Northern Ireland Assembly, 31 January 2000

195 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Before calling Mr Wilson to move the motion in his name, I wish to point out that under Standing Order 12(7) motions pertaining to the business of the Assembly must be taken at the commencement of public business, after notice, and shall be decided without amendment or debate.

To provide more time for debate on the substantive motion tomorrow afternoon, the Business Committee has recommended that Standing Order 10(2)(b), which relates to the Adjournment debate, be suspended. That sub-paragraph states

"on each Tuesday on which there is a sitting there shall be an Adjournment Debate commencing at 3.00 pm and finishing at 6.00 pm".

Mr Wilson was the sole applicant to speak in the Adjournment debate, and he has agreed that this motion should be moved in his name.

Resolved:

That Standing Orders 10(2)(b) and 10(6) shall be suspended for the sitting of the Assembly on Tuesday 1 February 2000. — [Mr S Wilson]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he wishes to make a statement in relation to the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council held on 24 January 2000.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I wish to make a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall take the point of order in a moment.

After the Minister has made his statements I shall allow up to 30 minutes for questions.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I want to raise the question of the amendment that my party put down to the take-note motion standing in the name of the Official Unionist Party for tomorrow. Anyone who is familiar with parliamentary procedure will know that "taking note" is meaningless. It means simply that note is taken without any action. When this report comes out, the Assembly is entitled to decide how it feels about it, and the aim of our amendment was to give the Assembly that right. I was quite amazed to receive word from you, Mr Speaker, that you were turning our amendment down and, thus, not allowing the Assembly to make a decision.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member knows well from his experience of other places — in particular, the House of Commons — that it is for the Speaker to make such decisions, after thought. The Member knows me well enough to know that I would not take any such decisions lightly or without due thought. I have done that. The Member will also be aware that it is not appropriate for the Chair to give reasons for accepting or rejecting any amendment.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The fundamental rule in relation to an amendment is that it must be relevant to the subject that is to be debated. There is absolutely no doubt that the amendment was relevant. In any other democratic establishment, that would have been an acceptable amendment. For our guidance, you must at least give us some indication of the basis upon which you turned down such a bona fide amendment. Otherwise we will be submitting amendments in the future and not know why they are being turned down.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member knows very well that it is quite out of order for the Chair to give reasons for the acceptance or rejection of amendments, and I have given my ruling. I trust that Members will understand that I do not make any decisions from this Chair lightly, and I have not done so in this case. I have made my decision. I have given my ruling; and we must move on.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not right to say —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have given my ruling. It is very clear. It is proper. It is in order, and it was made with due thought. It would be improper for me to give reasons for my decision, and I am calling the Minister.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a new point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I am not taking any more points of order until after the Minister —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On what basis can you refuse to take a point of order?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am perfectly entitled to refuse and to decide —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That is right: throw the rule book out.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

If the Member knows the rulebook so well he will know that in another place points of order are regularly taken at a time determined by the Speaker. We are now moving —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When will you take it?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

We are now moving on. It is clear to me that the Member wants to make a point of order on a subject on which I have already ruled. If there is another point of order, it will have to wait until after the Minister has spoken. I call the Minister.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I will take the point of order after we have taken the questions to the Minister.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I give notice that we will raise this matter again before the debate.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member is entitled to raise this whenever he chooses. I have called the Minister.

North/South Ministerial Council Meeting (24/01/2000)

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I should like to report to the Assembly on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council that was held in sectoral format in Newry on Monday 24 January. Following nomination by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, Dr Farren and I attended that meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Ms Mary Harney TD, Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This report has been approved by Dr Farren and is also made on his behalf.

The Council agreed that the following persons be appointed as chairpersons and vice-chairpersons of the respective bodies: Food Safety Promotion Board — chairperson Bertie Kerr, vice-chairperson Prof Mike Gibney; Trade and Business Development Body — chairperson Martin Naughton, vice-chairperson Harold Ennis; North/South Language Body — joint chairperson for Irish Language Maighréad Uí Mháirtín, and joint chairperson for Ulster-Scots Lord Laird of Artigarvan.

The Council also agreed that Mr Don Anderson be appointed to the Food Safety Promotion Board. The Council further approved procedures for the recruitment of the chief executive of the Trade and Business Development Body.

The Council received a verbal report from Mr Liam Nellis, interim chief executive of the Trade and Business Development Body, on the progress to date in establishing the body and on drafting its future work. The body already has a core staff of 12, drawn from officials North and South, operating in temporary offices in Belfast before moving to permanent accommodation in Newry.

The Council approved an indicative timetable to which the board of the Trade and Business Development Body will work in submitting activity proposals and operational issues to the council for approval.

The Council agreed the following dates for future sectoral meetings in relation to the Trade and Business Development Body: Wednesday 22 March in the South; Wednesday 17 May in Newry; Wednesday 6 September in the South; and Wednesday 6 December in Newry.

The Council agreed the text of a communiqué which was issued following the meeting. A copy of the communiqué has been placed in the Assembly Library.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

For the benefit of Members, can the Minister indicate which political parties nominated which chairmen and vice-chairmen?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The chairpersons and deputy chairpersons were chosen and authorised by the Executive Committee. The names were put forward at the initial inaugural meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council held in Armagh on 13 December 1999. The nominations put forward by the Irish Government and by the Northern Ireland Executive were considered, and a decision was taken on the nominations at that meeting. It was not possible at that stage to proceed to nominate the persons formally, and it was decided on 13 December 1999 that the first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in sectoral format would take the decision on the appointment of the chairpersons and deputy chairpersons.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister has not answered the question: which of the nominees have been nominated by which political parties in Northern Ireland? I would be grateful for an answer.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The answer is that names came from a variety of sources. Ultimately, the Executive Committee and the Irish Government decided, jointly, to name the chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of the bodies.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The last question has not been answered clearly. Does the Minister feel that there is a conflict of interest in the appointment of Mr Kerr as chairman, given that his son is press secretary to the First Minister?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

No. The hon Member should be careful. I could make analogies about the closeness of persons to other persons in various other activities. The people that have been assembled to perform these functions are of a very high calibre and quality. I am satisfied that as a farmer, a primary producer and someone who has paid attention to that industry throughout his life, Mr Kerr will be very capable of chairing this body. I look forward to seeing his success in that.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Does the Minister agree that the market represented by international, multinational branch plants in the Republic of Ireland is growing very rapidly? Furthermore, does he agree that Northern Ireland companies have a very small proportion of sub-supply to that market? Does he agree that the North/South Ministerial Council in sectoral format is a means of winning valuable new orders and jobs for our small and medium-sized enterprises?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The hon Member will know very well that small and medium-sized enterprises are the core and backbone of business and commerce in Northern Ireland. He will also know that the level of trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic is dismally low. Members may well be aware that more than 93% and 94% respectively of the trade of our two economies is not with each other. This is astonishing in view of the fact that we have a land border.

One of the key objectives set out for this body on 18 December 1998 was to focus on the promotion of North/South supply chains, including business linkages and partnerships. With the effort and enthusiasm that I believe exists on both sides, and the exceptionally high calibre of the people from a wide range of disciplines who have joined the board, I am confident that this body will do much to improve trade between the two economies, which, as I have said, starts from an exceptionally low base. Increased trade is equivalent to increased investment. It produces jobs and works its way through the economy. That is one of the primary purposes of this body, and I am confident that it will succeed.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

May I ask the Minister what qualifications two of the people whose appointments he has announced have? I refer to the new chairman of the Food Safety Promotion Board, Bertie Kerr, an Ulster Unionist councillor from Fermanagh, and the chairman of the Trade and Business Development Body, Martin Naughton, head of Glen Dimplex, whose workforce is over 90% Roman Catholic.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

We have to be very careful if we are going to focus on personalities in these matters. However, if we wish to do so, let us do so. Mr Kerr is a senior member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union and chairs one of its subcommittees. If the impression is that a farmer is inappropriate for or incapable of doing the work of the Food Safety Promotion Board, there is something radically wrong. Food safety promotion starts with the primary producers. I can think of no person better equipped to deal with that than someone who is actually engaged in the industry. This is one of our key industries. It has tended to be dominated by consumer groups, but producer groups are also important. The board as a whole is balanced, with people representing consumer interests, the general public and others.

With regard to the chairperson of the Trade and Business Development Body, I think that most people accept that he and his deputy are two very acceptable individuals who have had significant success in trade and business. If there is some particular complaint against that person’s company, no doubt there are ways and means of processing that. From what I can see, Mr Naughton is a significant employer both in this economy and in the Republic’s. After seeing the response that he and his deputy received at the inaugural meeting in Newry, I have little doubt that that view is shared by the rest of his board.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

The Minister has said that the primary responsibility for food safety lies with producers. Does he not agree that the primary responsibility lies with consumers? Clearly there are sometimes incompatible debates between producers and consumers. Might it not have been best to find someone from outside the field for that particular post? Was the decision unanimous?

I note that the council has approved procedures for the recruitment of a chief executive for the Trade and Business Development Body. Will the Minister give details of these procedures? Is it his intention to consider the gender of those who are about to take up positions?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

When it comes to the promotion of food safety, everyone is concerned. We are all consumers. It is not good enough to say that because consumer groups are active in protecting and promoting the interests of consumers they have an exclusive right to chair every body that deals with these matters.

There are scientifically based persons involved as well. As Members know from recent decisions in Great Britain, persons were chosen there who did not come from any of the groups. My view remains that all groups are equally entitled to representation. Someone with an agricultural background has been chosen in this case, and it is not right to say that any person with such a farming background ought to be excluded from having a say or from chairing this body.

With regard to procedures, a significant range of issues was dealt with relating to the appointment of a chief executive. There is an interim chief executive in place. It was decided that the best procedure would be to ensure that the job was widely advertised, and criteria covering the various matters have been established. I would have no hesitation in writing to the hon Lady with the precise details of the proposals.

The intention is to ensure that a person of high calibre is attracted to this post. The gender and background of any applicant will be subject — as is the case with all these appointments — to statutory requirements, and that is written into the criteria that the hon Lady will see. I am very confident that the procedures are in place that will ensure a fair and open competition for these posts. The final decision on the appointment of the chief executive will rest with the council and with Ministers.

John Taylor (UUP, Strangford)

Can the Minister tell us a little more about the interim chief executive? Who appointed him? Whence did he come? And what was his position prior to this interim appointment?

The 12 core staff members are to be based in Newry in Northern Ireland. Will all 12 appointments comply with fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland, or will some staff members working in Northern Ireland not comply while others will be required to do so?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The interim chief executive is Mr Liam Nellis. His position was identified by both Governments prior to the passage of the devolution legislation. He is in a temporary position. Mr Nellis should be well known to some Colleagues as he has been seconded to this position from the Industrial Development Board, where he built up a very significant reputation. The presentation which we received demonstrated that he has very significant abilities.

All of the current appointments are temporary secondees, and no one has been formally appointed. That will not happen until open competitions are held for the posts, and the open competitions are such that the staff could come not only from Northern Ireland but from anywhere in the European Union. As the right hon Member knows, the open competitions will be widely advertised, and applicants could emerge from anywhere.

On the question of whether the terms and conditions will comply with fair employment and other legislation, the answer is yes. That will be rigorously guaranteed in the recruitment procedures.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I note that the Minister has outlined a programme of meetings up to December of this year. In the circumstances, I welcome his optimism on this issue. When the programme of work is being drawn up for the Trade and Business Development Body, will he, unlike some of his Executive Colleagues, consult with the relevant Committee of the Assembly — the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee — about it? Will he also regularly inform the Committee of any developments that take place?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The initial agenda for the work programme of the Trade and Business Development Body was foreshadowed in the agreement of 18 December 1998. The initial work programmes were also identified in the actual legislation. So at an early stage in the proceedings the work programmes were signalled by the legislation.

The House approved four time-specific items in February 1999: an equity investment fund, graduate and other placement programmes, North/South testing services and standards development and certification programmes. Some of the items are technical, and reports have to be produced on them within three months.

The body is also committed to the creation of a corporate plan and funding requirements. Without a corporate plan it would be impossible to do the business in the future. The specific dates were timed to allow approvals to be given at each stage so that the body could get started. The corporate plan would be the first item to be approved, and, in parallel with that, work is continuing on the four time-specific items.

I am an enthusiast for the committee system in the Assembly. I believe that it is an integral and key part of the process. Any matter under the jurisdiction or control of a committee can be raised by it — and that includes this body. I would be happy to share my views and proposals with the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee and to appear before it. Indeed, I would be happy to take the advice of the Committee on any appropriate input that should be given to this body.

P J Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

I welcome the appointment of Mr Bertie Kerr to the chair of the Food Safety Promotion Board. He is a farmer, and there is no profession in the North of Ireland that has a greater interest in the quality and success of the end product. I welcome the fact that a farmer has been appointed to the chair, and I am sure the Minister also welcomes the appointment.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his comments, and I share his views entirely.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Was it agreed that particular political parties would nominate for the Northern Ireland share of these eight positions? I want a clear answer from the Minister.

Does the Minister agree that this carve-up, which includes at least two paid-up members of the Ulster Unionist Party and a member of Sinn Féin, stinks of political cronyism that would do Tony Blair’s Labour Party proud?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I refer the Member to the answer that I gave some time ago. The names that were suggested came from a variety of sources, including parties. The nominations were looked at and the decisions taken by the North/South Ministerial Council. In other words, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government had names placed before them, and they made the actual appointments. Members of political parties are not excluded from appointment in the United Kingdom, in the Irish Republic or in other parts of Europe. I am sure that if Mr Wilson had been interested in putting names forward we would have considered them as well.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am sure the Minister will agree that when a person who has clear and distinct political affiliations with a particular party is appointed as a chairman or a member of any of these boards, it immediately calls into question his or her other qualifications for the post. The Minister has said that Mr Bertie Kerr is a farmer and that he therefore has an interest in food safety and promotion. Of course, the same criteria could be applied to a cleaner in an abattoir.

What is required from the Minister is an answer defining — beyond party affiliations and a relationship with Mr Trimble’s PR consultant — Mr Kerr’s qualifications. What qualifications has he in the general area of food-safety promotion? What experience has he of chairing such a body, and what experience has he in the subject matter of this committee? It is not good enough to simply say that he is a farmer. Using that criterion, we could have a farmer as the Minister of Agriculture for the United Kingdom.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The hon Member has made a number of broad points. However, with respect to specific qualifications, Mr Kerr has been chair and secretary of the Fermanagh district of the Ulster Farmers’ Union. He has also been chairman of a task force on agriculture in County Fermanagh. As Members will be aware, that county has suffered drastically over a long period, particularly due to the BSE crisis. Mr Kerr was very active in County Fermanagh farming circles at that time. Someone who has had —in addition to his role in the district council and in the economic development aspect of that council’s work— hands-on experience and who has chaired a task force dealing with the implications of a failure in food safety and the direct consequences of that to the farming community is probably better qualified to deal with these situations than others who may consider themselves to be so qualified.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

The Minister will be delighted to know that I strongly endorse the involvement of the farming community in the cross-border bodies and in food safety. I think that nobody else is better placed.

Will the cross-border trade and business development body have any power to create new methods of funding for small businesses? I am thinking in particular of the establishment of venture capital funds or micro-lending to drive small new technology projects. Can the Minister tell us what areas will be explored in the general terms of equity investment in small businesses? I see that as the lifeblood of new business and jobs.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The hon Member knows fully the potential there is for equity investment to assist small companies. I indicated earlier that there were a number of matters that were preordained to be part of the agenda of this body. As far as initiating new programmes to assist small and medium-sized enterprises with research and implementing joint venture partnerships on a North/South basis are concerned, the North/South Ministerial Council has instructed the body to bring forward to the council, within three months, proposals on developing a North/South equity investment fund. So the work will start soon, to see what is available and what can be done.

The venture capital market has changed significantly since December 1998 when those decisions were taken. More people have entered the market. We have had the American involvement in the micro-lending scheme which has been headed by Mr Lyons. We will have an announcement shortly on the Veridian growth fund, and we have had other players come into the market. The task now will be to see if there is a particular niche market that can be identified. Funding will be made available through this body. However, the question is: what can that funding attract from the private sector, and whom can it attract from that sector?

When dealing with venture capital we have discovered that part of the problem is that the minimum threshold that some of these companies take is too high for many of the small or medium-size ones that we want to help. The other big problem that many of these companies have is the fear that they are losing a degree of equity and that they will have to surrender a portion of their company to the venture capitalist. That has created a barrier. More people are taking advantage of such capital, and if we can identify a genuine market that is not currently being served by the private sector — or by the private sector in conjunction with the public sector — I intend to ensure that we concentrate on that. I am sure that, from experience, we realise that we must remove the barriers between small and medium-size enterprises and the acquisition of capital. That will be the objective of this fund.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

May I go back to the chairpersons’ nominations? These are powerful executive all-Ireland bodies. It is important that we deal with this. With reference to Martin Naughton’s nomination, was any cognisance taken of the fact that Glen Dimplex has such a poor record for employing Protestants in a particular area? As regards Bertie Kerr’s nomination to the Food Safety Promotion Board, given Mr Empey’s great concern about the primary producers, can he confirm that he consulted the Ulster Farmer’s Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association about this?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member has talked about these powerful executive all-Ireland bodies. May I remind him that the legislation sets out the fact that the functions of the body will be exercised by the board. It will at all times act in accordance with any directions, whether of a general or a specific nature, given by the North/South Ministerial Council. A body cannot operate on its own — [Interruption] If the laughter were to terminate for a moment, Members would realise that the North/South Ministerial Council can proceed only by agreement. The agendas and functions that are given to these bodies will be given by Ministers, by agreement, before the body is able to operate. I have no doubt that the boards will be accountable and will act only in accordance with the directions they are given. That is their specific responsibility.

Nominations were not sought from any public bodies with regard to the individuals who were put forward by the process. I repeat that I am unaware of any successful challenges to Mr Naughton’s employment practices. If there had been, no doubt the Member would have drawn them to our attention. One of Mr Naughton’s enterprises is Seagoe Technologies in Portadown, so his group of companies spans both sides of the border and provides very useful and profitable work for a large number of people.

Joe Byrne (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Can the Minister outline how the new cross-border Trade and Business Development Body might be used effectively to help business activity in the border area, particularly from Derry to Newry? Does he agree that the current punt/pound exchange rate problem is having an adverse effect on Northern Ireland businesses?

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member and some of his Colleagues spoke to me on another matter to do with exchange rates. He is quite right: it is creating many problems. Ironically, in particular circumstances where businesses produce articles with a large quantity of imported materials, the exchange rate has helped them to lower their prices. This has helped some of them to off-set the difficulties with exchange rates, and there has not been the collapse in cross-border trade that might have been anticipated. Indeed, it has continued to grow year on year despite the currency exchange rate.

However, the degree to which the currencies have diverged in recent months may be of such a magnitude that that cannot continue. At the moment I do not have any official figures or estimates to give me an indication as to what that trend will be, but it cannot be ignored.

I suspect that the body will be asked to look at specific areas, perhaps specific geographical areas, to see what can be done. I mentioned the development of supply chains. Let me give a simple example. Companies on each side of the border may be importing products from other parts of the world even though they are available a few miles away. As I have said, cross-border trade is a small part of each economy, and when the figure is drawn to the attention of people outside our jurisdiction they are surprised by how little activity there is. The irony of our current situation is that as we approach the removal of political barriers to co-operation, the currency has become a more effective barrier than any constitutional difficulties that we have had in the past.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must ask the Minister to draw his reply to a close.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

We spoke about this last Monday, and I can assure the Member that the body is clear that there are opportunities to proceed and look at matters geographically. I have no doubt that that will be pursued.

Assembly Business

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir Reg has kindly addressed the House at the first opportunity following his meeting. Have you had notice that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will come to the House this morning to make a statement on maternity services in Belfast?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As the Member knows, the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will answer questions this afternoon, and there is to be a debate on the issue to which the Member refers. Members know that two and a half hours’ notice is required for a statement. I have not received such notice. If I had, I would have conveyed it to the House.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The difficulty is that there will be no opportunity this afternoon to question the Minister in debating terms.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is an extraordinary suggestion since a two-hour debate is scheduled, for which I am sure the Minister will be present. The time to put questions and seek ministerial response on this issue is in that debate. Given Members’ creative imaginations, supplementary questions may sneak their way into health, social services and public safety questions, for which half an hour has been allotted this afternoon.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said in response to a point of order that it would not have been in order for you to give a reason for not accepting an amendment. I ask you to reconsider that, because, although you do not have to give a reason for your decision, it would not be out of order for you to do so, and it would be helpful.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is not appropriate for me to give reasons from the Chair. The Member knows that I am open to conversations outside the Chamber with any Member. A reason given from the Chair would not be proper and would be a breach of precedent in other places. Such action would set an unsatisfactory precedent.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that during the debate this afternoon there will be an opportunity for supplementary questions? My understanding is that there was no such opportunity during previous debates.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There will be no opportunity for supplementary questions. I know of no place in the world where there is an opportunity for supplementary questions after a debate. Members will have an opportunity to speak in the debate, which, I suspect, will be energetic, so I shall have to consider the question of time limits. The Minister is not required to respond but may well do so, perhaps towards the end of the debate. The opportunity for supplementary questions is during Question Time, which will take place this afternoon between 2.30 pm and 4.00 pm.

We must move to the next item of business. I have received notice from the First Minister that he wishes to make a statement on the proposed programme of legislation for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Legislative Programme

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on my own behalf and that of the Deputy First Minister relating to the legislative priorities of the Executive Committee as identified thus far.

Members will recall that the press release issued following the Executive Committee meeting of 18 January announced that four Bills would be brought forward to the Assembly in this session. Of those, the Equality (Disability, etc) Bill has already been introduced. The first of the Appropriation Bills will follow shortly — the second will be introduced in June. The timing of the introduction of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill will depend on the progress of the parity Bill currently before the House of Commons. The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the law relating to child support, occupational pensions, war pensions, social security benefits and social security administration. It is hoped that this Bill will be introduced before the summer recess.

Members will know that the Equality (Disability, etc) Bill was introduced in the Assembly on 24 January. The reason for moving ahead with the legislation in advance of this statement relates to timing. The Bill would confer additional disability enforcement powers on the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. These powers would be broadly similar to those conferred on the Disability Rights Commission in Great Britain by the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. In Great Britain the Disability Rights Commission will come into operation on 25 April 2000. Northern Ireland must have similar legislation on this important matter. To enable this Bill to be finalised in time to match the Great Britain timetable, it was necessary to introduce it ahead of this announcement.

In addition to the Equality and Appropriation Bills, the intention is that five Assembly measures will be introduced in February 2000.

The first is the Trustee (Amendment) Bill. This Bill aims to modernise the law on trustee investments by giving trustees wider investment powers. It would introduce for Northern Ireland provisions parallel to Great Britain legislation on the appointment and retirement of trustees.

The Ground Rents Bill would introduce measures to simplify the process by which residential property owners can buy out ground rents and acquire freehold title. This would simplify the conveyancing process in Northern Ireland.

The main purpose of the Deregulation (Weights and Measures) Bill is to introduce self-verification, third-party testing and pre-test stamping of equipment used for weighing or measuring.

The Dogs Bill would amend the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 to give a court or resident magistrate discretion in all circumstances in determining the fate of a dog, including the circumstances of an attack.

Finally, the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill would introduce a package of measures relating to fisheries. In particular, it would enhance the functions of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission in relation to the promotion and development and licensing of aquaculture in the loughs. It would also include measures dealing with the promotion and development of angling, improvements to licence control, conservation and protection and the regulation of the collection of shellfish from the foreshore. This Bill needs to proceed in parallel with corresponding legislation in the Republic of Ireland.

In addition to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill and the second Appropriation Bill, there are three Bills which it is intended to introduce before the summer recess.

The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill should be ready for introduction in mid-April. The main purpose of this Bill will be to create a statutory basis for inter-country adoption, ensuring that this takes place only when it is in the interests of the child and that children adopted from overseas enjoy the same legal status as those adopted in Northern Ireland.

The Health and Personal Social Services (Amendment) Bill should be ready for introduction in May or June. It would establish the Northern Ireland Social Care Council. This body would regulate the social work profession and other social care workers. It would be one of four regional bodies, replacing the UK-wide central council for education and training of social workers.

Of particular local interest, not just in Belfast but throughout Northern Ireland, will be the intention to introduce a Street Trading Bill in June. This Bill aims to permit and support a licensing system to avoid nuisance, interference and inconvenience to persons and vehicles. It will introduce a raft of measures giving district councils power to designate areas where trading may take place, to decide on licence applications, set conditions and fees and take more effective steps to deal with illegal street trading.

So far, I have mentioned only the primary legislation that we intend to bring forward before the summer recess. This is not, of course, an exhaustive list, and it does not preclude other items coming forward. There are a number of other measures which we want to bring forward later in the year but which are not yet ready because of policy or parity issues that have still to be resolved. These include a Limited Liability Partnership Bill, a Financial Services and Markets Bill, an Insolvency Bill, a Resource Accounting and Budgeting Bill, and a Landlords’ Liability for Defective Premises Bill.

Of course, legislation will be necessary to deal with the sale of Belfast harbour, but until the Assembly decides on the precise formulation for that, we will not be in a position to bring any legislation forward.

I am advised by the Minister for Regional Development that there are a number of measures which he hopes to bring forward in a Transport Bill before the summer recess. I will be asking the Procedures Committee to consider, particularly in relation to Bills which will not have completed their passage before the summer recess, an amendment to Standing Order 39, paragraph 4. It would be simpler and more practical if we could ensure that Bills were carried forward from one Assembly session to the next.

This programme is not exhaustive but reflects the legislative needs identified by the Executive Committee so far. As Ministers bring forward new policy initiatives and the programme of government is developed, I expect that additional legislative proposals will be brought to the Assembly.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the First Minister for giving us details of the intended programme of legislation. It outlines a number of very significant and sensitive issues that we are all concerned about, and we know that the legislation must be brought forward quickly. I look forward to examining the various Bills as they come through the House.

Can the First Minister confirm that there was adequate consultation with the Disability Action representative from the Equality Commission before the Equality (Disability, etc) Bill was laid and that there will be adequate consultation with relevant bodies before the other legislation is passed?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

With respect to the Equality (Disability, etc) Bill, the Member will recall that this proposal has a long history. Originally, it was going to come forward as an Order in Council, and, in that respect, significant consultation had taken place. The Equality Commission met with the Deputy First Minister and myself to urge that the Bill be brought forward as quickly as possible in order to meet the March target for the operation of equivalent legislation across the water.

Under the Order in Council procedure we were accustomed to having extensive consultation with various interests before the introduction of legislation. This was because under that procedure there was not a proper debate in a legislature, with appropriate consideration being given, or a committee structure where amendments could be brought forward. Pre-legislation consultation was, in my view, a very inadequate substitute for the proper legislative procedures that we now have.

Of course, consultation with various interests will take place, where appropriate, before policy is formulated and before legislation is brought forward. However, society should generally regard the legislative procedures of this House — its Committee Stages in particular — as the best vehicle for ensuring that a particular interest in the detail of legislation is considered.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I am encouraged by that.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I remind Members that we will be taking half an hour for these questions.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

Does the First Minister accept that there is enormous concern among the angling community in South Down at the proposal in the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill that all the waters flowing into Carlingford Lough will be under the control of a cross-border executive body? The bailiffs who have served the area well under the Fisheries Conservancy Board will be made redundant, and control of fishery activity will be handed over to bailiffs from the Irish Republic who do not know the area. A new licensing system will also be introduced whereby anglers will have to buy licences from both the Fisheries Conservancy Board and the new cross-border body. Does the First Minister accept that what is proposed in this Bill does not have the support of both sides of the angling community in that area?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am aware of the concerns to which the Member refers. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. It is ridiculous that Members and others are leaving their telephones switched on in the Chamber. This matter has been raised before, and it is absolutely clear that it is discourteous to the Assembly. It has happened on three occasions already this morning, and that is not acceptable. If it continues we will have to request that the Doorkeepers ask Members to leave their telephones outside the Chamber. And what applies to Members applies also to those in the Gallery also.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

As I was saying, I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the south Down area, but one should not prejudge this matter. It should not be assumed that the introduction of the new arrangements will automatically mean that those currently working with the Fisheries Conservancy Board will lose their jobs or be transferred elsewhere. People may be able to continue in their jobs or, at least, to apply for posts under the new arrangements.

Regarding his other concerns, the Member will be aware that what is happening in the south Down area parallels what has been happening in the Foyle catchment basin for nearly half a century. This is not an entirely novel proposal, and it works reasonably successfully there. There is no reason to suppose that it cannot work in a similar way in the south Down area.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Can the First Minister explain what is wrong with Standing Order 39(4)? Why does it need an amendment?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for raising this point. Under the current Standing Orders there is a provision to carry over legislation from one session to another with the leave of the House, which might or might not be granted. This could cause a problem with parity legislation, and the problem will arise in particular with the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. This is parity legislation which affects payment of benefits.

The equivalent legislation is going through the House of Commons, and it will not complete its passage there until shortly before the recess. Consequently, we are limited in how far we can proceed with the measure in this Chamber, because we can amend legislation only during the Consideration Stage, and we cannot amend provisions until they have completed the last stage in London at which an amendment can occur. Towards the end of our session, maybe even later, we might have to try to introduce a Bill very quickly. That would obviously cause difficulties, because we must have the Northern Ireland Bill on the statute book at the same time as the Great Britain Bill comes into operation, and that is intended to be the beginning of October.

There is a unified process for the payment of benefit in both areas. Everything is on one computer, and with regard to parity legislation coming into operation, we cannot permit a gap of even one day. The potential difficulty in carrying over legislation from one session to another could create such a gap. This is an important matter, particularly with regard to parity legislation, and it is therefore appropriate that the Procedure Committee re-examine this issue in order to ensure that there will not be a gap in respect of benefit entitlement.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I listened to the First Minister’s statement with interest, and it seems to me that the programme is fairly unadventurous, to say the least. Some people might feel that the Assembly needs to find its feet gently. However, does the First Minister not agree that there is an urgent need for the Assembly to prove its value to the wider community and to show that it makes a real difference to the lives of ordinary people in Northern Ireland?

The Bills which have been suggested may be worthy, but they seem intended merely to bring Northern Ireland legislation into line with that in the rest of the UK and to comply with European directives. How does the Assembly intend to show the policy innovation that is supposed to be the hallmark of regional government?

It is almost six weeks since the Minister of Finance and Personnel made his Budget statement. Why are we still waiting for an Appropriations Bill?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

With regard to Mr Neeson’s last point, I expect the Appropriations Bill to be introduced very soon, and I hope it will proceed quickly through the Chamber.

On the Member’s more general comments, I am glad that he at least finds the programme to be worthy. It may be unadventurous and largely to do with achieving parity, but it also brings forward proposals which were in the pipeline when we assumed office. There will be a need for us, in terms of the development of the programme of government, to consider what areas of policy the Assembly wishes to develop and carry forward. The consideration of these matters rests with Ministers, with Departments and also with the appropriate Committees. It will take time for the Assembly to evolve its own policies, but it is better to take that time than to rush matters in order to grab a few headlines. That is not how we intend to proceed.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

I am grateful to the First Minister for the information.

May I enquire where the Dangerous Wild Animals Act (1976) has got to? The Minister of the Environment promised us that plans were in place to introduce equivalent legislation here. Is the First Minister aware of the ridiculous situation, particularly in my constituency of West Tyrone, whereby a person can walk up the street of Omagh town with a lion on a piece of binder twine as a pet, yet a farmer cannot move his livestock without a permit? Even a dog requires a permit. I ask the First Minister to consider seriously the fact that these animals are being fed on dead domestic animals and that there is a high consequential risk of disease being imported from all over the constituency as well as from across the border.

Is the Minister aware that in the Minister of the Environment’s constituency it cost £250,000 to catch a Sligo wolf, and is he also aware that it cost £750,000 to catch the Aughnacloy beast? Is he aware too that recently a resident of Seskinore — a Siberian cat — was exported illegally and shot in the streets of Los Angeles? [Laughter]

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am disappointed that some Members find this cause for hilarity. This is a very serious issue, and the Member is quite right to draw attention to it. He is aware that it is a matter for concern, and we fully understand those concerns and the need to make rapid progress.

I can refer the Member to the answer given by the Minister of the Environment in response to an oral question on 24 January when he stated his intention to bring a Bill before the Assembly as soon as possible. As far as we can, we will fulfil that commitment.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I welcome the First Minister’s statement and, in particular, the proposed legislation on street trading, which has been an extremely serious problem in Belfast and has affected a great many citizens, especially bona fide retailers. I understand that the Bill is to be introduced in June. However, given that it is the Christmas period which gives rise to the most serious problems with illegal street trading, can the First Minister indicate whether that legislation will be in place before Christmas, thus enabling us to deal with this particular mischief?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for drawing our attention to the urgency of this matter. The comments I made earlier about the ability to carry over legislation from session to session are also appropriate with regard to this matter in case any problem arises with it. As the hon Member says, it is our intention to introduce this legislation in June with a view to having it on the statute book by Christmas. It is clearly our intention to have it in place for Christmas, which is when the greatest nuisance is caused.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I welcome the First Minister’s statement with slight misgivings. I notice that some six of these Bills seem to be headed for the Finance and Personnel Committee for their Committee Stage. In the interest of equality, I trust that the programme of government will spread the burden more evenly in the future. I should like to return to the Street Trading Bill. I notice that the First Minister mentioned a raft of measures giving power to district councils. I wonder whether he sees this as a first step towards a reallocation of powers and an increase in district councils’ functions.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his comments and note what he says about providing more work for other Committees, rather than overloading the Committee on which he has the honour to serve. We shall, as far as we can, pay attention to that.

With regard to his other comment about local government generally, I hope that he will forgive me if I decline to follow him down that road, except to say that the Assembly has committed itself to undertaking, among other things, a review of public administration generally, outside the departmental structures. That is something that the Executive intends to carry forward as soon as is practicable.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I note with concern the Minister’s views on Down fisheries. He said that this legislation would not be entirely different from that which applies to the Foyle. Perhaps the Minister should note that fishermen in the Foyle area have no confidence whatsoever in the former Foyle Fisheries Commission. This lack of confidence in the existing legislation has contributed to a serious decline in the fishing industry of that area. Would this legislation address that decline in the indigenous industry and promote parity of esteem with the existing oyster, mussel and shellfish industry in the South of Ireland, particularly in Clew Bay and Tralee Bay?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

It is our intention to make provision in this legislation for the collection of shellfish in the inter-tidal zone and, indeed, to put in place procedures which will encourage the shellfish industry. I would have thought that the hon Member would welcome that, given that the absence of such provision with regard to the Foyle Fisheries Commission has inhibited the development of a shellfish industry in Lough Foyle. We wish to see it develop. I was sorry to hear her comments about the impact of the Foyle Fisheries Commission on finned fish fishing and her suggestion that the industry there has declined.

A closer examination of the matter would show that the decline is not due to the commission’s activities but to illegal fishing, smuggling and poaching.

Alasdair McDonnell (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I understand why so many of these Bills are functional or technical. When will we reach the stage of debating new legislation? I was struck by the reference to health and personal social services. I have no doubt that it is vital to regulate the social work profession and other social care workers. Some 30% to 35% of our health expenditure is on illnesses that are the direct result of smoking. Can we anticipate the early presentation of a Bill that will make smoking more difficult and, perhaps, raise some taxes that could go towards the Health Service? Can we anticipate raising tax on tobacco to alleviate the serious financial pressure on the Health Service?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member is right to note that the matters he raised will not be included in the proposed Health and Personal Social Services Amendment Bill, although it will deal with specific aspects in that field. He raises general issues that need to be considered more fully by Departments, departmental Committees and the Assembly as a whole. I am not sure that some of the measures he proposes are within the competence of the Assembly, but no doubt he will find ways of pursuing this issue in the course of our proceedings.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Sir John Gorman spoke about the amendment to Standing Orders. I appreciate that on issues of parity such as the First Minister has described, it is necessary for this amendment to be brought forward. Will such instances be limited to issues of parity where speed is obviously of the essence, or will it be a general requirement to have the approval of the House to be withdrawn entirely?

I move from that specific issue of parity to some of the matters that were raised by Mr Neeson. It appears that most of the proposed legislation is parity legislation, in the sense that we are rubber-stamping provisions that are applicable to the United Kingdom as a whole, and that those matters that specifically refer to Northern Ireland are not ones that will cause consternation in the streets of Belfast, Derry or Newry. I am thinking of measures such as the Dogs Act or legislation on the gathering of shellfish. Does the Minister propose to give us any indication of projected fundamental legislation relating, essentially, to the welfare and social strength of the people of Northern Ireland?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

My answer to the Member must be a repeat of my earlier answer to Mr Neeson. Yes, these are unexciting and largely parity measures. Development of more innovative legislation depends on the development of more innovative policies. It is for the Assembly and the Administration to develop policies. That is why we have a programme of government and why we are considering that programme. I am sure that if we have the opportunity during the coming weeks and months, we shall present to Committees and to the Assembly measures relating to the programme of government, or policies intended to be included in that programme, which can then be clothed in legislation.

The Member asked about parity. From a benefit point of view we have to maintain parity. The other measures that I mentioned relate to commercial matters, limited liability partnership and financial services insolvency, and there are powerful arguments there for the maintenance of parity. Some of those measures actually stem from European directives where commercial law provision is largely now uniform on a European Union basis. It is valid to ask why there should be legislative capacity here on matters that have to be — and which it is generally acknowledged ought to be — uniform, either on a UK basis or an EC-wide basis.

The Member may recall from the time he spent at the inter-party talks that I never succeeded in persuading other parties to debate the valuable issue of the legislative competence of this Assembly and where it would or would not be appropriate.

With regard to the carry-over provision, I will be suggesting to the Procedures Committee — and, of course, this is a matter for that Committee and for the Assembly — that we have a general power to carry over from session to session. The absence of a carry-over provision will cause problems with the legislative programme. It will mean that the legislative programme will have to be stacked at the beginning of a session, and that will cause a bunching of matters. It could also, on occasion, hold up and delay legislation. In my view this is a rather archaic requirement which is going to cause us particular problems with social security legislation.

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

I welcome this programme of legislation. As other Members have said, it appears dull and unexciting at first sight, but it will affect a large number of people. When the First Minister comes to deal with the Dogs Bill he should recognise the high cost incurred by local authorities under the current legislation. They are responsible for initiating proceedings, for looking after the welfare of animals pending court cases and for further costs in the event of an appeal. Will the First Minister look at an alternative approach to this problem?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I note the Member’s comments. I hope he will forgive me, but I am not in a position to reply to them at the moment. I will ensure that he gets a detailed reply.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Following from that, may I ask the First Minister whether the phrase "as a result of an attack" includes dogs that attack sheep? There are a number of such attacks in my constituency, especially at this time of year. Will the new Bill take this into consideration?

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

Yes. Under the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, a dog that has attacked a person or livestock is subject to a destruction order. The amending Bill proposes to give the court discretion to take account of all the circumstances, rather than simply impose the mandatory sentence.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

My question is not about dogs but about fish. I welcome the Ground Rents Bill, which will solve innumerable problems for people seeking freehold title. Has the First Minister any plans to extend that legislation or to examine the question of fishing rights? Decisions reached under dubious charters of the past, particularly around 1600, need to be addressed and anglers, among others, given rights that they would otherwise have had.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am sorry to disappoint the Member, but the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill relates specifically to the measures I have mentioned with regard to shellfish and the development of aquaculture in the Foyle and Carlingford areas. It is not intended to explore the much wider issue that he has mentioned, which would involve interfering with rights that have been established for a long time.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The First Minister has told the House that the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill will enhance the functions of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. Will this new body also be in control of the rivers that run into these loughs? Furthermore, will this be the licensing authority and the authority that monitors water quality and pollution? The Foyle Fisheries Commission is not perfect, yet this new body is going to be modelled on it, thereby enhancing its credibility.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I am not aware of any provision in the proposed Fisheries (Amendment) Bill which relates to pollution matters such as have been raised, and I do not know whether it would be possible to introduce amendments along the lines suggested by the Member to the long title. I cannot advise at present, so the Member will have to contain himself until the legislation is published to see whether it can be broadened in the direction referred to.

The commission will deal with the catchment areas of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough. This means that the way in which the Foyle Fisheries Commission deals with all of the Foyle catchment basin is the way in which Carlingford, which is much smaller, will be managed.

Eamonn ONeill (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

Will the First Minister assure the House that the Fisheries Bill will be subject to examination by the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee and that Members’ concerns will be examined in detail and considered fully?

Will he also comment on the fact that last week the Committee launched an inquiry into angling and fishery control in Northern Ireland and that the information that will be assembled and examined will be of relevance to this piece of proposed legislation? Will the promotion and development of angling, pollution and other issues which concern Members also be examined?

Regarding the management of Carlingford, all Members should welcome the step being taken towards greater control and management — this did not exist before and led to some exploitation.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

The Member made some broad points about angling. Angling is important as a leisure activity for people in Northern Ireland and in terms of tourism generally. During the passage of the legislation there will be opportunity for some matters to be brought forward by way of amendment, but I have to point out that some of the provisions in this Bill relate to the establishment of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. They are subject to agreements previously endorsed by the Assembly and entered into with the Irish Government. The legislation has to be brought forward in parallel with similar legislation in the Irish Republic, and so, on those matters, the opportunity to amend will be limited.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The time for questions is up.

Assembly: Election of Deputy Speakers

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I now move to the procedure for the election of three Deputy Speakers under Standing Order 5. Standing Order 5 requires that three Deputy Speakers "shall be elected".

I will remind Members of the procedure to be followed. Any Member can rise to propose that another Member be elected as Deputy Speaker. This must then be seconded by another Member, and I will have to check that the Member so nominated is willing to accept the nomination. I will then ask if there are any further proposals, and I will continue to do that until it appears that there are no further proposals. I will then say that the time for proposals is past. If the House wishes, there may be a brief debate.

At the conclusion of the debate, or at the conclusion of the nominations if there is no debate, I shall put the Question that the Member first proposed shall be a Deputy Speaker of this Assembly. Such a vote will have to be taken on a cross-community basis, and the Lobbies will be used for that. We will then proceed through all of those nominated in turn until three Deputy Speakers are elected. Of course, it is possible that no Deputy Speaker will be elected, because each nominee requires cross-community support, but I do not think that that will happen. Once three Deputy Speakers have been elected, any other nominations will fall. The Standing Orders are clear on that.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I propose Mr William Hay, a former Mayor of Londonderry.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I second that nomination.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Hay, do you accept the nomination?

William Hay (DUP, Foyle)

I accept the nomination.

John Hume (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I propose Mr Donovan McClelland.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast North)

I second that nomination.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr McClelland, do you accept the nomination?

Donovan McClelland (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Antrim)

I accept the nomination.

Jim Wilson (UUP, South Antrim)

I propose Sir John Gorman for the office of Deputy Speaker.

David Trimble (UUP, Upper Bann)

I second that nomination.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Sir John, do you accept the nomination?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I accept the nomination.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I propose Ms Jane Morrice for the position of Deputy Speaker.

Denis Watson (UUAP, Upper Bann)

I second that nomination.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Ms Morrice, do you accept the nomination?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I accept the nomination.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Are there any further nominations?

The time for nominations is up.

The four Members who have been proposed and seconded have accepted their nominations. I will put, in turn, the Question that each Member be accepted. Divisions will be on a cross-community basis.

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 29; Noes 63.

AYES

Unionist

Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

NOES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Hume, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Conor Murphy, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, John Gorman, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Taylor, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Other

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

Total Votes 92 Total Ayes 29 (31·5%)

Nationalist Votes 34 Nationalist Ayes 0 (0%)

Unionist Votes 51 Unionist Ayes 29 (56·9%)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 66; Noes 28.

AYES

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Hume, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, David Ervine, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Taylor, David Trimble, Jim Wilson.

Other

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

NOES

Unionist

Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Total Votes 94 Total Ayes 66 (70·2%)

Nationalist Votes 32 Nationalist Ayes 32 (100%)

Unionist Votes 55 Unionist Ayes 27 (49·1%)

Question accordingly agreed to (by cross-community consent).

Resolved:

That Mr Donovan McClelland be a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly.

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 67; Noes 26.

Ayes

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Hume, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, David Ervine, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Taylor, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wilson.

Other

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

Noes

Unionist

Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Total Votes 93 Total Ayes 67 (72%)

Nationalist Votes 32 Nationalist Ayes 32 (100%)

Unionist Votes 54 Unionist Ayes 28 (51·9%)

Question accordingly agreed to (by cross-community consent).

Resolved:

That Sir John Gorman be a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly.

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 66; Noes 28.

Ayes

Nationalist

Alex Attwood, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Hume, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Unionist

Ian Adamson, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Robert Coulter, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Reg Empey, David Ervine, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Taylor, David Trimble, Denis Watson, Jim Wilson.

Other

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ford, Kieran McCarthy, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Sean Neeson.

Noes

Unionist

Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Paul Berry, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Total Votes 94 Total Ayes 66 (70·2%)

Nationalist Votes 32 Nationalist Ayes 32 (100%)

Unionist Votes 55 Unionist Ayes 27 (49·1%)

Question accordingly agreed to (by cross-community consent).

Resolved:

That Ms Jane Morrice be a Deputy Speaker of the Assembly

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I formally declare that Mr McClelland, Sir John Gorman and Ms Morrice have been elected Deputy Speakers.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to look at Standing Order 4(7), which says

"Where the Assembly is unable to elect a Speaker under the foregoing provisions of this Standing Order, but where a Deputy Speaker has been elected by virtue of Standing Order 5, the Deputy Speaker shall act as Speaker. In the case of more than one Deputy Speaker being elected they shall act in turn until a Speaker is elected."

Members have been unable to elect a Speaker. Can you tell us how the Assembly’s future business will be affected by this Standing Order?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Robinson and his Colleague beside him have an unrivalled knowledge of Standing Orders, ‘Erskine May’ and other matters relating to parliamentary practice.

They also have an unparalleled capacity for selective quotation with regard to these matters. The situation under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is over and above the Standing Orders, is that anyone who was an office holder of the type described at the point of devolution was, by the transitional clauses of the Act, deemed to be Speaker. Furthermore, any proposal would have to be on an Order Paper, and it would then fall foul of another problem: at present Standing Orders allow for the proposal of a new Speaker only if the last Speaker has been removed by death, resignation or through the dissolution of the Assembly. At this juncture I have no plans to facilitate Members in this regard. [Laughter]

The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.

On resuming —

Points of Order

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall respond to one or two issues, which arose in points of order.

Mr Kennedy raised a question, and I took it upon me to assume that it was to do with the fact that during Question Time the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety responded in both English and Irish. Whether I made that judgement as a psychiatrist or as a result of the ambience in the Chamber, I will leave to him to decide. Unfortunately he is not in his place, but I will take the issue up.

Mrs Iris Robinson raised some questions in respect of Members’ interests with regard to Mr Benson. I have made some preliminary checks but have more checks to make before I will be able to respond to her.

Dr Paisley had a point of order that I did not permit him to make earlier. I wish to emphasise that I have decided to take points of order at the end of ministerial questions; if we were to take them during Question Time, the time we are allowed under Standing Orders would be cut.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

I understand that, but when Barbara Brown — the English for de Brún — was addressing the House, it seemed to me that she was showing contempt for the House. As you are very well aware, a Member trying to impede the progress of the House by using language and repetition and by acting in a way that wastes time is contempt of the House. Today the Minister took a very long time even to respond, and she seemed to have some difficulty in standing. When she did stand at the Box, she had difficulty finding the relevant file. Then, when she came to read the file in Irish, she seemed to stumble over the pronunciations and hesitate for quite a considerable time — even when she was speaking Irish. On one occasion, when she was speaking in English, she stopped altogether and seemed to be lost for words.

Instead of the Member concerned knowing the answer, there was nothing but confusion. If we are to have another Question Time like the one we have had this afternoon, some of us will not tolerate it. Such behaviour is contempt of the House and does not show that she is carrying out her vow to take forward the business of the House. Our business has definitely been hindered today.

I know, Mr Speaker, that your attitude is that if Members are aware of parliamentary procedure they should be harshly dealt with — and you deal with me harshly. It would be totally unfair for the House to have another performance similar to the one we have had today. It is absolutely intolerable.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has raised issues which are specific problems that we must address. The language question is such an issue, and if we espouse the means for dealing with it as decided on 1 July 1998 for questions, we clearly have a problem. I accept that, and it is my belief that that is what Mr Danny Kennedy was addressing. In order not to use up any more time I said that I would address the issue, and I will do so.

It is not only here that Members take some time to respond to questions, as the Member will be well aware. It was taken to extremes in the Dáil, and the Ceann Chomhairle had to introduce very strict regulations which require that, if a Minister extends his answer beyond a certain length of time, the remainder of the answer is not given orally but in writing in Hansard. However, the incident which led to that was substantially in excess of anything that has happened here today.

Last week, at Westminster, a Minister took 11 minutes to give a response. The House did not regard that as a proper response, and the Speaker dealt with the matter. I suspected that the Member would ask this question, and I have already checked the figures. We had responses to 10 questions on health, seven questions on education and six questions on finance. More questions were answered, therefore, on health.

The Member has stated that there was contempt of the House. I advised the House before we began that there would be a suspension because the Minister had fallen ill. I had no reason to suspect that that was not the case, and the Member might consider that some of the hesitation and delay to which he referred was not so much a matter of the Minister’s not being prepared to be courteous and respect the House but rather that the Minister was doing her best to give answers to the House while not feeling well.

We now move on to another question of health, and we should do so promptly, otherwise the remaining time will be shortened.

Eddie McGrady (Social Democratic and Labour Party, South Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it your intention to have advance notice from Ministers that they intend to group questions together and to have such groupings highlighted on the annunciator or otherwise communicated directly to Members? It can be confusing if Ministers unilaterally declare that they intend to group questions together.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Shortly before the Assembly meets I am given suggestions for the grouping together of questions so that I can check whether such groupings are reasonable. If they appear reasonable, I permit them. So far as I know, it is not the practice in other places to announce in advance the grouping together of questions.

I believe that the Member is suggesting this for the convenience of Members who would choose to be absent from the Chamber, even when their questions have been tabled. I am not saying that this is the case with the Member himself.

However, this is not an unreasonable suggestion, because there were some Members whom I invited to ask supplementary questions who were not here, even though their questions were being responded to. I do not believe that this suggestion can be implemented, but I will consider the matter.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have told the House that in another place questions are not listed. They are indeed now listed on the monitor in the House of Commons. It is also stated whether they are to be taken together.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It may well be that that is now the case. It certainly was not the case at one time. I am a less frequent visitor to that end of the building, just as the Member is a less frequent visitor to the other end. Thus it is hard for us to keep up to speed with each other.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

Further to the earlier point of order which I raised, may I congratulate you for accurately predicting my concern. However, that concern has not yet been addressed. I find it most unsatisfactory that any Minister can come to answer questions and waste time giving an answer in one language, only to give what is presumably the same answer in English. This is clearly unsatisfactory, and I suggest —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

This is quite out order, as I have already said that I am taking the matter up. The point of order cannot be answered immediately since there are various ways in which it could be responded to which would have financial and other implications. I cannot take that matter any further at the moment.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

With regard to the way in which the Minister grouped the questions, I would like you to consider carefully how she selected seven of the 10 questions which she answered. May I draw to your attention that seven of those questions were drawn from Members of either her party or her side of the House? It was a quite deliberate attempt to shelter herself from proper probing by this Assembly. If she is unfit —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member speaks more out of suspicion than from knowledge of how the system works. The choice of questions and the order in which they are dealt with are decided by ballot. It is a random matter, and not one decided by me. The grouping is done on the basis of reasonable subject matter. That is how the question is addressed.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

When you consider these issues the key matter which should be in your mind is this: while a Member who speaks in two languages during a debate is using up his own time, if he speaks in two languages while answering questions he is using up our time.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member is absolutely correct. It will clearly have to be part of the consideration, which I cannot promise will be completed by next week when the next Question Time is scheduled. It will, however, be dealt with as soon as possible. The reason for that is quite clear. As soon as one is dealing with more than one language, one enters into the question of simultaneous translation, which cannot necessarily be "magicked up" overnight. Bringing it into commission may not be quite as difficult as decommissioning weapons, but it nonetheless takes a little time.

We really must move on to the debate. It would be quite unfair to those involved if we shorten the time available. I shall take one last point of order from Mr Dodds.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

I should like to correct something you said earlier and put it on the record accurately. You said that the Minister of Health had answered 10 questions and that the Minister of Finance had answered six. This is somewhat unfair, for he dealt with six separate questions. The only reason you can say that the Minister of Health answered 10 is that seven of them were grouped together. In terms of separate subjects, she actually dealt with only three.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is not a point of order at all. The Member knows very well that there is a range of issues to do with supplementary questions that are asked by Members whose questions are taken together, and so on.

We shall now proceed to the debate.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I should like to make a point of order about the debate which is about to take place. If I do not make it now I will not be able to make it at all.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall take the point of order on this debate.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I am grateful. In view of the fact that the time for this debate has been shortened — and presumably you had a list of those wishing to speak — can you now say for how long individual Members will be able to speak?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Thank you for bringing that matter to our attention. The Business Committee agreed with me that the Member moving the motion would have 10 minutes and that all other Members would have five minutes. There is the possibility, if the Minister were present, of her winding up for about five minutes before the end. The proposer would also have a chance to wind up: Since that agreement, a competent amendment has been put down, so the individual who moves the amendment will have five minutes for that and five minutes to wind up before we move to the vote.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise the matter of the competence of this motion. The motion states

"This Assembly endorses the decision of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Statutory Committee to locate maternity services in Belfast at the City Hospital."

As I understand it, the Committee cannot decide to locate anything anywhere. I fail to see how this Assembly can endorse a decision which cannot be taken in the first place and which certainly cannot be taken by that particular Committee.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As the Member is aware, when the motion was tabled and agreed to by the Business Committee, the Health Committee had made a decision. Subsequent to that, and subsequent to the publication of the Order Paper, the Minister made a decision. It would not have been possible, at that point, to withdraw what was a reasonable and competent motion.

One could have some debate about the precise wording of the motion. There are clearly issues of competence, not solely in relation to the motion but in relation to decisions that will be the subject, to some extent, of the amendment. It was not unreasonable for the motion to be regarded as competent when it was tabled, agreed to by the Business Committee and put on the Order Paper. Subsequently, a ministerial decision was made and an amendment put down which addresses that ministerial decision. In that context it is appropriate for the Assembly to debate this, and that was agreed to by the Business Committee.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Health Committee cannot decide to locate anything anywhere. It may decide to recommend, but it cannot decide to locate. It does not have that power. I want that established for the record.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

For the record, it is not for the Speaker to give such a ruling. The Speaker gives a ruling on matters inside the Chamber. The Member is speaking about legal matters — potentially, constitutional legal matters — outside the Chamber, and I cannot give a ruling on them. This is completely unfair to those who will move the motion.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are certain Members of the Assembly entitled to be on their feet while you are speaking when others have to sit down?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It does not seem to me that it is only Members on one side of the House who try that one.

I call Mrs Robinson.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I beg to move the following motion:

This Assembly endorses the decision of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Statutory Committee to locate maternity services in Belfast at the City Hospital.

At the outset may I establish that the Health Committee knew, throughout its deliberations, that the Royal and the Jubilee maternity hospitals both have outstanding records in providing the best possible care for mothers and babies. Additionally, may I remind the Assembly of the McKenna Report, which specifically examined, in minute detail, the factors governing the best location for maternity services in Belfast. This investigation was rigorous and took approximately nine months to evaluate. McKenna found in favour of the Belfast City Hospital, and the then Minister, Malcolm Moss, endorsed this view. Following intervention and predictable outcry from west Belfast politicians, Mo Mowlam was prevailed upon to institute a further review.

Although seriously lacking, in respect of the clarity of its terms of reference, the Donaldson review generally endorsed the recommendations of the McKenna Report with one exception — the location of the new maternity hospital.

We are all aware how "meddling Mo Mowlam" reversed the original decision only to find herself successfully challenged in the High Court on that. This led to the issuing of a further consultative document, which only added distortion to confusion. It was clear that, ministerially, the only desired political result was to be a west Belfast Hospital to satisfy Nationalist west Belfast.

Then came the Assembly and the appointment of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee to consider all aspects of this matter on its behalf, and in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. Following the most intense, deliberate and conscientious investigation, we arrived at our conclusions and reported our view accordingly.

Let us be absolutely clear about what we reported. We agreed unanimously that the best solution was a new maternity hospital: a centre of excellence. We were forced to accept that, in the meantime, services would be combined temporarily on the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) site. This was because paediatricians at the RVH had withdrawn their support from junior doctors at the Belfast City Hospital (BCH) and because work was due to commence in April to build a new cancer unit on the Jubilee site.

As a Committee, we were in favour of siting the new hospital on the BCH site. Two thirds of the Committee voted for this option. We arrived at this decision honestly, on the basis of what we considered to be in the best future interests of all the women and children of Northern Ireland. We gave the greatest weight to a consideration of clinical aspects and medical opinion. We were amazed when the Minister’s statement suggested that her decision had been made on clinical grounds.

Let us consider the medical opinion. The clinical arguments in favour of the BCH site are irrefutable. Established practice throughout the United Kingdom requires obstetrics, gynaecology and neonatal services to be combined on one site. The Royal College of Gynaecology has clearly spoken of the need to keep maternity and gynaecology services together. All medical opinion agreed that, as we plan for a new century, a regional centre of excellence for the care of women is the answer to our present and future needs. This centre should combine on one site the full range of services: genetics, maternity, prenatal, fertility, gynaecology and cancer services, all centred on the specific needs of women.

Like the medical experts, our Committee considered all the criteria by which the centre of excellence was to be judged. We acknowledged that the clinical requirements could best be met at the BCH site. Additionally, we concluded that it would be safer for women, being directly linked to the tower block, to have direct access to acute and intensive care facilities, including computerised tomography (CT) scanning for babies. This combination would enable the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) unit and the genetic research facility to be on the same campus as well.

On the matter of accessibility for those using and visiting the hospital and from the point of view of centralising midwifery services, BCH was also the choice. Some in this Chamber may not like to face this, but there is a chill factor at the Royal. Sixty per cent of women surveyed in Belfast are reluctant to go to west Belfast to attend the Royal — that is a matter of fact. The Lisburn Road site is more attractive, given its close proximity to road and rail transport. Our decision was not arbitrary. We considered the issues and the facts. As a permanent solution, the RVH met none of the considered criteria. It is an acceptable site only as a short-term, interim arrangement.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Member agree that this is an example of what we, as a party, predicted? The Minister has overruled her Committee, in this case the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, but the same will probably happen to the Education Committee. Does the Member therefore agree that decisions taken by the Sinn Féin Ministers have been and will be politically motivated and will disenfranchise the Unionist people in this Province?

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I agree. Unfortunately, I have no great faith in Sinn Féin/IRA’s ever taking a holistic approach.

That was the conclusion of the Committee. The seven-to-four majority came as a result of genuinely democratic procedures followed by people who had considered all the advice and information available. It was a cross-party majority. We were sure that the BCH site would be best for mothers, babies, staff and visitors and best too from a long-term financial point of view, although that was not our main priority.

It was the clear majority view that no substantial clinical case can be made in favour of the Royal. In relation to the Royal’s suitability as the site for a new maternity hospital, my contention is that it may be possible for those who have examined the clinical arguments to make a successful legal challenge to the Minister’s decision.

The behaviour of the Royal’s paediatricians in this matter has been a serious cause for concern. Their behaviour was unworthy of people in their profession, and if not illegal it was shameful and unethical.

Many members of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee have expressed disappointment and even anger at the role played by the Committee’s Chairman following the Committee’s decision to support the BCH site. When a Committee takes a democratic decision it expects its Chairman to articulate that position or remain silent. Not only did he not fulfil the role of Chairman and argue the Committee’s case; he sought to undermine his Committee by advancing his personal, partisan opinion. This behaviour is unworthy of him and renders the role of Chairman meaningless and farcical. If a Chairman is not speaking for his Committee, he is a Chairman without standing and authority.

I have looked at the amendment in the name of Dr Esmond Birnie. It seems to deal only with the procedure adopted by the Minister in taking her decision; it does not question the decision that she made. The purpose of the motion in my name is for the Assembly to declare itself in support of the City Hospital option. I cannot therefore support the amendment, which evades the issue, although I agree that the manner of the Minister’s announcement was totally unacceptable.

I now turn to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is self-evident that her announcement was brought forward to pre-empt the debate in the Assembly today. In her headlong rush to avoid the Assembly’s endorsing the Committee’s decision and thus adding to the weight of opinion in favour of the City Hospital, she jettisoned every recognised procedure for communicating her decision to those directly, and indirectly, involved, and that calls the integrity and professionalism of the Minister and her staff into question. To my mind, the Minister behaved in an unforgivable manner by failing to inform the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee of her decision before the announcement was made to the media. The Committee was snubbed, but just imagine how the staff of BCH must feel, having been disregarded in this way. The fact that she had neither the decency nor the manners to come and face the Committee is indicative of a lack of moral courage on her part.

Did she make the decision or was she instructed by her party and its associates to make the decision?

In any event, it is my considered opinion that her conclusions were based on narrow political interest.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am afraid that your time is up.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

With the intervention, may I just take —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am afraid not. The intervention from a Colleague was taken by choice. I must ask the Member if she begs to move the motion.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

It is the view of the great majority of people throughout the Province that a west Belfast Minister made a decision in favour of a hospital in west Belfast —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I seek support for the motion.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "This Assembly" and add

" , recalling that the Belfast Agreement provides for key decisions to be taken on a cross-community basis, rebukes the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety for not raising the question of maternity provision in Belfast with her ministerial colleagues, for not consulting properly with the Statutory Committee, and for attempting to pre-empt consideration of the matter by this Assembly, and calls on the Minister to bring the issue before the Assembly in a proper fashion."

I move this amendment because there is a matter of great procedural importance in last week’s decision by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. It is even more important than the question of the location of the hospital, important though that is; and I agree with the majority view of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee on that matter.

The question at stake today is this: are Government arrangements going to work to the benefit of all the people of Northern Ireland or will they simply degenerate into narrow partisanship?

First, let us look at the timing of the Minister’s decision and her announcement. There was an unseemly rush to pre-empt today’s debate.

Secondly, her decision overrode the Committee’s clear, majority verdict, and insult was added to injury in that most of the Committee members, other than the Chairman, only heard of her decision through the media on Thursday morning.

Thirdly — and this is equally damning — this was an Executive decision taken by the Minister, but not brought before the Executive Committee. Many Members have a strong suspicion that the Minister and, indeed, her party came to this issue of the Royal or the Jubilee with their minds already made up.

Has the Minister adequately discharged all the responsibilities of her office? I would point to the Belfast Agreement, to the terms of the Minister’s pledge of office and to the code of conduct, whose provisions relate to equality, to the prevention of discrimination and to good community relations. I ask whether having a large maternity hospital at the Royal, a second, relatively-small one, at the Mater and a third, medium-sized one, at the Ulster Hospital for all of Belfast is compatible with the terms of the Belfast Agreement that are to do with equality, the prevention of discrimination and good community relations.

To recap, there are clear and important issues of precedent that we want to resolve this afternoon. First, should the Minister have consulted with, and informed, her Executive colleagues? Secondly, in the event of a conflict between a Minister and his Committee, should it become standard practice to attempt to resolve that internally by allowing the Committee a longer period for research, reflection, deliberation and, indeed, a further vote? Thirdly, if the Minister and the Committee cannot resolve a matter internally, should it be brought before the House to enable the Assembly to offer its opinion and guidance?

In all of this, there is a striking, massive and, indeed, sad irony: we have a Health Minister, indeed, a Sinn Féin Minister, who has replicated all of the worst neo-colonialist and unrepresentative features of direct rule. It is an irony worthy, perhaps, of George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’: yesterday’s self-styled radicals and revolutionaries have, through their style of decision making, become the reactionaries and oppressors of today. I urge the House to support the amendment.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Minister will have to respond to both the amendment and the substantive motion — and they address slightly different issues. The maximum time that will be available to her will be 10 minutes — five minutes in respect of each.

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

We want to discuss, in a very serious way, what is best for mothers and babies in Northern Ireland. All of our people are entitled to the best service. We are talking about a regional hospital service for Northern Ireland: maternity services for Belfast, but a regional service for Northern Ireland, and I want to put great emphasis on that. If we were just talking about Belfast, we could toss a coin between the Royal or the City. But we are talking about a regional service for Northern Ireland; we are talking about a regional neo natal unit for Northern Ireland to care for sick or premature new-born babies; and we are talking about a regional paediatric service for Northern Ireland. There is only one major regional paediatric hospital in the North of Ireland, and it is not my fault if that happens to be in west Belfast.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Joe Hendron (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

I would give way, but I have been informed that I have only a few minutes left.

To give mothers and babies the best regional service, all three of the services that I have just mentioned should be together if at all possible. There is only one site in the North of Ireland where that is possible, and that is the Royal site in west Belfast, which contains the regional neonatal unit and the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.

The decision on this matter must be a clinical one. As a public representative, but more importantly as a doctor, I have led this discussion for the past five to six years, and my endeavours have included an Adjournment debate in the House of Commons and many meetings with previous Ministers.

I am not canvassing for votes in west Belfast or anywhere else. The only issue here is a clinical one. It is a question of what is best for mothers and for sick or premature, newborn babies throughout Northern Ireland — not just those in Belfast.

I have a profound respect for the City Hospital and the Jubilee. I worked in the Jubilee many years ago, and recently the Minister of the Environment, Mr Sam Foster, when he was spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist Party on health issues, and I led, in a political context, the promoting of the City Hospital as a top cancer unit. I believe that it will be one of the best in the world, and we have had meetings with Dr Ric Klausner from the United States cancer unit at Bethesda, Maryland.

I listened carefully to Mrs Robinson, and, as Chairman of the Committee, I am embarrassed, and I apologise. I realise that it is a great honour to be Chairman of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, but one must adopt the maxim "To thine own self be true". Members of the Committee will accept that at the very beginning I informed them that this issue was coming up and that I had to go along with what I had been doing for years on clinical grounds. I thought that they understood and respected that. I certainly respect the decision of each member of that Committee. I offered to stand down temporarily when it came to the discussion on maternity services, but they kindly did not accept that.

Members mentioned timing and how we were informed by the Minister. Last Wednesday the Committee had a marathon meeting that lasted from 2.00 pm until after 6.00 pm. It was not about maternity services, but during it I received a note asking me to phone the Minister. The note did not say "urgent" or what it was about. I came out of the room at about 6.15 pm, had a cup of tea and phoned the Minister at approximately 6.50 pm. The Minister gave me the information on her decision.

At that stage some Members were still around, but others were en route to various parts of Northern Ireland. It was difficult for me to inform all of them because I did not have their telephone numbers, but I take some blame for that and apologise to my Committee for it.

It would have been helpful if the Minister had sent somebody, such as the permanent secretary, or had come herself, even for five minutes, to inform the Committee of the decision. There was a breakdown in communication.

Malcolm Moss made a decision, and the Donaldson Committee of experts was set up. There were no experts on the McKenna Committee on sick, newborn babies, and every paediatrician in Northern Ireland supports the points that I have made.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I come from a rural constituency, and my only disappointment is that, while Belfast has a choice of two sites, people west of the Bann have no site to choose. There is no doubt that both the Royal and the Jubilee provide excellent maternity services, but both the Minister and the Committee agreed that a new facility should be built to house the combined maternity units. The key question, a Chathaoirligh, was where the new hospital should be sited.

The Minister selected the Royal because maternity services would be adjacent to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and to the Royal’s accident and emergency department — both very serious medical considerations. The Minister has again been accused of making a political decision because the Royal is in her constituency.

As Joe Hendron said, the Royal is also in his constituency, but he was not canvassing votes in west Belfast for the Royal. No matter what decision the Minister came to take, she would be damned if she did, and damned if she did not. I am quite sure that her decision was no more politically motivated than the decisions of those who voted against the Royal — that is if the latter was politically motivated at all, which I doubt.

Wednesday’s decision concluded years of wrangling, not only over future regional services but, more critically, over where those services should be located or relocated. The 1996 McKenna recommendation that the Royal and the Jubilee should be closed and relocated on two floors of the City block caused an unprecedented campaign to be waged by medics, residents, politicians and trade unionists.

The debate about the siting of maternity services has been long and acrimonious, embroiling no less than five health Ministers, thousands of residents, and scores of gynaecologists, obstetricians and paediatricians from as far away as America. Wednesday’s decision concluded those years of wrangling, and the Minister pledged, on taking office, that any decision she made would be made on professional grounds, in this case putting the care of mothers and babies first. The Minister has carried out her promise to the nth degree and should be congratulated for the forthright way in which she has approached this matter rather than being belittled for making a decision that people have been crying out for for years.

Professionals, nurses, doctors, obstetricians, gynaecologists, politicians and the public all have an overriding responsibility to ensure that the Minister’s decision is implemented with all the professionalism and resources that expectant mothers, their unborn children and newborn children deserve and about the future of this part of the island.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

It is unfortunate that we do not have more time to deal with this very important subject. Had it not been for points of order from Members who should know better, we would have had more time.

I congratulate the Minister, whatever her party. For years we have been shouting for devolution in this part of the world. At last we have accountable democracy and, whether we like it or not, we have someone who has had the courage to make this decision. Previously we had Northern Ireland Office Ministers who did not have that courage.

It is clear to the Alliance Party that the Royal Maternity Hospital and the Jubilee Hospital are both centres of excellence with worldwide reputations. Both sites offer a full range of high quality obstetric and gynaecological services, with back-up from intensive care and other services.

It would be easy for my party to back the City Hospital to serve constituency interests. However, the Alliance Party has decided to follow the clear balance of opinion among medical professionals and support the Royal as the best site for the regional maternity unit. Therefore we cannot back the motion. There is a number of reasons for regarding the Royal as the better regional maternity site, but the existence of a full range of specialised paediatric services on the Royal site must be regarded as the decisive factor. For that reason the better option for centralised maternity services in Belfast is the Royal site, adjacent and connected to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.

The opinions of and evidence from domestic and international experts support the concentration of maternity, neonatal and paediatric services there.

Speed is very important when complications arise with a newborn baby. Transport from other hospitals adds time and can create further complications. Most women who will give birth at the Royal will not need paediatric services, and not every birth will be at the Royal, as it mainly serves Belfast.

However, it makes sense to try to maximise the number of births with easy access to specialised paediatrics. Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that any decision affecting an individual child or children should be taken with their best interests as the most important consideration.

Mothers want, need and, indeed, have the right to be near their sick children, and if maternity services were not centred at the Royal, more mothers would be parted from them. Women require a service that makes them feel safe and in control, a service that lets them choose the type of care best suited to them and their babies. Regional and national policy and guidance for maternity and related services all emphasise the need for women-centred care, continuity of care and choice.

There is a full range of gynae services on both the Royal and the City sites. Both offer a wide range of methods of childbirth. In short, the current services at the City and the Royal are not just women centres but women-centred. A women-centred service is not a building but an ethos, and it should be possible to create a regional maternity unit which combine the best in the ethos of both the current services.

It should also be borne in mind that there are plans for a new cancer unit on the Jubilee site. If this does not go ahead, there will be knock-on effects on the treatment of cancer throughout Northern Ireland. Surely we should be most concerned about this.

Before concluding, I want to make some points on how this issue is being handled and the politics involved. First, the motives of those proposing the motion are not entirely clear. Are they doing this because they are convinced of the medical case for the City, or are they doing this to embarrass the Minister simply because she is from Sinn Féin?

Secondly, some parties are seeking to portray this as a clash between the interests of women, babies and children. That is totally misleading and out of order. Surely the interests of women and children are inextricably linked.

Finally, the decision of the Health Committee was hardly clear-cut: some people are arguing that the vote was cross-community. The evidence for this hardly adds up. The vote was seven to four.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

This debacle is further discrediting this fundamentally flawed process of government. In spite of claims by some Members, including the last Member who spoke, that each Minister will be brought to account for his actions, the reality is that we have had the very opposite graphically demonstrated in recent days by the Sinn Féin Health Minister. Not only has she ignored the wishes of the Health Committee, but she did not even inform its members of her decision.

The reality is that the Ministers are accountable to no one in the Chamber. The sole function of the Scrutiny Committees under Standing Order 45(1)(a) is to advise and assist Ministers in the formulation of policy. Even if 107 Members in the Chamber were to vote today to reject the Sinn Féin/IRA Health Minister’s decision on maternity provision, we would be unable to change that decision. We cannot remove any Minister, even if he or she is deemed unacceptable, because political expediency dictates that the necessary cross-community consent will never be forthcoming.

The Belfast Agreement has therefore given full executive powers to members of Sinn Féin/IRA in the areas of health and education over the citizens of Northern Ireland without their being accountable in any way. The Sinn Féin/IRA Minister has already been censured by the Assembly. How some Ulster Unionists claim, therefore, that Unionists have gained from the Belfast Agreement defies logic. Dr Birnie’s amendment talks of the Belfast Agreement’s providing for key decisions to be taken on a cross-community basis. Obviously this concept is either a fanciful theory or maternity provision is not regarded as a key matter, which is rather alarming.

Perhaps the Ulster Unionist Party is now starting to realise that the Belfast Agreement is fundamentally flawed. One of its so-called principles is that of consent. This is no more than a mythical aspiration. We hear the expressions "transparency", "accountable democracy" and "consent". They are all loosely used, and no doubt we are going to witness more abuse of power in favour of Nationalist areas and Nationalist constituencies, particularly when it comes to health and capital expenditure on schools.

I recall that the Education Committee was also left completely in the dark about recent decisions, but let us examine the abuse of power by the Sinn Féin/IRA Health Minister. I quote her words from page 2 of a recent edition of ‘Andersonstown News’:

"The Falls Road Hospital held a special place in the hearts of west Belfast people. I wholeheartedly believe that the Royal is a crucial part of the economic and social fabric of west Belfast and I want to ensure it remains so."

My party’s decision not to participate in the scrutiny Committees has been totally vindicated. Even the Chairman of the Health Committee has been discredited. It is widely accepted that a chairman in any walk of life acts with impartiality and fairness. However, I was surprised and saddened to hear the Chairman of the Health Committee, Dr Joe Hendron, put on his party political west Belfast hat and publicly be at variance with his Committee and even with one of his party’s Assembly Members.

As someone who met with the previous Northern Ireland Office Health Minister, Mr John McFall, prior to devolution, who met with members of the Jubilee Action Group and who made a submission to the Department of Health last year during the consultation process, I want to highlight some important points.

There will be the loss of the ethos of the Jubilee Maternity Hospital. It would be much easier to preserve the ethos of the Jubilee if both maternity units moved on an equal footing into a new hospital, rather than having the Jubilee merged with an existing facility. There will be the loss of maternity services in south Belfast. In 1997 there were 2,668 births at the Jubilee Maternity Hospital, and mothers came from areas such as Belfast, Castlereagh, Lisburn, Ards and Downpatrick as well as from areas covered by the Northern, Southern and Western Boards. The Royal Maternity Hospital had only a slightly higher number of births for the same period — 2,896. I live in Newtownabbey, and my two children were born in the Jubilee, and many mothers from the Northern Board area go to the Jubilee too.

There is also the vital issue of security force members and their families, who continue to be particularly vulnerable when travelling to the Royal Victoria Hospital. There is evidence that 60% of Jubilee mothers will shun the Royal and opt for the Mater, Lagan Valley and other hospitals.

There will be a lack of impetus for a new hospital once amalgamation has taken place. If the Jubilee is closed an excellent maternity service will be lost, and any leverage on the Department of Health to press ahead with the promised new hospital will be gone. Is the necessary funding available? How will it be found? What other services will suffer in order to find the necessary funding?

The proposed amalgamation amounts to a cut in services and will reduce the current high standards of care which both hospitals provide. Even if money did become available, it would still be a number of years before a hospital could be built, and that is totally unacceptable to women who will be expected to accept an inferior or overcrowded service in the meantime. The view that at least £15 million of private investment will be required to fund a new maternity hospital will cause alarm. According to Dr Peter McFall, one of the Province’s top gynaecologists —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I do not intend to go over the lack of consultation and communication. I have no doubt that at the Health Committee meeting on Wednesday these issues will be gone into in some considerable detail, as they should be. I was concerned about the lack of consultation with members of the Health Committee and, indeed, with those of us who represent the constituency that is affected by the decision to close the maternity hospital. We should have been consulted more fully. I have already made the point that under direct rule we might have been. I called an informal emergency meeting of the Committee on the Thursday to clear up the lack of proper decision-making because I was concerned that rumours about who knew what and when during the previous evening were flying around and needed to be cleared up. I remain concerned that the press was informed before Members.

I now turn to the debate on clinical effectiveness. On the matter of maternity services, when the hospital in Tyrone was closed did not every Member say "Wait until we have locally elected, accountable Members of the Assembly, and then we will decide who makes these decisions."? Will it be the Royal College of Paediatricians, or will the issue come to the Assembly for a decision? This elite group — the Royal College of Paediatricians — has made the decision for us. Why are we sitting here when we can simply go to the Royal College and ask "Where would you like all the hospitals to be in the future?"?

It comes down to one paediatric surgeon being recruited. Because that paediatric surgeon has not been recruited, there is going to be an interim move of 3,000 mothers to a hospital on the Royal Victoria site. As I said before, two old hospitals into one old hospital will not go. The brave decision would have been to keep both hospitals open, to have stood up to the Royal College and to have told it to come to the Committee and give its evidence. To obtain the Royal College’s report I had to go to the Royal, sit before the regional advisor for Northern Ireland, who is also based at the Royal — I ask myself whether there is a conflict of interests here — and read the report under supervision. Where is the freedom of information for those of us who are supposed to be making decisions when this is the sort of access we get to the report of the Royal College of Paediatricians?

I do not believe that there was a case to be made on the basis of clinical effectiveness. I have looked at the evidence, and I am in a position from my previous job to analyse data and to know whether, given the empirical evidence in front of me, a case stands up. This one does not. Not one baby has died during transfer from any hospital to the Royal. Why are we not also closing Altnagelvin, Craigavon and all the other hospitals? With regard to the Royal College’s making this decision, I note that the Minister’s statement says

"My conclusion was that maternity services would be more clinically effective if located adjacent to the regional paediatric services at the Royal."

The entire decision was made on that one conclusion, and that concerns me greatly.

There is also the issue of gynaecological cancer. Prof Paddy Johnston has spent his life building the oncology unit at the City Hospital, which treats 250 gynae-cancer patients annually. Where are these patients going to go if we split obstetrics from gynae cancer? The gynae obstetricians were so concerned that they delivered a letter to my door last night. It says that the reports are there and that the draft report which has just been issued — I am sure the Minister is aware of this — says that the City is the only hospital in Northern Ireland that meets the criteria for treating gynae cancer at the moment. If this service is moved, those criteria will not be met.

Dr Henrietta Campbell, the Chief Medical Officer, was given the task of looking at the services for cancer patients throughout Northern Ireland. Was she consulted about what would happen to gynae cancer at the City? If the case is being made, as it seems to be, around clinical effectiveness, I would argue that clinical effectiveness for sick mothers is extremely important.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Politics is not confined to politicians. Medical men lobby very successfully, and with political skills, in their own interests. Many arguments can be advanced in respect of both sides. The question is which ones are spurious and which ones, as Monica McWilliams has pointed out, are substantiated by real data.

The fact that clinical paediatricians have come out on the side of the Royal is not surprising, since the paediatric unit is at the Royal and they are based there. Having said that, I should point out that I have worked closely over many years with almost all the leading paediatricians in the Royal Victoria Hospital, and I have not the slightest doubt that, no matter where this hospital is ultimately located, those professionals will give of their best when treating their patients.

Let me turn to Dr Birnie’s amendment. This issue, though about the location of a hospital, throws into bold relief what happens to the fundamental principles of democracy in this Chamber and under the institutions of the Assembly. If this decision had been taken by a Minister in another place, the Cabinet would be backing it. There the Cabinet represents the majority party in Parliament, and its decisions are endorsed by that party, so the full democratic process is behind any ministerial decision.

The difficulty with this Assembly, and one of its democratic deficits, is the relationship between the Assembly and the Executive powers of individual Ministers. This, of course, is highlighted by the decision taken by the Minister of Health in this matter.

As I understood it, the purpose of the Statutory Committees was to scrutinise the Ministers’ decisions and to advise the Ministers, in advance of decisions, on the best way forward. In a sense, because those Committees comprise Members from almost every party, they represent, at first instance, the feeling of the Assembly. The Committees are, as it were, a litmus test for what the Assembly as a whole might think. In this instance, and on a cross-party basis, a majority of the Health Committee was of a particular view, which was communicated to the Minister. The Minister then took the decision, ignoring the majority view of the Committee. That decision having been taken, the question is this: can it be reviewed by the Assembly?

As Dr Birnie pointed out, the decision did not have the benefit of discussion in the Executive Committee, and it was certainly not brought to the Floor of the Assembly for debate by Members. The Minister simply took the decision, and we will all have to decide what import this has for the future running of the Assembly and for democracy here.

Are we to accept that every time Ministers make decisions, regardless of how they have been advised or what consultation they have undertaken, they are not accountable to the Assembly? What if, on a cross-community basis, a majority of the Assembly takes the view that a Minister’s decision is wrong? In what circumstances can it be put right? The Assembly will have to take note of the balance of power between itself — and it is made up of elected representatives of the entire community — and individual Ministers of the Executive, selected not by the community but by their parties, taking decisions on a party basis.

The problem here is the suspicion — it may be no more than that — that the decision of the Minister was influenced entirely by political considerations relating to her party. That, indeed, is the accusation that is made by the Chairman, and I believe that he was fundamentally wrong to advance his personal views when he chaired that Committee. He should simply have left his views on the record, as they have been over many years, without advancing them in these circumstances.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I agree with Dr Birnie’s amendment.

The provision of maternity services in Belfast is a most serious matter that has been the subject of a tug-of-war for many years between a number of different and differing interests. My concern is for those who really matter — mothers, newborn babies and the dedicated professional staff in both hospitals. This issue has been gravely mishandled from the beginning.

Devolution of power to the Assembly was greeted by everyone as a major step forward towards giving Northern Ireland politicians hands-on authority over local services. There was an expectation that, through the d’Hondt principles, the structure of the Statutory Committees and the allocation of ministerial posts to provide a fair distribution of responsibilities to the parties represented in the Executive, there would be an open consultative process at all levels on major issues.

Now we have the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety taking a very divisive decision, which, she claims, it is her prerogative to take and which, she states, cannot be challenged.

As a member of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee I was present at briefings by staff in the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Jubilee Action Group. The Committee, by a majority vote, decided in favour of the Jubilee. The Committee was meeting last Wednesday when the Minister made her decision. Some of the Committee members learned of it from the press later that evening, and others got no information about it until after 10.15 am on Thursday when a press release was issued. The only exception to this was the Chairman.

If the Minister was not prepared even to consider the Committee’s decision, it would have been mannered at least if she had informed the Committee of it before the public announcement. Furthermore, given the absence of Executive policy, she should have advised the members of the Executive of what she was intending to do and given them an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

It was obvious that the Minister had been fully briefed by her officials, but the Committee did not have such briefing. How and when the Assembly was informed about this, and the authority or influence that it should have had over a decision on a matter of cross-community interest are matters of grave concern.

We have all received a copy of the latest publication from the Executive Information Office telling Northern Ireland’s public what the role of a Committee is. It is to

"consider and advise on departmental budgets and annual plans … [and] … in forming policy".

Definitions of "considered" include: looked at carefully; thought or deliberated on; weighed advantages and disadvantages with a view to action; and showed regard or consideration for. And a definition of "consider" is: recommend, inform or consult with.

I submit that in this case the Executive, the Committee and the Assembly were given no opportunity to consider or advise on the decision-making process prior to the Minister’s announcement.

I ask Members to support the amendment.

Carmel Hanna (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast South)

I wanted to be a member of the Assembly Committee because I am passionately concerned with health issues, and I want to be in a position to influence change. I am glad that we are debating the future of Northern Ireland’s regional maternity hospital today. Decisions such as this must be taken in the most open, democratic and transparent way. Everyone in the House knows my views on this, and I speak from the perspective of a woman, a mother and a midwife. However, today I speak as an elected representative, and not in any personal or professional capacity.

The Minister’s statement says that she concluded that regional maternity services would be more clinically effective if located adjacent to regional paediatric services. That statement appears to be the extent of the clinical argument for opting in favour of the Royal. Any new regional maternity hospital, wherever it is sited, will inevitably attract the best midwives, obstetricians, gynaecologists, neonatologists, and paediatricians. There will be no question of having to transfer a very sick baby to the Children’s Hospital. The experts will be on site in the new unit, and that clinical argument is therefore flawed.

There is a second inconsistency in the key argument: surely it would be much more clinicially effective to build a new regional maternity hospital beside the gynaecology department, which is on the City site.

This is normal practice throughout the UK. Is there any medical evidence whatsoever that the Royal Maternity Hospital has provided a better service because of its proximity to the Children’s Hospital? I believe that there is none. A neonatologist is a paediatrician who specialises in caring for the newborn. These specialists will be on hand in a new regional maternity hospital. If there is a long-term problem, a specialist paediatrician may be called in. Health care should bring the doctor to mother and baby, not the other way around.

Furthermore, do we have any idea where the money for a regional maternity hospital is going to come from? Has the Minister taken into account the fact that the City site might more easily attract public/private finance for a new building? The Royal Group recently announced a rather large capital spend on a new hospital. Can we therefore assume that we should now add a further figure of about £15 million to that outlay?

What are the plans for the future of the City Hospital? Will it continue to be asset-stripped? The fractures department has already gone to the Royal, and accident and emergency services are going the same way. If maternity services go, can gynaecology and gynae-oncology be far behind? My Colleagues have all referred to this. We are talking about part of the new cancer unit. The Minister’s decision, like that of a previous Minister who implemented the Donaldson Report, may not stand up to a judicial review.

We know that a clear majority of the Assembly’s Health Committee does not support her decision. It will be for the Assembly as a whole to judge it. This decision may have repercussions for any future decisions on local hospitals. This is not just a Belfast matter, nor just a struggle between two Belfast hospitals. It affects all women and babies in Northern Ireland.

Mark Robinson (DUP, Belfast South)

When the Minister for Health made public her decision to locate regional maternity services at the Royal Victoria Hospital she quite clearly exposed the nonsense that is Belfast Agreement and the democratic body that that agreement claims this Assembly to be.

The Assembly’s Health Committee spent a considerable amount of time and effort listening to both sides of the argument. After showing due care and attention and examining all the relevant data and information available, the Committee took the considered view that maternity services would be best located at the City Hospital. It is worth noting that, in taking its decision, the Committee did so on a cross-community basis with a majority of seven to four.

Of course, none of the Health Committee’s endeavours on this matter cut any ice whatsoever with the Minister of Health. Despite previous assurances to the contrary, she did not advise the Committee of her decision before making it public. This attitude was reinforced by her rather inadequate performance at Question Time earlier today, during which she was dismissive and contemptuous and showed a total lack of regard for the Assembly.

Since a West Belfast Minister, aided and abetted by a West Belfast Chairman of the Health Committee, decided in favour of a West Belfast hospital, Members can only draw their own conclusions.

Is it not reasonable to suggest that the timing of the Minister’s decision has more to do with political expediency than with medical and clinical considerations? What other explanation is there? Surely it is much easier to ignore seven members of a Committee than a more sizeable and, perhaps, significant vote in the Assembly at the close of today’s debate.

We must take a further point into account when considering the Minister’s motive for taking such a crucial decision at this time. As we are all aware, there has been some speculation over recent days about whether the Secretary of State will find it prudent to suspend the authority of the Executive.

He will feel that he has no other choice, as Ms Brown and her colleagues in Sinn Féin/IRA have signally failed to address, in any meaningful way, the vital issue of decommissioning.

In the light of the recent events which I have already outlined, and given the fact there is a widespread perception that this decision was based solely on political reasoning, how can Members, not to mention the public, be assured that any future decisions facing the Minister will be taken properly rather than as now on the basis of what is best for west Belfast?

I support the motion.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. I oppose the motion and also the amendment by the Ulster Unionist Party.

As a member of the Health Committee, I believe that this is the most complex issue that it will be faced with, either now or in the future. I was one of the four members who voted against the proposal to build at the Belfast City Hospital site, and instead voted for a new Royal Maternity site. I came to this decision after examining closely documentation and presentations from interested groups, including the Falls and the Shankill Women’s Centres. Clinical arguments show that the Royal Maternity will provide a women-centred, family-led service, where a full range of medical care can, and will, be provided. Women and families want this, as do the doctors and nurses in the Royal Hospitals.

In 1994 the then Government set up the acute hospitals reorganisation project, under the chairmanship of Dr McKenna. Of his 28 recommendations, 27 were accepted by both hospitals. The issue of maternity services was controversial. The Labour Government commissioned a second report from an independent medical review panel, chaired by Prof Donaldson. He concluded that, clinically speaking, the best possible arrangement was to provide maternity and paediatric services side by side. As this hospital will be the new regional maternity hospital, as well as being the local one, it is important to have the closest links to the Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. That would mean a faster, more effective response to babies experiencing difficulties before, during and after birth.

There is also clinical evidence to suggest that neonatal intensive care units without on-site paediatric specialist support have higher mortality rates. Transportation of sick babies — and some people do not believe this — would be easier and safer in a new maternity hospital linked to the Children’s Hospital. It would also ensure that mothers and babies remained on site. Removal of the maternity unit from the Royal Victoria Hospital, whether Members like it or not, would have an adverse effect on the communities of north and west Belfast, two of the most economically and socially deprived areas in the North.

The full Health Committee did not endorse the recommendation for a new hospital at the Belfast City Hospital site. The Committee agreed unanimously that the Jubilee and the Royal Maternity Hospitals should both remain open until a new regional maternity hospital was built. However, because of the decision taken by the Royal College of Paediatricians, there is no alternative but to locate maternity services at the Royal Maternity in the interim.

Other Committee members, especially DUP members, say that the decision by the Minister was a political one. This from a party whose member, when he had the chance to question the Minister on this very subject, withdrew in protest. This from a party which called for the Minister to resign over the flu epidemic two weeks after taking up her post. She has also been accused of making this a political decision because the Royal Victoria Hospital is in her constituency of West Belfast, but, on the clinical facts alone, the Royal Victoria Hospital always had a strong case. I await with interest to see what the DUP wants the Minister to resign over next week.

There was also concern on the issue of the Committee’s not being informed. As a matter of courtesy, the Minister took the step of contacting the Chairman of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee on Wednesday evening. She informed him of her decision on the location of maternity services in Belfast. So far as I am concerned, by informing the Chairman the Minister was informing the Committee.

Once again, I oppose this motion, and I also oppose the Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I rise to support the amendment. The situation is of concern. The Minister has scorned the Executive and ignored the Committee. She has taken a decision which mirrors Sinn Féin’s previously stated position as well as her own. I wonder how much constituency considerations influenced. I quote:

"I wholeheartedly believe that the Royal is a crucial part of the economic and social fabric of west Belfast, and I want to ensure that it remains so."

It might be worth having a look at the background to this. The McKenna Report is quite interesting. The McKenna group was made up of eminent people from both the City and the Royal, including chief executives, a director of public health and clinical directors. There were 12 or 14 of them in all. They decided that maternity services should go to the City site. This clearly did not suit the Department, and it promptly commissioned another report from four eminent people who came across from England. Of course, they produced a different recommendation, which was that it should move to the Royal site.

The interesting thing about this is that the main pillar of both the Donaldson report and, indeed, the Minister’s report, is that the clinical arguments came down to the potential linkage of the new hospital with other, on-site clinical services and to its closeness to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. It is worth looking at the number of children who are transferred across each year. My understanding is that it is fewer than 1% from across the Province.

There is confusion, and a smokescreen was presented to the Committee by paediatricians about what happens when a baby is born and is poorly. After babies are born, they are stabilised by neonatologists. Neonatologists are paediatricians who have specialised in looking after newborn babies. The other paediatricians at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children are people who specialise in children’s brains, hearts, legs, and so on. There is a turf war going on here between the two groups.

The neonatologists are tasked with stabilising the babies once born, so there is no question of a baby’s being born, being poorly and being thrown into an ambulance and rushed to the Children’s Hospital. The neonatologists stabilise the child, or, if the situation is very serious, a paediatrician operates. Otherwise the baby is stabilised and can then be moved. There is no rush. The idea that all hospitals have to be close to the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children is clearly nonsense, but it is one of the basic premises on which all this was based.

Another key consideration in both the Donaldson and McKenna reports was that no one should separate obstetrics and gynaecology. Gynaecology and obstetrics are two different things, but they must not be separated. What has happened now? As of 1 February, obstetrics is being moved to the Royal. [Interruption]

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

Gynaecology is staying at the City. They are splitting them up — the one thing that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said should on no account be done. This decision has done that.

Let us look at the question of a mother’s choice. The Department’s own consultation paper says

"However, the Department recognises that whatever option is chosen, some Belfast mothers may choose not to use the new combined maternity hospital, but to seek maternity care from another maternity hospital such as the Mater, the Ulster, Lagan Valley and perhaps even Antrim."

I wonder if the medical services are ready, for research has shown that 60% of the mothers at the City do not and would not wish to have their babies at the Royal. This needs to be taken into consideration.

The action of the Royal College of Paediatricians was mentioned in detail in our letter to the Minister. They knew that the Committee was looking at the matter, and they deliberately went ahead with a force majeure that obliged maternity services to move from the City to the Royal. What is interesting — and the Mater needs to take note of this — is that towards the end of a report to deal with this, and concerned with the removal of specialist registrars from the City site, it says

"Paediatric cover of the Mater Maternity Unit needs to be reviewed since after the rationalisation of neonatal services" —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can Mr McFarland explain what he means by his references to babies coming out and women’s bits and pieces?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Regrettably, that particular medical treatise had to be brought to a close.

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

The SDLP will be opposing both the motion and the amendment. Before explaining why, I must mention the comments that have been made about the Chairman of the Health Committee, which have ranged from his "being unworthy" to "being discredited". The Chairman outlined his personal views on this issue to the Assembly, gleaned over a lifetime in medicine. He also told the Committee that he was prepared to step down when this matter was being discussed. He has outlined his anxiety and difficulty over this issue in a very honest and frank way in both the Committee and the Assembly. Given this, I trust that those Members who made those sorts of comment would acknowledge that he acted as he saw fit out of high principle at all times.

I trust they would acknowledge that he was in a difficult situation but behaved honourably and as best he could in the circumstances. I hope that the Chamber will recognise and acknowledge that. It is ironic that, in this Chamber of all places, two Assembly Members have referred to the "chill factor" involved in going to the Royal Victoria Hospital. There is a chill factor about this Building for a political tradition in this city, which has spent a lifetime not coming into this Chamber and is now spending a lifetime in it. If a chill factor can change with respect to a political institution, then it can also change with respect to a medical establishment. It is the responsibility of political leaders to say that the attitudes which served in the past, and which might have been justified in terms of people’s concerns and anxieties, will no longer serve our needs in the future.

It is the responsibility of political leaders to say that things have changed and that people can now do things differently. We have done it in coming to this Chamber, and people can do it by going into west Belfast, where they will get the best service and the best medical care. It is those factors which will determine whether people go to the Royal — not whether people are prejudiced about west Belfast or the perceived history of that constituency in recent years.

I do not intend to go into the clinical arguments. They have been exhaustively rehearsed in the Chamber and elsewhere. However, in my judgement — and I am trying not to be partial, although that is difficult — the compatibility and the complementarity of the services on the Royal site are much higher in respect of mothers and children than is the case elsewhere in this city. That complementarity and compatibility make the argument in clinical terms more compelling than the argument in respect of the City site.

The decision should be taken on clinical grounds, but it has to be acknowledged that a wider factor is involved. West Belfast — all of west Belfast, the Falls and the Shankill — is exiting from years of discrimination in respect of one tradition and years of disadvantage in respect of both traditions. Every decision taken is legally required to be equality-proofed. It is also essential, if a new economic and social order is to be introduced in the North, that issues of economic and social discrimination and disadvantage be taken into account.

I am putting down a marker that those factors will have to be taken into account for every decision and judgement made by the Assembly when working out best practice and policy.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Alex Attwood (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Belfast West)

No, the time is short. Otherwise I would give way.

Finally, I want to deal with the points raised by Esmond Birnie and the thoughtful speech of Bob McCartney. The Ulster Unionist Party’s amendment is of relevance, but the SDLP cannot support it at this time.

It is of relevance because there are three important themes raised in the amendment that need to be acknowledged.

First, there was a process of consultation and that must be acknowledged. Whether that process was adequate, either in the fine detail or in its conclusions, has yet to be fully determined. The Assembly will have to decide what is, and is not, adequate consultation in terms of managing its own business.

Secondly, it is arguable that the Minister’s decision — and it is an executive power that we have to be careful to protect, otherwise we will impede executive authority — was right or wrong. We think that it was right, but we accept that there is an argument that needs to be fully rehearsed and determined.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Mr Attwood, your time is up.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I would like to deal with Dr Esmond Birnie’s amendment.

First, the amendment is fundamentally flawed as it throws the responsibility back to the Minister to bring this issue before the Assembly.

Members consider that the Minister has treated the Assembly with contempt. She treated it with contempt by ignoring the Health Committee. She treated it with contempt by putting out a statement on a most important and controversial issue at midnight, rather than bringing it before the House, where she could be questioned and asked to explain the reasons for her actions. She treated it with contempt by ignoring the Executive Committee, as Dr Birnie has said. And, as we have seen today, she treats the House with contempt when matters are raised with her. Members ask her questions in English, and she answers them in the language of the leprechauns, which nobody understands.

Despite this contempt, we have an amendment which throws the ball back into the Minister’s court. It says "You bring it back to the Assembly and let it make a ruling". That is why I believe that, despite there being some aspects of the amendment with which we would agree, it is flawed and it is weak. Once again the Ulster Unionist Party are giving IRA/Sinn Féin the benefit of the doubt with this amendment.

With regard to the Minister’s actual decision, I am not on the Committee, but through my role in Belfast City Council I have heard all the arguments advanced by both sides in this debate. Medical politics seem to be as cut-throat as party politics. There were no holds barred in the way the arguments were put forward.

On the surface there would appear to be a strong case for the retention of services at the City Hospital. The fact that, out of the 214 maternity services across the United Kingdom, only 12 are linked to children’s hospital facilities indicates that it is not absolutely essential to have the two linked. Even the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology points out that the link is not between the children’s hospitals and maternity units; rather it is the other way round.

When it comes to the evidence we have heard so far — Dr McKenna’s report and the decision of the previous Minister — it is significant that those who have advanced the argument for the Royal have talked about the economic importance of this unit to west Belfast. They have stressed that west Belfast is an area of economic deprivation and that therefore the facility should be maintained at the Royal. It has nothing to do with medical reasons; it is for economic reasons. It is significant too that the Minister represents the area.

If we do not lay down rules in the House quickly to ensure that Ministers are democratically accountable, we are going to see this happening time and time again with a Minister from a minority party. All parties in the House are minority parties. All Ministers represent minority parties, and if a Minister can take decisions against the wishes of the majority of the people of the Assembly, we will not have gained democratic accountability. We will be back to the old direct-rule system with Ministers who are not accountable. We must sort this out very very quickly.

The Minister ought to be censured for the contempt in which she has held the House. She has displayed this contempt since she was appointed — over the holiday period she was more interested in tearing down flags than dealing with the crisis in the Health Service. This is yet another example of that type of —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Your time is up.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat. Ba mhaith liom a rá ar dtús báire go bhfáiltím roimh an deis an cheist seo a phlé sa Tionól. Tuigim go bhfuil ceist úsáid na Gaedhilge agus úsáid an Bhéarla ag gabháil a bheith idir chamánaibh roimh i bhfad, a Cheann Comhairle. Mar sin de, labhróidh mé go gasta i nGaedhilg agus rachaidh mé ar aghaidh i mBéarla.

I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue. The issue of the use of languages was raised earlier this afternoon, and the Interim Presiding Officer has indicated that he will be looking at it. Having spoken briefly in Irish now, I will speak only in English for the rest of this debate.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right for the Minister to refer to you as the Interim Presiding Officer when you are now the Speaker of the House?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I do get called quite a lot of things, as Members are aware. Technically, of course, the Member is absolutely right: I am to be referred to as Speaker or perhaps Ceann Comhairle.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabh mo leithscéal.

I would like to reiterate to the Assembly my view that the Jubilee and Royal Maternity Hospitals both provide crucial, regional maternity services as well as more local services to mothers-to-be in Belfast. My aim throughout has been to guarantee the provision of the highest possible care and treatment for women, mothers and babies.

In coming to my decision, I took great care to consider the relevant information. I considered and reviewed the responses to the consultation process carefully, and that included responses from individual women, mothers from community groups, a wide range of health professionals and support groups from both hospitals.

I also made a point of visiting both maternity hospitals to see the situation for myself. I spoke to management, staff and mothers. I also spoke to the groups in support of each maternity hospital. All the people I met asked me, in the interests of the maternity services, to decide quickly on their future location.

In addition, I also considered the specially commissioned PAFT analysis and high level economic appraisals of the long-term and interim options. Copies of these documents, along with the summary of the consultation responses, will be placed in the Assembly Library. I also benefited from the advice of the Assembly’s Health Committee.

It is worth placing on record that not only did I go to the Committee, speak to it and ask it to provide me with further advice corporately as a Committee, but I also invited individual members who wished to do so to advise me on a personal basis. I took all of this into account, along with the other factors that I have mentioned that were my responsibility.

It is also worth placing on record that I agreed with the Committee that a decision was needed urgently; that a new maternity hospital was required, and not a refurbished one; that a decision was needed at the same time on the interim and long-term solutions; and that the interim solution should not become the final solution.

I also recognised the Committee’s preference that the Jubilee and Royal Maternity should both remain open, but I agreed with their advice, stated in a letter they sent to me, that in the prevailing circumstances

"There is no alternative but to locate maternity services at the Royal Maternity in the interim."

The arguments from the consultation process in my Department’s own analysis underlined the need to provide a new-build maternity unit. Choice between the new build on either site was a close one. Given the points that Members have made, I reiterate that this argument was one of a number which I looked at, but in the final analysis the clinical arguments came down to the potential linkages of the new hospital to other on-site clinical services.

My conclusion was that maternity services would be more clinically effective if located adjacent to regional paediatric services at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and near to the accident and emergency department. My decision does not adversely affect gynaecological oncology, as gynaecology is currently provided on both sites. No decision has been made on the future provision of gynaecology.

When compiling his report, Dr McKenna did not have the opportunity to consider the new-build option, for it was not an option at that time.

With regard to the Committee’s being informed of my decision, I totally acknowledge the points made by Dr Hendron. I sought to speak to the Committee Chairman. I sent word, and Dr Hendron returned my call. I advised him of the detail of my decision and that a press release was being drawn up for that evening. The press release was issued after 8.00 pm. I spoke to Dr Hendron at 6.45 pm, and the content of the press release was embargoed until midnight — several hours after I had spoken to him. There was no intention whatsoever of treating the Committee with anything other than reverence, and I pointed this out to the members during my visit.

Regarding the amendment, I would like to pick up several of the points raised by Dr Birnie. The decision on the future location of maternity services in central Belfast is an important one for women regionally and locally. However, I cannot accept that it could be described as a key decision. It was primarily an operational one, and I did not identify any significant cross-cutting dimensions which would have suggested that the matter should have been raised with ministerial colleagues.

Consequently I am confident that this decision was dealt with appropriately. While I do not accept that this decision was a key one as provided for in the Belfast Agreement, I made no secret of my intention to reach an early decision. As stated previously, those I met while taking views on board asked me to make an urgent decision, and at all times in those conversations, in the press, in briefings from my Department to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and in press releases, which are routinely copied to the Executive information service, it was clear that my intention was to reach a decision as soon as possible — certainly before the end of the month.

All of these were routinely available and copied as a matter of course to the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.

Regarding Dr Birnie’s point about the failure to engage with the Health Committee, I took care to work with the Committee in the lead-in to my decision. I wrote to the Chairman of the Committee before Christmas and copied the PAFT analysis and an initial summary of consultation responses to Committee members prior to meeting with them. And I made a point of ensuring that there would be an early meeting; I met with them on 10 January.

At that meeting I invited members to give me their views on the way ahead, in advance of my decision, and I explained the urgency to them. They agreed with me on the urgency, and I asked them to have written responses with me by 20 January in order to ensure that I could give their comments due weight when I came to take the decision. I took close account of the advice from the Committee, and I accepted a number of the points, as I outlined earlier, such as the need for the decision to be made urgently and the need for a new maternity hospital.

I carefully considered this alongside the outcome of the consultation process, my visits to the maternity units, my meetings with management, staff, health professionals and support groups as well as the PAFT analysis, the economic appraisals and the professional advice from my Department. I also sought Dr Campbell’s advice on oncology.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up.

I call Dr Birnie to wind up.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The clinical arguments in favour of the Jubilee as opposed to the Royal Maternity have been well rehearsed this afternoon, but I moved this amendment because the Minister has overridden her Committee and made a unilateral decision without further reference to her Executive Colleagues or the Assembly.

If a decision that involves the spending of £15 million is not a key decision, I tremble for the future of budgetary arrangements in her Department. We could be establishing a very dangerous precedent this afternoon with regard to how decisions are made, and it is essential that the House understands the implications.

We were told that powerful Scrutiny Committees would lie at the very heart of the new arrangements. Now we are in grave danger of seeing a Sinn Féin Minister knocking down the edifice of accountable government through the exercise of untrammelled Executive power. Our point about procedure would remain valid even if, in spite of what has been argued this afternoon, the decision by the Minister were, in itself, a wise decision, which it is not.

It is important at this early stage of devolution that we establish the ground rules for making important political decisions, especially in circumstances such as those we face now where a Minister is in confrontation with her Committee. At the moment the Health Minister’s decision cannot be treated as final because it was not made in an open, full and public manner. My concerns and, indeed, the Ulster Unionist Party’s concerns are reflected by the Assembly and by a majority of the general public.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

We have all heard arguments today about maternity services in Belfast, and it is crucial that we, as an elected Assembly, endorse the motion and give support to the Committee that has been diligent in its examination of the matter. I ask all parties to give their support. Failure to do so will throw the Chamber into confusion.

There is also the question of the role that Committees will play in the future. If a Minister can make decisions which are diametrically opposed to the opinion of his or her Committee, that is saying, in effect, that the Committee is of little value. There was overwhelming agreement in the Committee across party lines. The Democratic Unionist Party, the Ulster Unionist Party, the Women’s Coalition and a member of the SDLP fully supported the siting of maternity services at the City. This makes it vital that Members support the motion.

The Health Minister has failed to come up with a point of any weight to support her decision. She followed only her own narrow political interests. The grounds for that decision, in spite of the high-sounding claims that she has made on television and elsewhere, have not been substantiated today.

In fact we have had a very intelligent and powerful set of arguments that have shown the correctness of the Committee’s view. I read the recent article in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ by the Royal Victoria Hospital’s clinicians, which amounted to one point — the transfer of sick babies and the location of paediatricians. If they were correct, then all maternity services in Northern Ireland should be at the Royal. I note with interest that Dr Hendron, who is the Chairman of the Health Committee, was talking about a regional neonatal unit, although that is not what they call it. It is not a regional unit; there is no such thing. There are neonatal units at Altnagelvin, Antrim and Craigavon.

We cannot afford to follow what is a vested interest in one issue and then try to ignore it in another. As Mrs Robinson said, and it is an inescapable point, Barbara Brown has set out in a number of articles her political agenda with regard to the Royal.

I have listened very closely to the debate this afternoon. First of all, we had a member of Sinn Féin/IRA, Alex Maskey, trying to stop this debate. What area does he represent? West Belfast. Then we had the Health Minister, Barbara Brown. Where does she represent? West Belfast. We also had the Chairman of the Committee, Dr Joe Hendron, and Alex Attwood speaking against the motion. These people all represent West Belfast. If this is not political I do not know what is. It is hypocrisy on their part.

Before this debate today, politics were brought into the situation. Dr McKenna’s recommendations went against having the maternity services at the Royal Victoria Hospital. The Nationalist politicians said "No way. We must have another review". Then Prof Donaldson moved in, and he recommended that the services be transferred to the Royal Victoria Hospital.

The Minister has done a serious injury to the whole issue of maternity services and caused divisions where none should be. She cannot discard the Health Committee because it has adopted a more rational policy than she has. The Minister has tried to circumvent the work of our Committee. We had substantial consultations. We sat one evening for six or seven hours with the various groups, and people accused us of being political. We went through all the clinicians’ arguments. We had the medical men and the support groups coming in to give us their views. The Committee then had a cross-community vote, which was seven to four in favour of the City Hospital. That must not be ignored.

The mothers who will be affected by this must not be ignored. There were 500 responses to the consultation process, plus a pro-City petition of 40,000 names, which appears to have been ignored. That is the way the mothers in this part of Belfast feel this evening. They feel ignored and betrayed. The Minister has tried to cover herself —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I would like to say in closing —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The time is up. The Member will resume his seat.

The amendment and, if we come to it, the substantive motion will be decided on a simple majority vote. If the amendment is carried, we will not proceed to the substantive motion because the amendment, in effect, supersedes it.

Question put

The Assembly divided: Ayes 24; Noes 40.

Ayes

Ian Adamson, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Esmond Birnie, Joan Carson, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Sam Foster, John Gorman, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Dermot Nesbitt, Ken Robinson, George Savage, John Taylor, Jim Wilson.

Noes

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, John Hume, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamon ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 53; Noes 37.

Ayes

Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, David Ervine, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Monica McWilliams, Jane Morrice, Maurice Morrow, Dermot Nesbitt, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, John Taylor, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, Sean Farren, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Joe Hendron, John Hume, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Conor Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

This Assembly endorses the decision of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Statutory Committee to locate maternity services in Belfast at the City Hospital.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you now give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider her decision in the light of the Assembly’s vote?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is not a point of order, as I suspect the Member knows.

The sitting was suspended at 6.21 pm.