Committee’s original report, who should undertake the advisory role in relation to the appointment of the Police Ombudsman?”

Mr Hamilton:

I reiterate our previously stated position: given the sensitivity and the need for independence in respect of that post, the advisory role should be taken on by the Secretary of State and the NIO.

Mr A Maskey:

We believe that it is appropriate that OFMDFM undertake that role.

Mr McFarland:

Much depends on the outcome of the Eames/Bradley process. If the Police Ombudsman performs the original role of the office — which is to examine serving police officers and investigate the past if they are accused of something — that would probably fit with OFMDFM. If a role of rooting around in the past in a one-sided truth commission remains with the Ombudsman, the Secretary of State needs to have some control over that.

Mr Attwood:

We also believe that OFMDFM should have input. We are unaware of another model within the devolved arrangements that could take care of that issue. The matter must be taken care of within the devolved arrangements; it cannot be an issue that is left to the residue of the NIO.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

It may be helpful to expand on the reasons for that role to be left to the Secretary of State — it is not out of any love for the Secretary of State, or to give him something to do.

Members should reflect on the fact that the Police Ombudsman is a parliamentary office. If it is decided that that office should be appointed, overseen, scrutinised, or run by the Northern Ireland Assembly — by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister — it must be recognised that that would diminish the role of the Ombudsman. If people wish to diminish that role, and remove provisions concerning independence, etc, that is an issue for the Committee.

Our reason for wanting to maintain a role for the Secretary of State, and Parliament, is to allow the office to be independent. The intention is not to diminish the office. Those are issues that members should reflect on. I am not saying that to create a debate, but perhaps members could come to our next meeting with a view on those points.

Mr Attwood:

Can we just check if Ian’s point is right? As I understand it, following devolution, the Police Ombudsman will table her report to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

His report.

Mr Attwood:

His report; sorry.

Mr Paisley Jnr:

Those were the halcyon days, Alex. [Laughter.]

Mr Attwood:

The Police Ombudsman’s annual report will be tabled to the Assembly, and that is provided for under legislation. As far as I am aware, so far, no one has said that that legislation should be revisited. Therefore, if Ian’s point is that we are diminishing the role of the Police Ombudsman, on the basis of his argument — if I understand it correctly — that role is being diminished under law, because the Police Ombudsman would report here and not over there.

The Deputy Chairperson:

The issue is the advisory role.

Mr McFarland:

That is directly related to the sensitivity of the post. My understanding is that the Assembly Ombudsman, Mr Tom Frawley — who is responsible for the Departments — reports to the Assembly. Logically, if policing and justice powers are to be devolved, and the Police Ombudsman will be fulfilling a similar, non-controversial role, examining current police officers and whether they are behaving themselves, it does not seem unreasonable that the Police Ombudsman should report here too. If we are left with an Ombudsman that carries out a role of dealing with the past, which is a very sensitive matter, that should be left to the Secretary of State.

The Deputy Chairperson:

New issue J was resolved on 3 February. Therefore, we will move on to new issue K:

“What would be the status of the Minister’s position in, and relationship with, the Executive Committee; and would the Minister be required to bring significant, or controversial, matters to the Executive Committee?”

Mr Hamilton:

That issue requires some further work.

Mr Maskey:

We are happy to come back to that another day.

Mr McFarland:

It is our belief that the justice Minister should be a normal Minister, and have a normal relationship with the Assembly and the relevant Committee.

Mr Attwood:

Our view is that the Minister should have full status and equality with all other Ministers, and the full responsibilities that arise thereunder.

Mr Maskey:

That is not different from our position, but we are happy to come back to it another day.

Find Your MLA

tools-map.png

Locate your local MLA

Find MLA

News and Media Centre

tools-media.png

Read press releases, watch live and archived video

Find out more

Follow the Assembly

tools-social.png

Keep up to date with what’s happening at the Assem

Find out more

Contact information

tools-newsletter.png

Contact us for further information about our work.

Contact us