Northern Ireland Assembly Tuesday 6 May 2008 Executive Committee Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Burnside: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The amendments tabled for the first item of business — the Consideration Stage of the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill — on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister are only in the name of the junior Minister Jeffrey Donaldson. Before embarking, will you clarify whether that is normal procedure? Are the amendments being tabled on behalf of the DUP? Should they not be tabled in the names of both junior Ministers, including Mr Gerry Kelly? Mr Speaker: According to Standing Orders, that is all that is required from the junior Minister, and the Member should know that. Mr Speaker: I wish to inform Members that I will be absent from the Assembly on Monday 12 May and Tuesday 13 May, as I will be visiting the Canadian Parliament with the Assembly Commission. Public Health (Amendment) Bill Royal Assent Mr Speaker: The Public Health (Amendment) Bill has received Royal Assent. The Public Health (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 became law today. Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: Members have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments, detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the Speaker’s provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are three groups of amendments, and we shall debate the amendments in each group in turn. Therefore, there will be three separate debates during the Consideration Stage of the Bill. The first debate will be on amendment No 1, which deals with restricting the maximum number of commissioners that may be appointed. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, which are listed in group 2. Those amendments relate to the appointment of a chief commissioner, responsibility for commission employees, and the commission’s proceedings. The final debate will be on amendment Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6, which are listed in group 3. Those amendments relate to the appointment of members and employees who have been convicted of a criminal offence. I remind Members that they can speak in all of the debates. However, Members must address the subject matter of each debate. Once the initial debate on each group has been completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we debate the Bill, and the Question on each one will be put without further debate. The Questions on clauses to stand part of the Bill will be put at the appropriate points. Members will be aware that certain matters relating to the appointment of the commissioners designate are before the High Court and are, therefore, sub judice. I encourage Members to bear Standing Order 68 in mind during the debate on that item of business. If that is clear, we shall proceed. Clause 1 (The Commission for Victims and Survivors for Northern Ireland) Clause 2 (Short title) Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to clauses 1 and 2. I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses for the Question on stand part. Question put, That clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill. The Assembly divided: Ayes 49; Noes 16. AYES Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Boylan, Mr Brady, Mr Bresland, Mr Brolly, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr W Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Doherty, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Ms Gildernew, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maskey, Ms J McCann, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McElduff, Mr M McGuinness, Miss McIlveen, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McQuillan, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Ruane, Mr Shannon, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr T Clarke and Mr G Robinson. NOES Mrs M Bradley, Mr Burns, Mr Dallat, Dr Deeny, Mr Durkan, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson, Mr P Ramsey, Mr B Wilson. Tellers for the Noes: Dr Farry and Mr McCarthy. The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Burnside, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Cree, Mr Gardiner, Mr Kennedy, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr McNarry, Mr Savage. Question accordingly agreed to. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 1 (The Schedule to the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, as substituted) Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. Group 1 contains a single amendment, amendment No 1, which restricts the number of commissioners that can be appointed to a maximum of four. Mrs Long: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 2, line 28, leave out “such members as are” and insert “not more than four members”. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate, which has been denied us on a number of occasions. This must be the longest acceleration period that anyone has ever seen. The clear will of the Assembly, on the basis of the vote at the Second Stage and today, is that there should be a commission, and that is important. Therefore, the amendments that my party is proposing, and the amendment that I am proposing, are intended to make the commission as workable as possible. For many of us, it is fairly clear that, despite the protestations of the First Minister and deputy First Minister that appointing four commissioners was a strategic and well-thought-through decision, that is not the case. Clearly, it was an uneasy political compromise. However the decision came about, it is incumbent on us all to make it work. Amendment No 1 caps the number of commissioners at four. The argument has been made that this is a large piece of work, and that it therefore requires a number of commissioners to undertake it. I do not accept that argument, because we all realised before this process began that it was a large piece of work. At that stage, too, we all agreed that a single person was capable of taking the matter forward. However, we now have four commissioners designate, and, although the Alliance Party’s preference is for a single commissioner, given that four people have, in good faith, stepped forward to take this process forward, it would be unfair to create confusion about their standing. The Alliance Party’s amendment, therefore, caps the number of commissioners at four — simply four because there are currently four. I hope that, at some point in the future, we will be able to reduce the number of commissioners to one, as originally envisaged. Having one commissioner would create the strong, clear voice for victims that an advocacy role requires. Furthermore, to appoint a single Victims’ Commissioner would ensure that the commission did not simply grow and grow, taking valuable resources from those who most need them, namely the victims. With the creation of a commission of four, I can see no logical argument for anyone to oppose a cap at four. If four commissioners are sufficient for this first stage of the process to break the back of this difficult area, then, signpost the available services, alert the relevant Departments to any gaps in services and undertake the three or four years’ advocacy work that this first commission will do, I see no logical argument for there ever being a need for more than four commissioners. It is important for the victims’ confidence that unwieldy mechanisms are not created. Placing a cap on numbers ensures that the maximum number of commissioners that we have now will be the maximum for the duration; that no resources are directed towards commissioners rather than the needs of victims; and that common sense is brought to bear on what has been an unpalatable process. The argument for having four commissioners is clear-cut. There is no reason why anyone should oppose that argument, and I hope that Members will give it due consideration. Mr Shannon: I want to support — sorry, to speak on, and to oppose, amendment No 1. [Laughter.] The DUP holds the issue of victims in the highest regard, and that has been made clear by the attention that victims have been given since the DUP became the largest party in the Province. The needs of victims have been discussed and addressed in a way that was not seen under any previous governmental structure. That is because this issue has always been a priority for my party. During our short time in Government, £36 million has been allocated to the sector — more than double the budgetary allocation for victims under the previous devolved Government. I do not quote those facts to praise the DUP; I quote them to clarify, from the outset, where our hearts and loyalties lie and to illustrate that the Bill must pass in order to address properly the issues that victims have faced alone for many years. The Bill is progressing quicker than it has done for umpteen years — a certain party sat on its backside and did nothing. It is vital to ensure that the framework is correct and in place as a matter of urgency in order to deliver for victims now and in the future. For too many years, victims in our Province have struggled, with little support. Their needs should have been addressed years ago, and the Assembly must now put an end to their struggles. I have no desire to play political football with the issue of victims; I have the utmost depth of respect and sympathy for victims and want to display that sentiment in a tangible way. The majority of people in the Province want to support those who lost loved ones to terrorism during the Troubles. Although I welcome the fact that the media has highlighted the importance of the victims issue, we must be sensitive to the feelings of those who deal with loss every day and every night. I do not want to argue and debate this issue constantly yet make no real progress; I want structures to be established to allow the Assembly to offer sensitive support to those who need it most. Some victims remain financially burdened by losses sustained during the Troubles. Some victims’ families paid for their children to go to university or college and, as a result, had to bear a huge financial burden. Some single-parent families still pay mortgages, loans and university loans. Those families have great needs, and, thanks to the Minister of Finance and Personnel, the Assembly can now establish the mechanisms to begin to address those needs. For too many years, people have hummed and hawed and achieved nothing. That must end now. After careful consideration, I reject amendment No 1; there is no intention — as the scaremongers purport — to increase the number of full-time commissioners to five, six or seven. However, the Bill will allow for the flexibility to increase the number of part-time commissioners, if necessary, in the future. The needs of the victims’ commission will, inevitably, change over time. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) are examples of the benefit of employing part-time commissioners to focus on specific issues but remain under one control. I am not saying that, in a few years’ time, we will have four part-time commissioners or one full-time commissioner. However, if that mode is workable, why would we legislate to prevent such flexibility in the Bill? It is beyond me and many others in the Chamber. It is impractical to tie ourselves closely into a measure that could restrict future benefits. Although I oppose amendment No 1, I draw attention to the fact that amendment No 8 allows a team of part-time commissioners with individual responsibilities to support a proposed chief commissioner. That could be a way of ensuring greater efficiency. Mr Speaker: Order. The Member should not stray from debating amendment No 1. Mr Shannon: Mr Speaker, thank you for your graciousness; as always, you are very kind. I want to illustrate the importance of the overlap between the two amendments. These illustrations and examples are not matters of fact. They are not faits accomplis; they are mere possibilities, the benefits of which will be excluded if the Bill restricts the number of commissioners. If we impose a restriction on the number of commissioners and, at some stage in the future, we decide that part-time commissioners are required, we will again have to amend the legislation at further cost. I see no benefit in limiting the commission’s scope, given that there is no desire to have an unlimited number of full-time commissioners. We want only to ensure that there are enough commissioners to get the job done properly. 11.00 am Some Members wish to use this issue as a point-scoring exercise. I urge those Members to make their points elsewhere. This is not simply a matter of money; it is an issue of the heart. It is about our desire to do our duty for victims and survivors. The Bill will bring into existence that which should have been brought about a long time ago. I ask those Members to please not withhold what is needed simply to win an argument. The DUP has no desire to argue about this matter; it does, however, wish to put in place the structure that will provide help for victims and survivors, whether that is achieved by having one full-time commissioner and four part-time commissioners, or two full-time and three part-time commissioners. The Assembly must put that structure in place today without the need for further debate next year or the year after. We must resolve this issue now and do what is right for the victims in the Province. I oppose amendment No 1. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat. I oppose amendment No 1. This is an important moment in the passage of the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill. As Mr Shannon said, the Bill must have the flexibility to ensure that victims are recognised. We must put in place a mechanism that will allow every aspect of the matter to be covered as we move into a changing situation. At present, victims and survivors have particular needs, and it is important, after 10 years of trying to introduce legislation for a commission, that we move swiftly towards that goal. We must not allow the blocking tactics that are, unfortunately, being used again this morning to try to impede the passage of the Bill. It is important to properly recognise and address the urgent needs of victims and survivors and their families. We have an opportunity to appoint four commissioners and give them the maximum ability to carry out that work. However, they require the flexibility that will allow them to cope with the changing situation in the coming years and to help to improve the lives of victims and survivors and their families. I oppose amendment No 1, because we must build future flexibility into the Bill. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Burnside: I support amendment No 1. The process that the Bill has gone through should be considered at best a major embarrassment to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). By initially fudging a decision on a single commissioner, that Department has stumbled from one mess-up to another. First, it pushed a crucial piece of legislation through the Assembly by accelerated passage, the reasons for which we have heard. Secondly, by pulling the Bill twice, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has not shown proper respect to victims. After all that, the junior Minister the Rt Hon Jeffrey Donaldson can come up with only two amendments, in the wake of a great deal of talking by OFMDFM, to the effect that it wanted to achieve consensus and improve the Bill. Nevertheless, I am glad that the Bill has now been brought to the Assembly for its Consideration Stage, and I hope that all Members are of the same opinion. The people of Northern Ireland suffered 40 years of the cruel terrorism that created thousands of innocent victims. It is therefore right and necessary that we address the needs of those innocent people who were physically and mentally scarred. The commission for victims and survivors will, it is to be hoped, help individuals and families who have suffered up to now in almost virtual silence. I hope that it will help us to move on and put our violent and troubled past behind us. Several parties have tabled amendments today with the aim of improving the legislation. Although all the amendments have been tabled with the best of intentions, amendment No 1, which is supported by the Ulster Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and the SDLP, is a logical step to restrain the activities of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. If the Assembly does not support amendment No 1, there is a possibility that the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister — having fudged the decision on having one commissioner by appointing four commissioners — could decide to appoint a fifth commissioner. If the Assembly supports amendment No 1, it will be restricting the number of commissioners to four. There has been prevarication on the issue. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister moved from one commissioner to four by Executive action. Therefore, amendment No 1, which is a tidying up measure to cap the number of commissioners to four, must be supported by the Assembly as that will ensure that the structure of the commission is set in legislation and cannot be altered by further changes in opinion by the DUP or Sinn Féin. Amendment No 1 will have ramifications for subsequent amendments, therefore, I ask the House to support it. Mrs D Kelly: Let us reflect on the past year and on the appointment of a Victims’ Commissioner. The post of Victims’ Commissioner was advertised and interviews were held twice last year, both before and after devolution. Before the summer recess last year, the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister assured the House that a Victims’ Commissioner would be appointed before the summer recess. As late as December 2007, the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and all Members were informed that the appointment of a Victims’ Commissioner was still on the cards. It was not until the end of the year that four commissioners designate were appointed suddenly. We were told about that in a press statement by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. We have yet to hear a clear rationale — although we suspect the true rationale — for having four commissioners. However, that being the case, the SDLP is prepared to work with the premise of having four commissioners and no more. We can already see the cost of having four full-time commissioners, who are paid £65,000 each, and their secretariat — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Mrs D Kelly: It appears that the truth hurts. That money will be taken directly from the pockets of the victims that the Members opposite so loudly proclaim that that want to work for. That money could be spent on delivering services. A year later, we are still debating this issue, despite accelerated passage. Had the Committee been allowed to do its job, we might have overcome some of the problems — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Every Member will have an opportunity to speak. Mrs D Kelly: Just to inform some Members who do not seem to know; the Saville Inquiry is not being paid for out of the Northern Ireland block grant, unlike the victims’ commission. One wonders what truth and justice really costs. Some Members on the Benches opposite have said that they do not want to turn the issue of victims into a political football. Who created that political football? However, it seems that the DUP and Sinn Féin have scored an own goal through their collective failure to reach a consensus and a decision on the way forward. Several of the amendments proposed by those parties are nothing but a cover to spare their blushes in having for the third time — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: The Member must stick to discussing amendment No 1. Mrs D Kelly: I was dealing with the points overall, Mr Speaker. Some Members have said that our party did nothing much. What we certainly did not do was to create any victims, and we did our best to ensure that there was political stability, unlike Sinn Féin and the DUP who, until last year, created nothing but political instability — and worse in some cases. Our party has done much to drive the issue forward and to put victims and survivors on the political agenda during direct rule. We are prepared to accept four commissioners, but the figure should be capped at four. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister have not yet explained clearly why there should be four commissioners. We certainly do not want any more than four. Mr Durkan: Amendment No 1 attempts to make sense of the situation that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have created. Unable to deliver a single commissioner, they have produced four commissioners and, thereby, a commission. The First Minister and the deputy First Minister want the Assembly to accept a four-member commission. If that is to happen, surely it is reasonable for the Assembly to insist that it be capped at four commissioners. The amendment is not an attempt to wreck or block anything but an attempt to keep some sense of reasoned perspective. Mr Shannon said that those Members who oppose amendment No 1 do not plan to have more than four commissioners but may want to have more, and that they may want to have part-time commissioners. A system in which a chief commissioner were supported by part-time commissioners, in addition to the other commissioners, would make a complete nonsense of the arguments that we heard from those proposing the Bill over the past number of weeks. They claimed that there could not be a chief commissioner, and that there had to be four equal commissioners in order to prevent a hierarchy of commissioners and, as a result, a hierarchy of victims. Now we are told that there may be an even larger hierarchy of commissioners and part-time commissioners. There has been no clear or consistent thinking the parties who introduced the Bill. The debate on amendment No 1 is aimed at flushing out that lack of thought. Mr Shannon highlighted a number of very important issues and problems that victims face. However, he did not say what the Bill would do to solve any of those problems. The Bill has been drawn so narrowly that the commission, and its commissioners, will not have the necessary powers to take on and investigate such cases. The Minister of Finance and Personnel — from a sedentary position — compared the commission for victims and survivors with the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission. Those bodies have chief commissioners and multiple commissioners. However, they also have very clear functions, and the Paris principles grant them the powers, as state-created bodies, to deal with human rights issues. The commission for victims and survivors is absolutely bereft of such powers. Therefore, Mr Shannon’s reference to specific issues faced by victims is somewhat hollow; the Bill will neither address nor ameliorate those problems. Francie Molloy said that people want to see various issues dealt with, and dealt with in a proper way. However, nothing in the Bill tells us how things will be dealt with, or dealt with in a proper way. We have been made aware of the possibility of more commissioners, or part-time commissioners, but not of any substantive action or interventions. In this short debate on amendment No 1, we have also heard about the budget for victims. However, we have not been told what say or sway the commission, or commissioners, will have in spending that budget or in the victims’ strategy. I must correct the impression that has been given that no one else ever did anything for victims. In the previous period of devolution, the victims’ strategy was produced and consulted on, yet others heckled and opposed it on the grounds of the definition of a victim. They did not get behind that work, preferring to try to get in the way of its progress. Similarly, the victims unit was set up in the devolved context, even though the Northern Ireland Office claimed that victims’ issues lay with it. We pushed the very concept of a victims’ and survivors’ forum, only to meet with resistance from other parties who did not seem to have the care or consideration for victims then that they plead now. Why can the parties who ask the rest of us to accept four commissioners not accept a cap on four commissioners? Such a cap would ensure that resources were not consumed by the commission but, as far as possible, reached victims, improving their circumstances and meeting their needs. 11.15 am The junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister) (Mr Donaldson): I welcome the opportunity to address the issues that have been raised during the debate on amendment No 1, which was tabled by the Alliance Party. Naomi Long, a Member for East Belfast, talked about the need for a cap on the number of commissioners and, in particular, she referred to resources and said how important it was to restrict the amount of money that will be spent on running the commission. It is unfortunate that she made no mention of the fact that we recently announced in the Budget a record £36 million for the victims’ sector. None of the parties that oppose the establishment of a victims’ commission acknowledges that, because it does not suit them. They are interested only in scoring cheap political points on an issue that should be above that. Mr Durkan: Will the Member tell us what the role of the commission will be in respect of its budget? Members have asked that question on several occasions, and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has failed to answer. What say will the Commission have in the budget? The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): The Member for Foyle referred earlier to the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which was made at Westminster. He should take the time to read that again, and he will see that those matters are already spelled out in that legislation. There is no need for us to replicate those provisions in this Bill, the sole purpose of which is to establish a victims’ commission. Mr P Robinson: The passion that has been shown from the opposition Benches is synthetic. If the Members opposite feel so passionately about this issue, they would have tabled an amendment to the Order as it passed through Westminster. They had every right to do so — why did they not? The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): That question begs an answer, although I suspect that we will not get one. The Bill deals with the establishment of the commission. The funding, and how it will be spent, will be addressed in the draft victims’ strategy, which will be published soon, and on which there will be consultation. The roles of the commission, the forum for victims and survivors, and the victims’ sector generally, will then become clear. This Bill will enable us to proceed with the appointment of the commission. It is not intended to be a catch-all Bill that addresses a wide range of issues. My friend Mr Shannon, a Member for Strangford, rightly made the case against amendment No 1 by saying that the Bill must provide flexibility for the future. No one suggests that the commission’s work will be the same in five years’ time. The commission will evolve to meet the changing needs of victims and survivors. The First Minister and deputy First Minister made it clear, when they announced their intention to appoint four commissioners, that there was too much work to place on the shoulders of one individual. The commission has to catch up on years of neglect of the victims’ sector. That is why four commissioners are to be appointed. The work is important, difficult and challenging. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The junior Minister has the Floor. The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): The First Minister and deputy First Minister rightly concluded that that work required more than one commissioner. That is why a commission should be appointed. I do not understand why parties that are opposed to a commission do not see the need to increase the priority that is accorded to the victims’ sector. The agenda for victims is as deserving as the equality agenda and the human rights agenda, and that is why we should have a full commission. [Interrruption.] Mr Speaker: Order, Members. As I have already said, every Member will have an opportunity to speak. Please allow the Minister to respond. The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): OFMDFM makes no apology for establishing a proper commission for dealing with that issue, and for appointing four people to take on the very burdensome responsibility of addressing the long-neglected needs of victims and survivors. I suspect that those who cry loudest have more to hide when it comes to their failure, when they were in power, to address adequately the needs of victims. Some Members: Hear, hear. The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): Mr Burnside said the process of the Bill to date has been a major embarrassment to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and that it was one mess after another. I am sorry, I cannot agree with Mr Burnside on that. When Mr Burnside’s party was in power it failed miserably to address the needs of victims. In 1998, it supported an agreement that failed miserably to deal with the needs of victims and survivors. We are now clearing up the mess made by the previous Executive — not the present one — and we will continue to do that. We believe — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Order. The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): For that reason, the work of this Commission is important and that is why amendment No 1 must be opposed. In time, the needs of the victims’ sector may change. I am not sure what direction those will take — Mr Ford: Hallelujah. I am grateful to the junior Minister for finally giving way. Furthermore, I am grateful that he has recognised that the needs of victims may change in the future. If Mr Donaldson is taking the view of his colleague Mr Shannon regarding flexibility — and indeed the same view is taken by Mr Molloy, which is interesting from his perspective — why has Mr Donaldson not tabled an amendment to address the issue of a potential future full-time commissioner and part-time assistant commissioners, rather than failing to address that, even in his own amendment No 8? The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): If the Member for South Antrim Mr Ford were to take time to read amendment No 8 — Mr Ford: I have. The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): If he were to take time to read amendment No 8 he would see that we have made provision for the future appointment of a chief commissioner. OFMDFM believes there is a need to retain flexibility. The role of the commission will evolve in response to the changing needs of victims and survivors. When and if this occurs, flexibility in the Bill is required to change the modalities of that commission to reflect the changing nature of its work. As Mr Shannon rightly pointed out, flexibility is needed if, in future, we change from having four full-time commissioners to a model similar to that of the Equality Commission or the Human Rights Commission; with a full-time chief commissioner and some part-time commissioners. That may not be the case; however, OFMDFM does not anticipate that it will be necessary at any point in the future to appoint more than four full-time commissioners. However, legislation should give sufficient flexibility to allow for possible future reshaping of the commission. Over the next years, the needs of victims and survivors will change and the new structures of support will develop. The legislation is drafted in a way that gives the flexibility to move away, if necessary, from the model of four, full-time commissioners. For example, the legislation as drafted allows for the possibility of a future commission made up of part-time, rather than full-time, commissioners with part-time remuneration, should that be required to meet the needs of victims and survivors. Paragraph 3(1) of schedule 1 to the Bill provides that: “The commission shall consist of such members as are appointed by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly.” Amendment No 1 restricts the number of commissioners to a maximum of four. Therefore OFMDFM does not consider such an amendment to be either necessary or in the best interests of victims and survivors. For those reasons I call upon Members to reject amendment No 1. Mrs Long: Both parties that have supported OFMDFM — first when they told us that the Bill required no amendments and now when they decide that it does — have been very quick to lecture this Assembly that the Bill should not be used as a political football. We have been told that the issue is sensitive — as though those of us who wish to amend the Bill neither know nor care about that. However it is the members of those parties who are barracking and heckling those who are trying to have a reasoned discussion about these sensitive issues. It, therefore, ill behoves them to lecture others on sensitivity when they do not show any themselves. Jim Shannon highlighted the needs of victims: we are all aware of those needs. Indeed, they are the reason why we have tabled amendments to the Bill. We are attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear and make a fundamentally flawed Bill, at least, workable. He also said that the Bill has been dealt with in a way that has not been seen under any other Administration. I agree; but that is not something of which the Administration should be proud. Jim Shannon also said that the matter should be dealt with urgently so that the structures can be put in place. Capping the permitted number of commissioners at four will not slow down the passage of the Bill one iota, and it is a nonsense to suggest otherwise. He also, rightly, highlighted the ongoing financial and emotional burden on families who have become victims during the process. The money that could be spent on them is, instead, being spent on a growing commission. That expenditure is unreasonably high, and we want to ensure that it does not get any higher. A number of Members raised the issue of part-time commissioners. Such appointments can still happen. The only flexibility that will be removed if amendment No 1 is passed will be the ability to have more than four commissioners. There will be an opportunity to have two full-time and two part-time commissioners or one full-time and three part-time commissioners. There is plenty of room for flexibility within the arrangement of four commissioners, but no one has yet suggested a coherent argument as to why there will be a need for more than four. That is why we have tabled the amendment. Jim Shannon originally said that it was no one’s intention to have more than four commissioners, but he went on to describe a number of arrangements whereby there would have been five. He also said that he did not want the issue to become a point-scoring exercise, and I agree with him. However, he said that we should bring our arguments to another place. This is the place for legislation to be made and debate to be had. There is no other place for the debate on the amendments to take place; this is the appropriate place for that to happen. I see no reason why we should not be having that debate now. We could have had it a month ago, but we are having it now, and this is the right place to conduct that debate. It is not about making a political football; it is about making legislation. Francie Molloy, unwisely, referred to blocking tactics. Considering that Sinn Féin blocked the progression of the legislation on the previous two occasions on which it was to be debated, it would have been better for Mr Molloy had he not raised that argument. The proposers of the amendments have not delayed anything for the past month; we were ready to come into the Chamber to debate the amendments, as we are today. Mr Molloy also spoke about the need to move speedily. The Members who tabled the amendments have not caused the delay, and it is incumbent on those who caused the delay not to point the finger at others for merely doing their duty. I agree with David Burnside; the amendment does not limit flexibility. A range of permutations comprising full-time and part-time commissioners is permissible under amendment No 1. Likewise, one commissioner would be permitted under the amendment if OFMDFM were capable of getting its act together to appoint a single person. Dolores Kelly was right: even the current Administration accepted that one commissioner was sufficient when they re-advertised for a commissioner. They did not think that four commissioners were required when that re-advertisement was placed. Perhaps they came up with the notion for four over the much-talked-about dinner at Christmas. However, it has been unpalatable for the rest of us. Mark Durkan accurately exposed the grubby compromise. Arguments that have been made in the Chamber have frequently exposed that compromise. Those arguments were neither coherent nor well thought through, much like the commission that OFMDFM has been trying to create. 11.30 am Jeffrey Donaldson mentioned a sum of £36 million for the victims’ sector. He then explained that that budget is not relevant to today’s debate because this debate is about the creation of a commission, and the matter of expenditure and budget will be addressed in the draft victims’ strategy, which will be put out for consultation. Mr Speaker, I took your advice and stuck to the substance of the amendment. However, the issue of finance has been raised, so it is important that I respond. I want to make it clear that no one has downplayed the amount of money that has been set aside for victims. Nor have I questioned the commitment of those in OFMDFM to see this legislation through, although others have questioned mine. However, I want as much of that money as is physically possible to go directly towards meeting the needs of victims, rather than being subsumed by bureaucracy. Mr Donaldson also said that amendment No 1 would prevent the commission from evolving. No one has an issue with the commission’s evolving; however, I have a problem with its growing and expanding. The importance of any structure is not increased simply by siphoning off money to pay for its additional bureaucracy. The commission’s work is important. However, that importance will be measured not by the number of commissioners but by the quality of the commission’s output. Four commissioners is three too many, but it is what we are left with. I simply want to ensure that we do not end up with more than four. Amendment No 1 restricts in no shape or form the commission’s ability to function. The number of four was selected for no other reason than to cover OFMDFM’s embarrassment about its inability to agree on one commissioner. That is not a coherent argument for proceeding with this arrangement, and it is certainly not the case that I will accept reassurances — Mr P Robinson: Will the Member give way? Mrs Long: No, I will not give way. I will not accept reassurances from persons in OFMDFM that they do not wish to further expand the commission. They have said on previous occasions — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Mrs Long: They said on previous occasions that they would appoint one — Mr P Robinson: Will the Member give way? Mrs Long: I will give way. Mr P Robinson: The Member makes what she believes to be a very strong case for having no more than four commissioners. Will she join us in supporting legislation to reduce to four the number of commissioners on the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission? Mrs Long: When the legislation proposing the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission was introduced, it proposed a much better-structured arrangement than the one with which we are currently dealing. The reason that some Members want to allow the commission flexibility to evolve is because they are completely unclear as to the nature of the beast that they have created. That is the fundamental difference between the proposed commission for victims and survivors and those two commissions. As other Members have suggested, if the proposed commission were to have the same role and remit as those two commissions, there might be an argument for having a larger commission for victims and survivors. However, that is not the case. It is anticipated that the proposed commission will have an advocacy role, and that role is clearly set out. As I have said, the value of the commission’s work cannot be calculated based on the number of commissioners that it has — it will entirely depend on what is delivered. Capping the number of commissioners at four will prevent nothing but a further drain on scarce resources. I ask Members to support the amendment. Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 32; Noes 55. AYES Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Burns, Mr Burnside, Mr Cobain, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Cree, Mr Dallat, Dr Deeny, Mr Durkan, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mr Gardiner, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Kennedy, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr Lunn, Mr A Maginness, Mr McCarthy, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGlone, Mr McNarry, Mr Neeson, Mr P Ramsey, Mr Savage, Mr B Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Lunn and Mr McCarthy. NOES Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Boylan, Mr Brady, Mr Bresland, Mr Brolly, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr W Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Dodds, Mr Doherty, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mrs Foster, Ms Gildernew, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr M McGuinness, Miss McIlveen, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McQuillan, Mr Molloy, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Ruane, Mr Shannon, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells. Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Clarke and Mr G Robinson. Question accordingly negatived. 11.45 pm Mr Speaker: We now come to the second group of amendments, beginning with amendment No 2, with which it will be convenient to debate the remaining six amendments in the group. The amendments in this group deal with the appointment of a chief commissioner and with the proceedings of the commission. I advise members that amendment No 7 is consequential to amendment No 2. Therefore, if amendment No 2 is not made, I will not call amendment No 7. Amendment No 8 is mutually exclusive with amendment No 2. Therefore, if amendment No 2 is made, I will not call amendment No 8. I also advise members that amendment Nos 9, 10 and 11 are mutually exclusive with amendment No 8. Therefore, if amendment No 8 is made, I will not call amendment Nos 9, 10 or 11. In the event that amendment No 8 is not made, I advise Members that amendment Nos 9 and 11 both relate to the requirement for unanimous decision-making by the Commission. Therefore, amendment Nos 9 and 11 are mutually exclusive. Additionally, amendment Nos 10 and 11 relate to the removal of the same sub-paragraph in schedule 1 and are also mutually exclusive. Therefore, I will call amendment No 11 only if amendment Nos 8, 9 and 10 are not made. I call Mrs Dolores Kelly to move amendment No 2 and to explain the other amendments in this group. Mrs D Kelly: I beg to move amendment No 2: In page 2, line 29, at end insert “( ) the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall appoint one of the members as Chief Commissioner.” The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 7: In page 3, line 40, at end insert “(6A) All employees of the Commission shall be subject to the direction of the Chief Commissioner”. — [Mrs Long, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Ford.] No 8: In page 4, line 30, leave out paragraph 9 and insert “9.—(1) The Commission may by standing orders make such provision as it thinks fit to regulate its own proceedings (including quorum). (2) Standing orders may be made or amended by the Commission only with the agreement of all the members who vote on the matter. (3) Standing orders shall provide for a decision on any of the following matters to be taken by the Commission only with the agreement of all the members who vote on the matter— (a) the provision of financial assistance under Article 7(1); (b) the preparation and submission under Article 8 of— (i) a work programme; (ii) a revised work programme; or (iii) an amendment to an existing work programme. (4) Standing orders shall provide for a decision on any other matter to be taken by the Commission on a simple majority of the members who vote on the matter. (5) In making representations or recommendations under Article 7(4) in connection with a review under Article 6(2), the Commission shall in relation to each representation or recommendation specify whether it is made— (a) with the agreement of all the members who voted on the matter; or (b) on a simple majority of the members who voted on the matter. (6) The First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly— (a) shall keep under review the working arrangements of the Commission; (b) may— (i) designate a member as Chief Commissioner; (ii) at any time revoke that designation; (c) may give directions to the Commission regulating its procedure (including directions supplementing or amending any standing orders of the Commission).” — [The junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister) (Mr Donaldson).] No 9: In page 4, line 33, leave out from “by” to end of line 33 and insert “by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members”. — [Mrs Long, Mr Ford.] No 10: In page 4, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (3). — [Mrs Long, Mr Ford.] No 11: In page 4, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert “(3) Where a proposal to make or amend standing orders is not agreed unanimously by the members of the Commission, the Commission may, after further consideration refer such proposed standing orders or such proposed amendments to standing orders, if endorsed by a majority of Commissioners, to the First Minister and deputy First Minister with the recommendation that they, acting jointly, approve them on grounds of sufficient consensus.” — [Mrs D Kelly, Mr Durkan.] No 12: In page 4, line 39, leave out from “or” to end of line 40. — [Mrs Long, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Ford.] Mrs D Kelly: Mr Speaker, you are the leader of the House, and you have deputies, thereby illustrating that any organisation requires a leader to at least call order and to give direction. The same applies to the victims’ commission: there ought to be a recognisable leader of the commission — a chief commissioner — to give direction not only to his or her fellow commissioners, but to be responsible for the secretariat and to give an accountability mechanism to the wider community. The manner in which the commission conducts it business will signal one of two things: either we will continue to address victims’ issues in a fragmented, divided and factional manner, or we will invest in a new beginning where we attempt to heal the wounds of our people and to move our society forward together. The SDLP is committed to the latter and has therefore tabled its amendments in that spirit. There is a clear need for the commission’s work to have a collective and consensus-building approach. The amendments that refer to collective working under the guidance of a chief commissioner are designed to help ensure that we achieve that. Leadership on the basis of consensus will be central to the achievement of a cohesive approach that can inspire public confidence. As regards decision-making, I acknowledge that the Alliance Party’s amendments are similar to those of the SDLP. However, the SDLP’s amendment No 11 is simply a more effective means of achieving an end that is similar to that required by the Alliance Party. Collective working and consensus-based decision-making should not be an optional approach, as signalled by OFMDFM’s amendment No 8. A clear signal must be sent about the type of outcomes that we desire. It is clear to anyone who reads OFMDFM’s amendment that it is an attempt to appease the DUP Back-Benchers and that it is a DUP fig leaf as regards the victims’ commission. Members will notice the subtlety of the word “may” in some key points in that amendment. A chief commissioner “may” be appointed, and directions “may” be given, rather than “shall”. In the past, the DUP indicated that it might support the other amendments. However, it has had to back-pedal on that. That is unacceptable because the amendments that have been tabled by Mrs Long, Mr Ford and I would have provided a clear structure and format, and a better outworking for the victims’ commission — not only for that commission and its organisation, but for other groups that must work with it. It is unfair and unacceptable that victims’ interests remain prejudiced by the lack of consensus and failure of leadership in OFMDFM. There is still an opportunity to give the victims’ commissioners designate a framework within which they can work more effectively to create a future for victims and survivors of which we can all feel proud. I do not know how many other commissioners are able to set their own policy framework and their own terms of reference. That key piece of work and responsibility should have fallen on the shoulders of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, not those of the commissioners designate. Earlier, junior Minister Jeffrey Donaldson and some of his colleagues, speaking to amendment No 1, compared the victims’ commission to the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission in respect of the numbers of commissioners. Since we are dealing with the proceedings of the commission, I contend that the sincerity of that comparison is challenged by his and his colleagues’ failure to propose any similar powers of investigation for the victims’ commission, as our disallowed amendments would. They would give the commission clear, real, legal authority, with powers to sanction when needed, and to search the darkest corners when required. Are we to believe or accept that victims and survivors are not entitled to internationally defined rights? Without the inclusion of those principles, the commissioners’ ability to make a difference will be limited. It is also surprising that Sinn Féin has not embraced the need for the inclusion of the Paris Principles in the legislation. That party’s failure to do so highlights serious questions about its attitudes towards victims and survivors in particular, and its weak approach to dealing with the DUP in general. Those issues must be dealt with and clarified quickly. I support the amendments. Mr Spratt: I am glad that the Commission for Victims and Survivors Bill is before us today, and that we also have before us a number of amendments from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, which, if passed by the House, will bring about positive changes to the proposed Bill. In weeks gone by, we witnessed what could almost have been described as gloating by some Members — those who repeatedly seek to undermine efforts to bring about positive changes in Northern Ireland, for no other reason than opposition for opposition’s sake, and cheap politicking. The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): Does the Member agree that the problem for some of the parties is that they do not know whether they are in Government or in opposition? This Bill came from the Government. Mr Spratt: I entirely agree. Some Members believe that they are in opposition, but they are a very weak opposition. Mr B McCrea: Will the Member give way? Mr Spratt: The Member will have an opportunity to speak soon. I will not give way. I wish to deal with the second group of amendments, which relate to a chief commissioner and to the proceedings of the commission. I support amendment No 8, as tabled by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and I oppose amendment Nos 2, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12. First, I wish to deal with the provision in amendment No 8 for appointing a chief commissioner in the future. I am speaking of the future, and it is my belief that amendment No 8 — unlike amendment No 2, tabled by Mrs Long, Mrs Kelly and Mr Ford — puts in place the required flexibility for the future for the designation of a chief commissioner, whether that person is appointed from the current appointees or from any future appointees to the commission. That is a sensible approach. The legislation must be framed to deal with the current situation, and with future circumstances. I fear that that is a recurring failure in the amendments that have been tabled by members of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionist Party. Furthermore, amendment No 8 improves the Bill through the standing orders that regulate the decision-making process of the commission, by allowing a decision to be made by a: “simple majority of the members who vote on the matter.” The amendment also provides that certain decisions, specifically those detailed in paragraph 9(3), must be taken: “only with the agreement of all the members who vote on the matter.” To increase the transparency of decision-making, paragraph 9(5) will ensure that the commission specifies the strength of support that a report or recommendation received from its membership. Such openness is welcome and refreshing, and it should command the support of the House. Finally, paragraph 9(6) legislates to keep the working arrangements of the commission under review. That important provision again demonstrates the foresight of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. As time goes by, improvements may be made to the mechanisms by which the commission operates. As those will have a positive impact on the delivery of services to victims, the Bill should allow for such eventualities. Amendment No 8 provides the best way forward in dealing with matters relating to a chief commissioner and the proceedings of the commission. Therefore, the DUP will oppose all other amendments in the second grouping. I urge Members from other parties to consider the positive elements of the amendment tabled by OFMDFM, and I hope that they will identify it as the best way to progress. Let us not forget that the establishment of a victims’ commission represents an extremely significant step for Northern Ireland. After years of neglect under direct rule and the previous Administration headed by the UUP and the SDLP, there is now a mechanism by which the Province’s victims will be served effectively. Backed up by the £36 million that my colleague Peter Robinson allocated to the victims’ sector in the recent Budget, the effective strategy will help those who need it now and in the future. Any delay in the Bill is worthwhile, if it improves its effectiveness — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Every other Member will have an opportunity to speak to whichever amendments they choose. Mr Spratt: The delay produced improvements and made the Bill a more effective framework for the future. The DUP has long placed the needs of victims at the top of the political agenda, and the Bill signifies the delivery of its pledges. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat. I support amendment No 8, and I oppose amendment Nos 2, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12. For the past few weeks, some parties have been calling for amendments to address the issues that they raised during various debates and discussions — and amendment No 8 does so comprehensively. Dolores Kelly raised a concern about the amendment’s use of “may” and “shall”. I point out to her that the amendment contains three instances of “may” and two of “shall”. Therefore, it provides clear direction on what the commission is required to do. Mrs D Kelly: My concern is about where the words appear; not how many times. Amendment No 8 states that the First Minister and deputy First Minister “may” give directions to the Commission and “may” designate a member as a chief commissioner. That is nonsense, and the SDLP is not so foolish as to have missed that. Mr Molloy: So far, most of the SDLP’s amendments have been nonsense, which is part of the problem. The Member would be better to deal with victims’ issues, rather than playing party politics. It is one thing to stand in the Chamber and oppose everything that is being done to progress the legislation: it is another thing to go out and talk to victims and promise them the sun, the moon and the stars. The Member and her party have been doing that for years, but they have done nothing to resolve the situation. It is time for Members to deal sensitively and sensibly with the issues that are before them and to move forward with amendment No 8, which leaves a certain amount of flexibility rather than tying everyone down. Why must the SDLP tie us all down to crossing all the t’s and dotting all the i’s in accordance with that party’s thinking? 12.00 noon The legislation should be flexible enough to allow victims and survivors — not the commission or the parties — to take the lead and decide the next step forward. Amendment No 8 makes provision for the families to do that. It is important that we introduce this legislation to support the commissioners and to give families the opportunity to design and move forward in the way that they want, at the speed that they want. There will be variations, and flexibility is needed to allow that to happen, rather than nailing everything down so that there cannot be any change. The legislation would have been in place, and the current delay avoided, if weeks had not been spent dealing with SDLP delaying tactics involving trying to change one word in the Bill. I deliberately use the phrase “delaying tactics” because the SDLP has been nit-picking parts of the legislation, instead of moving it forward. Mr Durkan: Will the Member say what delaying tactic was created by my party, the Alliance Party or any other group? The Member’s party, Sinn Féin, postponed previous proceedings that had been due to come before the House. Mr Molloy: The delaying tactics that you, your party and others have used consist of nit-picking instead of taking a sensible, sensitive approach to moving forward and empowering the commissioners to do the job to which they were appointed. Mrs Long: Will the Member accept that what he refers to as nit-picking, others may consider as paying a degree of attention to detail that was lacking in OFMDFM and in the Committee, when the Bill was being discussed? Mr Molloy: You can describe it in whatever way you want. The reality is that the legislation has been delayed by discussions that have gone on for several weeks. Instead of having the — Mr B McCrea: I am sorry, but can the Member please explain to the Assembly why the legislation was not brought forward on two separate occasions? The delay has not been caused by other Members but by his party and his party alone. It is pure prevarication from Sinn Féin. Mr Speaker: Before Mr Molloy continues, I remind Members to address their remarks through the Chair, not directly to each other. Debate is conducted through the Chair. Mr Molloy: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. Every Member will have the opportunity to speak and should use it, instead of interrupting me. That would avoid my having to jump up and down all the time. Members should concentrate on what they have to say and take their turn. Today’s objective is to move the Bill forward; to give technical and legislative support; to enable the commissioners designate to start dealing with victims in a comprehensive way. The issues involved have been discussed for 10 years under direct rule and the previous Administration in an effort to make progress. Sometimes when we look for perfection we can finish up with nothing being achieved. Therefore, let us use what we have at the moment. Let us give the legislation our backing and move it on to the next stage so that survivors and victims’ families can see some light at the end of the tunnel and start believing that they will have their say on how the legislation moves forward and on how victims are dealt with in the future. It is time to focus on supporting the commission and enabling it to do its job of supporting families and victims. Do not lose sight of the Bill’s real purpose, which is to support victims and survivors. Let us give them the opportunity to have their say, through the Bill. The commissioners for victims and survivors must be given a solid legislative footing that will allow them to get on with the work that they are waiting to do. The Assembly was made aware of a problem when a commissioner designate said that, because the posts did not have legislative support, they could not do the job for which they were appointed. Members of the House said they would ensure that that situation was rectified. There is an opportunity to do that now, and to move matters forward speedily. Let us get on with that job. Mr B McCrea: I thank the Alliance Party Members who tabled amendment Nos 2 and 7, which make logical and functional sense and will improve the commission’s workings and outcomes for victims. Amendment No 2 calls on the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to jointly appoint one of the members of the commission for victims and survivors as chief commissioner. In supporting the amendment, Members must ask: what is the purpose of the Bill? The answer is to continually provide the best possible support for victims — innocent victims — of atrocious acts of terrorism. There is a difference between those who some people define as victims, and innocent victims. Members must identify the best way in which society can deal with that issue. In supporting the amendment, my party believes that it is proper that one person be identified as chief commissioner. That is consistent with other bodies, such as the Electoral Commission; the Equality Commission; the Independent Commission on Policing; the Parades Commission, and even, most recently, the post of Local Government Boundaries Commissioner. All of those bodies have one feature in common: they either have a chief officer or a chief commissioner. There is a good reason for that. The chief commissioner would be in a position to provide leadership and guidance to the body corporate — to the commission as a whole. There is a danger that four individual commissioners will be perceived as representing four individual constituencies. Surely, that is not helpful. Who will argue for the innocent victims who do not pertain to any of those groupings? The answer is that a chief commissioner who has overall responsibility would be able to focus on those people. If amendment No 2 is not accepted, the downside would be that the system would degenerate into a series of solo runs, whereby each victims’ commissioner employs his or her own staff and looks after his or her own brand of victims. A message would be sent out to society that the victims’ commission is not concerned with trying to put the past behind us or redressing wrongs, but is merely a continuation of shoddy back-room deals within the cosy DUP/Sinn Féin coalition. That would not move society forward, but would condemn it to live in the past. The proper way forward is to ensure that the Assembly comes together on this issue. While I deal with that issue, I want to refer to an earlier intervention by a Member who said that he was speaking on behalf of the Government. I want to place it on record that, as far as my party is aware, the Bill is not an Executive proposal. It is a proposal from the DUP/Sinn Féin axis. Although the rest of the Assembly may have been informed of the Bill, it has not been party to it. The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): Perhaps the Member should consult his colleagues who are Ministers. He would then understand the way in which the Government operate: a collective decision is taken on the principle of a Bill, and it is a matter for the sponsoring Department to take forward any amendments to that Bill. Therefore, we have made proposals on the Government’s behalf, and not simply on behalf of a Department. Mr B McCrea: I am grateful — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Mr B McCrea: I am grateful to be able to benefit from the Member’s four weeks’ experience as a junior Minister and his lecture on how the Government work. Just for the record, it was for information — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker, I am trying very hard — Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Mr B McCrea: For the record, I am prepared to give way to Members if, instead of speaking from a sedentary position, they stand up and make an intervention. It appears that Mrs Robinson wants to make an intervention. Mrs I Robinson: I am happy to make an intervention. It is a case of pot calling the kettle black — the Member makes frequent interventions from a sedentary position. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr B McCrea: I gather, from what the Member said during that intervention, that two wrongs make a right. It is quite clear that this is not coming from the Government — it is coming from the DUP. Mr Durkan: The rather evasive answer the junior Minister gave during his intervention was obviously aimed at masking the fact that proposed amendment No 8, which he said came from the Government, never went near the Executive or received their approval. Mr B McCrea: That was an extremely useful intervention from the Member for Foyle. I reiterate my point: the proposed amendment does not come from the Government; it comes from the DUP/Sinn Féin cosy coalition. The rest of us do not sign up to the amendment, because we were not involved in discussions about it. Earlier, Members urged others not to use the issue as a political football, but it is those who shout the loudest that have the most to fear. This issue is like a runaway train. Indeed, it is an issue that will come back to haunt us because it has not been dealt with properly. We must find a way to ensure that society progresses, that we deal legitimately with people’s concerns and that we look after the innocent victims who need our help and support. It is simply incoherent to say that someone would not support a victim; I cannot believe that that argument is being used. We have aired our concerns about the Bill to try to make it better; that is why we support amendment Nos 2 and 7. There is no point in appointing a single, chief commissioner if the legislative back-up to ensure that that person is given some authority is not provided. To do otherwise would mean that that person would be simply a figurehead with responsibility and accountability but no authority. I commend amendment Nos 2 and 7 to the House. I return to my earlier point: what is the point of the Bill? Why do we need a chief commissioner with the appropriate authority? It is to ensure that innocent victims are looked after. Secondary to that, it is to make sure that we can put the terrible past behind us. We have had 30 to 40 years of civil strife, with the most unimaginable atrocities carried out. One has to ask oneself: who is responsible for those atrocities? Who created most of those victims? How can they stand here and say that they want to make it better? That is not what the process is about. Northern Ireland has to find a way to move forward; we have to find a way of dealing with the past. My vision is for an independent, chief commissioner who represents all victims in a fair, impartial and independent way, and who has the support of all Members of the House and the country. That is the only way forward. Amendment No 8, which my colleague will deal with in more detail, is a great disappointment and a shoddy piece of work. It shows the Office of the First and deputy First Minister’s lack of conviction in tackling the issue. Three or four attempts have been made to bring the motion before the House, and they have failed because we have not properly engaged with the issue. The Ulster Unionist Party supports amendment Nos 2 and 7 and rejects outright amendment No 8 as a shoddy piece of back-room dealing. 12.15 pm Mr Kennedy: I share the Member’s distaste for amendment No 8, which is tabled in the name of junior Minister Donaldson. Presumably, that amendment also carries the weight of junior Minister Kelly, who is in the House, and the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I highlight my concern, and that of the Ulster Unionist Party, over the proposal under amendment No 8 to introduce sub-paragraph 4 to paragraph 9, which would read: “Standing orders shall provide for a decision on any other matter to be taken by the Commission on a simple majority of the members who vote on the matter.” Does that not invite chaos and confusion and give at least one commissioner of any four an effective veto on any progress that a victims’ commission would bring forward? Mr B McCrea: Judging by the sharp intakes of breath from the DUP Benches, Mr Kennedy has hit the nail on the head. I have no doubt that the junior Minister will address those concerns when he makes his winding-up speech. I am interested to know whether the other junior Minister, whose name does not appear on the Order Paper, is prepared to speak on and support all of those amendments. In response to a point of order from Mr Burnside, the Speaker said that it was not necessary to have any more names on the Order Paper, but it would be nice to know whether a joint position was held by the two junior Ministers, given that the second junior Minister’s party found difficulty in bringing earlier motions to the House. It is a pity that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister lacked the strength of conviction to do initially what was right for the victims of Northern Ireland and appoint one suitable commissioner. If they had acted at that time, that commissioner would be helping all of those innocent victims by now; the work would be being done. As my colleague will outline, amendment No. 8, which was tabled by junior Minister Donaldson, does not do any justice to the points that I have made or the issues that I have raised. The innocent victims of the Troubles, who have suffered greatly, deserve more. We should be prepared to take courageous steps to deliver for them. Amendment Nos 2 and 7 strive to improve the Bill, and the Ulster Unionist Party and I support those amendments. Mrs Long: I thank junior Minister Kelly for the briefing that he provided for me last Friday in my capacity as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. I speak as an Assembly Member and not as the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, and I will consider the amendments in some detail. The Alliance Party’s eyes remain fixed on the goal of creating a strong, clear and coherent voice for victims. As I have said on many occasions, that goal would be best achieved by having a single commissioner. However, it is clearly the will of the majority of the House that that will be done through a commission. Therefore, we want to ensure that that commission can, as far as is practicable, create that same strong, coherent voice for victims. When the Bill was brought forward, I raised a number of issues, for example that of the commissioners working in silos. I raised the issue of how the mechanisms and structures of the commission would facilitate the creation of that strong, clear and coherent voice. The Alliance Party amendments try to deal with the Bill’s significant deficiencies. First, we considered the structures of a victims’ commission. For a commission, or indeed any organisation, to work, someone must take the lead. A Committee requires a Chairperson in order to operate, an Assembly requires a Speaker, a party requires a leader and, if it is to operate and function properly, a commission requires a chief commissioner. That is neither unusual nor strange — in fact, it is the norm. Therefore, in amendment No 2, we have attempted to place the onus on OFMDFM to appoint jointly one of the commissioners as chief commissioner. That would not undermine, devalue or negate the right of any of the other commissioners to express a view — whether that be a majority or minority opinion — nor would it affect their role in dealing face to face with the people who require their assistance. Instead, that arrangement would create coherence in the commission, and roles and responsibilities would be clear to people who wished to contact it. Furthermore — and crucially — a secretariat that would answer directly to the chief commissioner should be established. Consequently, a situation in which four commissioners each had their own secretariat, worked in silos and became detached from one another — all of which would be hugely damaging to the commission’s purpose — would be prevented. Those proposals do not reflect on our opinion of the commissioners designate. This process is not about personalities. In fact, I wish that we could have had the debate about a commission for victims and survivors in advance of appointing anyone to the role. I am on record as saying that any of the four appointed commissioners could have done the job single-handedly. Neither do I doubt the commissioners’ wishes — expressed or otherwise — to work together coherently for the betterment of the victims and survivors sector. We do not base judgements on personalities. As other Members said, we are creating structures that will endure for the long term. Therefore, it is important that those structures are coherent, which is why we tabled amendment Nos 2 and 7, which would allow for the creation of a chief commissioner and enable people to act with regard to him or her. Such clear lines of authority would be helpful to the commission’s smooth working. We must also be realistic when considering matters pertaining to dispute resolution. In most organisations with which I am involved, there is some form of voting mechanism. Some, such as the system in the Chamber, are increasingly complex; others are simple. However, although we all wish for consensus and that that would be the aim on every occasion, consensus may not always be possible. The Alliance Party would prefer to have a voting mechanism in place so that, rather than complete breakdown and no activity, the commission will be able to make progress on the basis of a division. Once again, that would not negate an individual commissioner’s right to express an opinion. Although that is a matter for the commission itself, it might be good practice for it to note such minority opinions when it produces reports. Above all, it would prevent a situation in which nothing can happen because people cannot agree. Amendment No 10 is specifically designed to remove OFMDFM directions that are mentioned in the Bill. I am not happy with that arrangement, because, having enquired about it, I think that the scope and purpose of such directions have not been clearly defined. Given the sensitivities, complexities and, in particular, politics about victims and survivors, subsequent to legislation, it would be better if the matter were removed as far from the political remit as possible. Directions from OFMDFM would not create confidence in the public mind that such matters are not subject to political interference. I must also say that, in all honesty, if I were involved in an intractable dispute, OFMDFM is perhaps the last place on earth to which I would go in order to have that dispute resolved. Amendment No 12 would ensure that if there are questions about the appointment of individuals, the commission cannot strike down their work. That is potentially ultra vires, because a judge could, at any time, strike down any of the appointments, or any work that commissioners had done. If challenges to the commission and its work are deemed appropriate, their outcome will be decided in the courts. It looks foolish and defensive to try to preclude the courts from making such decisions when one does not have the power to do so. The wording in paragraph 10(b) looks like a pre-emptive strike, and it is unnecessary and unworkable. Amendment No 12 does not mean that the commission’s work should be struck down. Deleting paragraph 10(b) reflects the reality that no Bill can prevent a judge from striking down the work of the commission. The wording in the Bill is unhelpful. Although the Alliance Party prefers the mechanism that we have outlined in amendment Nos 9 and 10, amendment No 11, which the SDLP tabled, is a reasonable alternative. The SDLP, in approaching the Bill from the same position as the Alliance Party, has tried to make the best of a bad job. We have tried to be constructive in our approach. Amendment No 8 was tabled by the junior Minister Mr Donaldson. I have read the amendment carefully and tried to see some merit in it, but there seems to be an element of smoke and mirrors to it. The amendment creates the illusion that it is responding to issues of concern in the Bill without promising to deliver. It is the same as talking about accelerated passage for a Bill but delaying and delaying its Consideration Stage — it creates the illusion of activity where there is stalemate. Those DUP Members who saw merit in our amendments may think that amendment No 8 will achieve the same outcome because it appears to be similar. However, there are key differences: under amendment No 8, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister will not “have to” appoint a chief commissioner. Instead, they “may” appoint one in the same way in which they “may” revoke that designation at any stage. Given that part of the reason for the delay to the Bill’s Consideration Stage was down to Sinn Féin’s opposition to the appointment of a chief commissioner — that is in the public domain — does anyone believe that it will not use its veto in OFMDFM to prevent that happening? The provision in proposed new paragraph 9 exists to cover embarrassment, because, although sub-paragraph (6) states that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister “(b) may— (i) designate a member as Chief Commissioner”, let us be honest, it is highly unlikely that they will. Therefore, if Members believe that the existence of a chief commissioner and a voting mechanism is sensible, the only way in which to achieve that — in real terms — is to support our amendments and not the alternative that the junior Minister Jeffrey Donaldson proposes. Mrs D Kelly: Does the Member agree that some of the DUP Members who, we believe, were supportive of our amendments are missing from the Chamber? That speaks volumes about the turmoil in the DUP over the Bill. Mrs Long: I cannot comment on other Members’ whereabouts. However, after discussion with Members, their biggest concern with our amendments was that OFMDFM would be unable to appoint a chief commissioner. Therefore, the notion in amendment No 8 that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister may appoint a chief commissioner is a get-out clause for when they fail to do so. Mr Molloy spoke about delays — I am amazed at the number of times that things must be repeated before Mr Molloy understands them. After devolution, OFMDFM had the rest of last year to appoint a commissioner, which required no legislation or delay. That appointment required only a decision — end of story. OFMDFM then wanted to appoint a commission that had no legal basis, which caused delays because legislation was necessary to underpin it. It then held up accelerated passage, resulting in Consideration Stage not being moved on two occasions. If we are discussing delays, Sinn Féin is approaching the matter from an extraordinarily weak position. The focus must be on a strong, clear and coherent voice for victims. Although amendment No 8 may dangle that tantalising prospect in front of people, they should not be deluded. It is not a reality; it is smoke and mirrors. 12.30 pm Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support amendment No 8, and I oppose the other amendments in the group. I have listened intently to this issue being debated over the past few weeks, and it is important for Members to remember that we are speaking about people who lost their lives. Members have spoken about the relatives of people who lost their lives and of those who were injured — the survivors who live with the trauma of bereavement and injury every day of the week. Members must be sensitive to those issues. The priority and focus should be to try to ensure that the needs of victims and survivors are met as a matter of urgency. The serious issue of victims should not be used for party-political point scoring. It is a sensitive issue. Mr B McCrea: Will the Member tell the House which parties are using the issue for party-political point scoring? On what basis has she made that assertion? Ms J McCann: I believe that the parties that are using the issue for party-political point scoring are those that keep proposing these silly amendments. Mrs Long: Does the Member mean OFMDFM? Ms J McCann: No, I do not. I am not talking about amendment No 8; I am talking about the amendments that have been proposed over the past few weeks. The Member knows exactly whom I am talking about. I reiterate that we should not use the serious issue of victims for party-political point scoring. The Bill is about putting a commission for victims and survivors in place, and that should be the main focus. A panel of commissioners would bring a mixture of experience, expertise and skills. It would be more representative and would reflect the experience of all victims and survivors in the important stages of shaping and delivering the services that they need. An inclusive and meaningful process is necessary to address the various needs and demands of victims and survivors. Support for such a process, particularly through delivery programmes at local level, represents an important building block in developing a society that embodies, in a sustainable way, due regard for the need to promote equality and good relations. The focus must be on delivering those programmes to the victims and survivors, and on meeting their needs. In addressing the legacy of the conflict through community-based initiatives that provide counselling and emotional support, and training and development opportunities, it is important that, when implementing any initiatives on behalf of victims and survivors, we take our lead from the victims and their families. A positive contribution must be made towards helping them to come to terms with their circumstances. I urge Members to focus on the needs of victims and survivors. The commission for victims and survivors must be allowed to get on with its work and make a real difference. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Cree: Amendment No 8 is an attempt to pull a cloak over some of the issues that have been raised by other parties throughout this protracted process. Amendment No 8, which proposes replacing paragraph 9 to schedule 1, effectively reinstates the desire for unanimity among the commissioners about the fundamental workings of the commission. It also reinstates a veto of any member of the commission on his or her colleagues with the potential to obstruct the working and functionality of the commission. Jumbling up the words does not change the fundamental message that one commissioner will be able to obstruct all of the others on the key issues in that process. Equally, amendment No 8 proposes new paragraph 9(6), which is another Sinn Féin/DUP fudge. The paragraph states that the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly may designate a member as chief commissioner and may, at any time, revoke that designation. I am not a betting man, but I am willing to wager that there will be no chief commissioner in the foreseeable future. If the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister really intended, or had the joint desire, to appoint a chief commissioner, it would have supported the Alliance Party’s amendment. I reject amendment No 8 as I consider it to be something of an insult to the intelligence of Members and the innocent victims that the commission will seek to serve. As has already been stated, it is paramount that the commission is able to proceed with purpose and direction. Amendment No 9, which has been tabled by the Alliance Party, seeks to ensure that a democratic procedure is enshrined in the process of changing standing orders. That amendment will ensure that no single commissioner will have the power to veto the democratic decisions and proceedings of the commission as a whole. In order to deliver for innocent victims in Northern Ireland, the commission must act as a single entity. If one Member has a veto, there is a danger that the process will deteriorate into impasse, and moving beyond such an impasse may be extremely difficult and potentially destructive. Commissioners must be impartial enough to live by the democratic decisions of other members. There has been, and will continue to be, political opposition to the amendment, but it makes practical sense and will better ensure delivery for innocent victims. Amendment No 9 will help to remove any fears, founded or not, that political influence will be able to obstruct the workings of the commission. I therefore support amendment No 9. The Ulster Unionist Party Members are reserving judgement on amendment Nos 10, 11 and 12. We are open to being convinced, but certain areas must be properly explored and need further clarification. In supporting amendment No 9, the Ulster Unionist Party hopes to ensure that the commission can function effectively. However, my interpretation of amendment No 10 is that it would effectively remove any political accountability from the commission. My understanding of the rationale behind such a proposal is that by granting the commission complete freedom of direction, it would potentially move beyond some of the political ramifications that are coupled with the process, giving the commissioners freedom to carry out their duties without interference. Given the way in which the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister has handled the issue of the commission so far, I can understand the logic. However, this matter is like a double-edged sword. Although the independence of the commission must be respected, political accountability is needed. Equally, although we all wish that political ideologies could be removed from the issue, unfortunately the political realities of Northern Ireland are such that nothing is ever black and white, even if it appears to be morally straightforward. There is always the danger that some people will seek to influence the workings of the commission, guided by political and ideological goals. Mr B McCrea: Just before junior Minister Kelly leaves the Chamber; given the important ramifications of this important topic, would the Member not like to hear what junior Minister Kelly has to say about it? Mr Cree: I thank the Member for his intervention. I do not know whether it is significant that junior Minister Kelly is not here for this part of the debate, but I would certainly like to hear his support for this matter. The responsibilities of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and the scrutiny of the Assembly, must act as a check to the commission. The UUP’s main concern about amendment No 10 is that it would remove those checks. It is therefore necessary that the process has political answerability, and in linking the setting of standing orders to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, we will effectively link any decisions on the commission’s remit to Assembly scrutiny. That will provide political accountability and responsibility. The problems and sufferings of innocent victims in Northern Ireland should, in part, be the responsibility of all parties in the Assembly. There is an issue as to whether it is correct in a democratic society to allow such a sensitive and important issue to be decoupled from the accountability and pluralism that this Executive and Assembly can give to it. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment, but I am not yet convinced by the soundness of those reasons. However, I am open to being convinced. Amendment No 11, which has been proposed by the SDLP, is a better attempt at the same issue. However, again I am not convinced that it will sufficiently improve the Bill or change it in any meaningful way. My party and I are, however, still open to being convinced otherwise. I am not convinced that amendment No 12 will be of benefit to any victims or victims’ groups. It smacks slightly of throwing the baby out with the bath water. To start again, or to invalidate the work of the commission on behalf of the victims because of a defect in the appointment of any members, which could be technical, innocent and no fault of the commissioner, may not be the most constructive move. Mrs Long: I, too, accept the concern that the Member has expressed with regard to amendment No 12. However, I said when I was going through the amendments that this would not automatically mean that the work of the commission was struck down. Nor would it mean that the appointments were struck down. It simply recognises the fact in law that it would be for a court to decide on what action to take, depending on the appointments process or any defect in that process. That would be the case, whether that line of text is included or taken out. It would be better for the House to reflect on the reality of the situation, which is that we cannot order a court how to proceed if defects are found in the appointments process. That is the reality whether that text is there or not. Mr Cree: I thank the Member for that explanation, which certainly makes sense. The Ulster Unionist Party supports amendment Nos 2 and 7. Mr Durkan: I rise to support amendment Nos 2 and 7. The question of ensuring that there will be a chief commissioner is an important one. The SDLP wants a commission that has corporate coherence and cogency. Indeed, we want a commission that has real and serious powers, comparable to those of the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Children’s Commissioner; and equivalent to the requirements of the Paris Principles. That is necessary so that if someone wants to bring a case or a complaint, then the commission can receive and investigate them, and command any relevant evidence — something which, at present, it cannot do. In order for the commission to do be able to do that, and to have those types of powers, it must have the same sort of cogency and coherence as other organisations. There must be someone who is clearly the chief, who takes the final decision when necessary and with whom the buck stops, and who can take the initiative and lead interventions in a positive and proactive way. That is what is needed. If Members are serious when they say that they want the commission to be able to work for victims and to deal with issues in a proper manner, then they should want it to have powers equivalent to those of the other commissions to which those proposing this Bill refer constantly. We are told repeatedly about the comparison with the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission when discussing the number of commissioners. However, we also want the issues of power, structure and corporate governance to be addressed. The commission would be better served with a chief commissioner who would be visible to people. Consequently, the commission would be taken more seriously, and that would also give us hope of its being awarded the sort of powers that are needed if it is to match the requirements of the Paris Principles. After all, the Paris Principles are about any Government-created body that deals with human-rights issues. Of the various commissions that exist, the victims’ commission does not satisfy human-rights standards. It is a terrible indictment of the Assembly that Members are producing a Bill to establish a victims’ commission, but that that victims’ commission does not adhere to the human-rights standards outlined in the Paris Principles. Those who beat their breasts and boast about their great work for victims, and claim that no one else has ever done anything for victims, must respond to that point. They will oppose the possibility of granting the commission further powers by insisting that it cannot even have a chief commissioner. 12.45 pm Over the past number of weeks, debates have been cancelled. Other parties took to the airwaves and said that a chief commissioner could not be appointed because that would create a hierarchy of commissioners and, therefore, a hierarchy of victims. That seems to confirm many peoples’ suspicions that appointing four separate commissioners implies that different commissioners have different victim constituencies, which would create difficulties. We were told that it was wrong to project that suspicion. One party sponsoring the Bill and the idea of having four commissioners said that the appointment of a chief commissioner would give rise to a hierarchy of victims. How would the appointment of a chief commissioner give rise to a hierarchy of victims? We need an answer to that question. I notice that Sinn Féin has not raised that specific argument in the Chamber today; they have gone quiet on it — but have not dropped it — in order to support the pretence of amendment No 8, which provides for the appointment of a chief commissioner in the future. During an earlier debate, the DUP outlined that there will be not only a chief commissioner, but also additional commissioners and, indeed, various part-time commissioners. Why is there concern about a hierarchy of commissioners? We heard from those on the opposite Benches that the part-time commissioners may have particular specialisms and interests. The arguments are contradictory and inconsistent. Mr Poots: The Member said previously that there could not be a chief commissioner. However, his speech now seems to accept that there can be a chief commissioner. The Member will recognise that we are here today because ten years ago we had the Belfast Agreement, which his party supported and eulogised, and which allowed terrorists to run free from prison. There was a period when the SDLP were in Government when nothing was done to help victims, and during that period, hundreds of thousands of pounds were allocated to the victims’ commission — as opposed to the tens of millions of pounds being allocated now. Since then, there has been an interim commissioner, and the victims’ commission is progressing: compare that with the record of Mr Durkan and his colleagues. Mr Durkan: I note that the Member barely addressed today’s issue and was not checked on that point. The Member said that I changed my mind on whether a chief commissioner could be appointed. I did no such thing. I made the point that his party and Sinn Féin will vote against the clear provision that there will be a chief commissioner — they are resisting such a provision. Instead, his party is trying to kid itself and everyone else with amendment No 8 — a cross between a fig leaf and a figment — which pretends that there could be a chief commissioner. However, everybody knows that Sinn Féin’s position has not changed. Although its Members might not repeat it in the Chamber, its position has not changed. Therefore, Mr Poots and others can pretend to have found an opening and an option, but the scenario is similar to that in the song ‘There’s a Hole in my Bucket’, because Sinn Féin will not agree to the appointment of a chief commissioner. Mr B McCrea: Does the Member agree that it is disappointing that, although he has made some fine points, the junior Minister to whom he addressed them is not in the Chamber for this important debate? Sinn Féin claims that this is an important matter; however, not too many of its Members are present. Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his point. I am sure that those Members have all sorts of other important business to carry out both here and elsewhere. Amendment No 8 purports to address several of the concerns that have been expressed by those of us other than the junior Minister who tabled amendments. Are the issues that we raised important enough to be addressed in a valid amendment — which, we are told, amendment No 8 is — or are our issues so specious and spurious as simply to be — as we are also being told — nit-picking and wrecking amendments? Which is it to be? Both those propositions cannot be true. Yet, we are being told that amendment No 8 is an attempt to address issues in good faith. However, the rest of us are being attacked for raising in our amendments those very issues that amendment No 8 now pretends to deal with. Amendment No 8, which we oppose, changes schedule 1, paragraph 9 to the Bill from a seven-line paragraph to a 27-line paragraph. It adds very little, other than to get the DUP off the hook about the position of a chief commissioner. Amendment No 8 also retains the provisions that were contained in the original paragraph 9 of schedule 1, which gave the First Minister and deputy First Minister powers to issue directions to the commission about its standing orders. Therefore, as well as dealing with the issue of a chief commissioner, amendment No 8 purports to deal with some of the issues that are connected to the commission’s procedures, not least in respect of its standing orders. In the schedule to the Bill, there is provision for standing orders to be made unanimously only by the commission — there is no provision for gridlock. Of course, it also allows the First Minister and deputy First Minister to override directions to add to or change those standing orders, even when the commission has agreed them unanimously. We tabled amendment No 11 in order to provide for a situation in which a clear majority of the commission may agree or amend standing orders. Rather than allowing an embarrassing gridlock to develop, that amendment allows for standing orders to be referred to the First Minister and deputy First Minister for approval on the basis of sufficient consensus. Those who have argued against our amendment say that they do not want to create a situation in which the commission’s standing orders are referred to OFMDFM. That is because they say that that office should not be involved in that sort of thing. However, the Bill as it stands — and the proposed amendment — gives the First Minister and deputy First Minister the power of direction over the commission’s standing orders at any time. It is nonsense to say that what is being suggested is an attempt to insulate OFMDFM from difficulties in the commission, or, indeed, vice versa. Furthermore, in addition to the provisions in the Bill that allow the First Minister and deputy First Minister to appoint or remove members of the commission, there are more than a dozen other cases in which the work of the commission and its limited powers are subject to approval from, or screening by, OFMDFM. Again, we are puncturing the pretence that the First Minister and deputy First Minister will not be immersed in some of the issues that affect the commission. They will be, and the Bill provides for that. The arguments that have been given previously against what the SDLP has provided for in amendment No 11 — or what the Alliance Party, coming at the issue from a slightly different route, is providing for in amendment Nos 9 and 10 — do not stack up. Both the SDLP and the Alliance Party have tried to resolve the gridlocked situation in a fair and practical way. The amendment proposed by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister simply threatens to recycle that gridlock in various ways. We support amendment No 12. I note Mr Cree’s concern that that amendment might allow the commission’s good work to be struck down completely by any legal challenge. That would be unlikely. Court decisions are proportionate in their consequential requirements; we have seen that in other cases. However, it would be a dangerous precedent for the Assembly, in its first year of restored devolution, and given that it has not discharged much legislation, to pass legislation that deliberately tries to insulate the Government — as we are told that we should now call it — from the consequences of legal challenge. I have opposed such attempts in another place, as have some of the Members opposite. I remember when the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill went through Westminster. It contained provisions that allowed the Secretary of State to insulate himself and others from any possible legal challenges about the Bill’s effects. Members objected strongly to that on a point of principle. We must have careful regard to that. I do not want to set a precedent that could result in legislation from any Department containing clauses or provisions to insulate that Department from legal challenges. As we go through this bundle of amendments, we must be careful and know the various issues that we are dealing with. Several Members who have discussed the various amendments have again dragged up the claim that nothing was done for victims before. The Good Friday Agreement made clear promises to victims. I have always been upfront in saying that those promises were never fulfilled. As I recall, the SDLP and the Alliance Party tried to address the issue of victims at Weston Park, as on other occasions. We did not succeed; victims did not get a mention in the Government’s declaration, and we complained about that at the time. Similarly, during the negotiation of the joint declaration that was produced in the spring of 2003, we pressed for a victims’ and survivors’ forum, but we found only a very lukewarm reference in the declaration. We were told that that was because the forum was opposed by other parties. When the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister introduced and consulted on the victims’ strategy, the DUP heckled, disrupted and undermined it on the issue of the definition of “victim”. We must remember that there were two victims’ units at that time. The NIO was handling several victims’ issues, while in the devolved Administration — Mr Poots: Excuses, excuses. Mr Speaker: Order. The Member has the Floor. Mr Durkan: The First Minister and deputy First Minister took the initiative that there should be a victims liaison unit in the context of devolution as well. Moneys and various means were identified, although they were not enough. However, those who are telling us about the victims’ strategy that is highlighted in the Programme for Government and those who tell us about funding for victims have still not told us what the victims’ commission will do or say about the victims’ strategy or about funding. It is still the case that, if someone has a grievance or complaint about a decision on the allocation of funding for victims, he or she will have no mission of going to the victims’ commission about it. 1.00 pm The commission for victims and survivors is in no position to receive any complaint, or to pursue any complaint, enquiry or investigation. Earlier, we were told that something that comes from one Department, or its Minister, is deemed to have come from the Government as a whole, because that Department is part of the Government — Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Member; he may return to his speech after lunchtime. The Business Committee has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — 2.00 pm Mr Durkan: Before the debate was suspended, I made the point that we had been told that an initiative from the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister amounted to an initiative from Government. Furthermore, it was argued from a sedentary position that an initiative made by a part of the Government is the same as one from the Government. In the commission for victims and survivors, there will be no chief commissioner. At least one of the parties in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will not allow there to be a chief commissioner, now or in the future. Things may, or may not, be done in the name of the commission. Individual commissioners will engage with different people, and we have been told that different commissioners will have different specialisms. The question arises whether something said or done by a commissioner is said or done on behalf of the commission. That is a recipe for all sorts of confusion, misinterpretation and misrepresentation, which we could well do without. Misunderstandings might arise about communications or events in which individual commissioners are involved. Should the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister take those up with the individual commissioners or with the commission as a whole? The kinds of issue that might arise, and the matters that should be ironed out or clarified, illustrate the good sense in having a chief commissioner, with whom any issue may be raised and addressed. That avoids the need to contact all the commissioners equally and at the same time. If some commissioners are contacted and others are not, a record is made of unequal contact, communication and engagement between the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the commissioners. Alternatively, real contact between that office and the commission might be through whoever is the chief officer of the commission, which, in turn, raises issues about the real standing of the commissioners. Amendment No 8 provides for review, but we know that parties in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister do not seriously intend to conduct such a review. Practice will show that those provisions need to be substantially reviewed. Later developments will show that the review should be held, and that significant changes in the legislation should be made, at this stage. We should not simply pass on a direct rule Bill. No changes are made to the powers, functions or remit of the commission, even though the Bill creates a commission instead of a commissioner. The Assembly should not declare itself satisfied with the limited provision made by a direct rule Order in Council. That is not a good message for the Assembly to send out on any issue but, most importantly, not one involving victims and survivors. The junior Minister (Mr Donaldson): I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate. The amendments are complex and the issues bear detailed discussion which, I am glad to say, is taking place. I wish to respond to points made by various contributors. Mrs Kelly a Member for Upper Bann, said that there was a lack of consensus and leadership on the part of the Office of the First Minster and deputy First Minister. Yet the amendments that we have tabled, including amendment No 8, represent a consensus in OFMDFM, and there is agreement on how those issues should be addressed. As to leadership, we have presented the Bill and, if it passes, we will proceed with the appointment of a commission, which will play a crucial role in addressing the multiplicity of issues that affect the victims’ sector in Northern Ireland. When leadership is required, we seek to ensure that we are |