Northern Ireland Assembly, 28 November 2000

139 contributions from 43 members. The official report.

Economic Performance

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I beg to move

That this Assembly welcomes the recent announcement of a continuing decline in the rate of unemployment; and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and all Ministers whose Departments have an impact on economic performance to continue to develop policies which promote a competitive, dynamic and sustainable economy.

It is important to have this debate now in order to welcome the economic progress which has been occurring. We do this without being in any way complacent as to what policy may be required in the future to maintain this very welcome progress. Certainly, we should all be pleased that, in the last year, the rate of growth in Northern Ireland’s manufacturing output was around 10%. This compares extremely favourably with a national UK average of 1·7% and, indeed, has even been higher than the rate of industrial growth in the so-called Celtic tiger economy, south of the Irish border.

In bringing forward this motion, we hope that this debate will allow Assembly Members to provide indications as to what can be done to maintain this very welcome progress to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and, indeed, to other relevant Departments, for this is an interdepartmental issue.

There are three main parts to what I will say. First, I will indicate some of the institutional and structural changes that are still required. Secondly, I will outline the ways in which we should still strive to increase cost-competitiveness and, thirdly, I will mention the means of attaining the type of economic growth that Northern Ireland requires. It needs growth associated with high value added, which would lead to relatively higher wages.

I welcome the review of the industrial development agencies, which has been heralded by the Minister. This is a necessary process because we require a more logical structure than the current demarcation between the IDB and LEDU, which is based on the size of the client company. Also in question is what should be done by the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU), and whether it could be usefully combined with another agency, to have its main emphasis on small firms and inward investment. Also under discussion are the functions which are allocated to the Training and Employment Agency (T&EA) relative to those allocated to the IDB. I refer specifically to the company development programme, which is currently run by the IDB rather than by the T&EA.

We need to go beyond ‘Strategy 2010’ by providing an adequate benchmarking of these agencies’ performance in the recent past to evaluate what must be done in future. In devising a new structure for our industrial development agencies, we should recognise that, over recent years, the rate of growth of employment in Northern Ireland small firms has been considerably better than the United Kingdom average. We have had a success in this sector, and we should build upon that.

The Assembly will probably need to make difficult choices on how far we wish to promote a more entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit in the context of our major industrial development efforts. We will have to note the PAC report published in May this year, which charts the past performance of the IDB, and, no doubt, this will be debated in due course. At this stage, it would be wise to move the burden of industrial development assistance away from straightforward grant awards to companies and towards greater contributions to their equity.

We would welcome the application to Northern Ireland of the so-called regional venture capital funds. These involve the use of public money, usually in relatively small amounts, to leverage out bigger amounts of private- sector, entrepreneurial-related capital. Unfortunately, regional venture capital funds initiatives across the United Kingdom have been delayed on account of objections by the Competition Commissioner in the European Commission — perhaps that can be changed.

Given the central importance of e-commerce, the regulation of telecommunications should be made a transferred matter — as an Assembly, we should push for that. At the moment, responsibility lies with Westminster, but that is inappropriate given the central role of tele- communications in long-term economic development.

My second point is that we need to increase cost-competitiveness. Electricity charges to the industry are increasing again. The margin by which they are higher than in Great Britain is considerable, and this was the subject of a very valuable debate here recently. We welcome the liberalisation of the electricity market, primarily for industrial users, which has already occurred. In this respect, Northern Ireland has been ahead of the Republic of Ireland — the rate of liberalisation here has been quicker than that south of the border.

We also welcome the extent of the interconnections of our provincial electricity and gas supply system, first of all, with the Republic of Ireland but also, through Scotland and by implication, with the mainland of the European Union.

Fuel and motoring costs to industry, the subject of a recent debate in the House, are the subject of grave concern. Transport connections between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world, are very important. They matter in terms of cost, reliability and frequency. In due course, I have no doubt that the House will want to consider our policy with respect to airports in Northern Ireland. That is going to be a difficult decision; we will have to balance customer choice and keeping a number of major airports with attempts to build up economies of scale in one major regional centre.

Company finance matters. Significantly, the Federation of Small Businesses, whose survey of small firms was published last week, noted particular concern among small firms here about the way in which they felt the banking system had dealt with them. We need to do what we can to ease the costs of marketing. This can sometimes be done on a North/South basis, though there is also room for growth in east-west trade.

During the 1990s, Northern Ireland’s exports to Great Britain grew by about 40% while those to the Republic of Ireland rose by 90%. This may suggest a need for relatively more emphasis on promoting trade with the rest of the United Kingdom while not, of course, neglecting cross-border trade. At the same time, we should note that we have some cost advantages. At the moment manufacturing industry here is exempted from rates payments; perhaps this should be reviewed and made more selective. If we were to apply rates to manufacturing industry, we could raise revenue for other pressing uses.

Rental charges in Northern Ireland are still relatively low compared to those in the rest of the UK and much of the EU. We also have relatively low wage rates, though given the wider social aspects, this is not necessarily a cause for celebration. It is therefore worth noting that much can be done on cost competitiveness, however one views the desirability and practicality of imitating the Irish Republic’s relatively low rate of tax on corporate profits.

Thirdly, we need to aim for growth driven by high added value and resulting in higher wages. Wages in Northern Ireland are typically around 85% of the UK average, and they have in fact been falling in recent decades. We note that growth performance in the 1990s was good in terms of output, employment and the decline in unemployment. But all this was somewhat dependent on Northern Ireland’s becoming a relatively low wage economy. ‘Strategy 2010’ has set the regional economy a target for raising average incomes per head from 80% of the UK average to 90%. This is a very worthy target, but how will it be done? We await with interest the valuable report which the DETI Committee will be doing on ‘Strategy 2010’.

Boosting research and development is a key component of all of this. We should note that in the Republic of Ireland the rate of research and development has risen quite dramatically in recent years. This is a case of joined-up Government par excellence. I know much has already been done, but perhaps we can do more to promote technology transfer. The example of Israel and the United States exchanging software expertise could be applied to Northern Ireland.

Of course, we need to raise our supply of labour, particularly of skilled labour, and in this area there is a considerable policy overlap between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department of Higher and Further Education. I commend many of the initiatives that have already been taken.

It is worth noting in passing that it has been estimated that the Republic of Ireland has as many software writers as Germany, and perhaps we could move in that direction.

We need to identify where labour demand is exceeding labour supply for particular skills or occupations. We need to improve careers guidance services and encourage the return to Northern Ireland of people who have left the Province because they could not get a job here commensurate with their skills and abilities, and for this reason we welcome the initiatives promoted last week by the Department. For the first time in many decades Northern Ireland now has positive in-migration — on average more people are coming into the Province than are leaving it.

I recognise that in this overview it is not possible to go into detail on all major sectors of the economy. Sadly, the farming crisis continues. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce recently noted that of 30,000 farming units, only some 10% are viable in the long term. We need to take a responsible and realistic attitude to how we can diversify the economy in rural areas and take people away from producing food when there is a massive oversupply throughout the European Union.

The tourism sector recently published a blueprint which stated that employment in tourism in Northern Ireland is estimated at only 34,500 compared to 120,000 south of the border.

In summing up, let me make two points. First, time and again in coming debates here, the issue of whether money will be available for many worthy initiatives will arise. This has already been hinted at in some recent debates. In today’s debate Members will have the opportunity to contribute to the growth of the economy so that in the long term more resources will be available for all the desirable, socially orientated projects which we may want to promote.

My second point, and here I quote —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

May I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close — many Members wish to participate.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

My second point is that economic progress can contribute to political stability, and the reverse is equally true. I have pleasure in moving the motion.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As I have indicated, many Members wish to participate in the debate. The Business Committee has set a time limit for completion by 12.30 pm, so I must impose limits. The Minister will have the usual time to respond, 10 minutes per hour of debate; the Member who winds up will have 10 minutes; all other Members will have six minutes to make their remarks.

There is one amendment standing in the name of Mr Gallagher.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move the following amendment: At the end add

"taking account of the wider European economy."

I agree with Dr Birnie’s comment about the importance of this debate, in that it will indicate to our Government Departments how we would like to see our economy unfolding. However, an important debate on our economy should take account of the main factors that will influence our economy for the duration of the present Assembly, and hence my amendment.

We already know that many Northern Ireland businesses have been badly hit by currency differences. We heard in an earlier debate about retailers and wholesalers in the fuel business having to close down. We have seen how large sections of our transport industry have moved across the border where a better climate exists at present for them to operate in. The result is that hundreds of jobs have been lost here because of a slump in economic activity, and hundreds more will be lost as a result of the Chancellor’s new aggregates tax, which is due to come into effect in 2002. That will trigger a substantial increase in construction costs. The tax is to be levied on raw materials such as sand, gravel and crushed rock. The levy on those materials is to be charged at £1·60 per tonne. In other words, the cost of stones will rise from £4 a tonne to £5·60. The cost of building blocks will rise from about £184 for a load at present to £207, an increase of 12·5%. Ready-mix concrete will go up from £20 per cubic metre, which is roughly the present rate, to £33·20, an increase of 10·5%.

The aggregates tax is likely to have severe implications for the construction trade — for employers and employees alike. Ultimately, consumers will inevitably find themselves forced to pay for the levy, through costs transferred to new roads maintenance, to housing and to all construction projects. The Minister for Regional Development recently said that he is putting some major road schemes on the long finger because of a possible shortfall in funding. As we know, many of our roads are falling into quite a serious state of disrepair because of the lack of investment. With an increase of 10·5% in tarmac costs alone due to the new aggregates tax, we are looking at £13 million per year being wiped from actual roads maintenance expenditure. With the aggregates tax set to hike up costs of some raw materials to 40%, we are facing an urgent situation. In England, it is estimated that £70 million of the extra £250 million for roads will be eaten up by this tax. In Wales, it will cost an estimated £40 million per year, and 300 jobs will be lost. My concerns, like those of many others here, are for the people whose livelihoods and jobs are directly affected by the quarrying and construction industry, because they will have to deal with the knock-on effects. As we know, in the end the consumers will have to face major delays of road schemes and witness our minor roads deteriorate even further, while the cost of renovation and the building of new houses rises even further.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I draw the Member’s attention to two matters. First, his time is passing. Secondly, I have been listening carefully to hear the connection between what he says and the amendment that stands in his name, and I am not entirely clear about what that connection is. I am not questioning the content, simply its connection with the amendment.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The introduction of the new aggregates tax will have serious consequences for our economy. I have mentioned the job losses that will result. In my constituency we have already lost 450 jobs over an 18-month period. The impact of this aggregates tax will be felt throughout every constituency in Northern Ireland, and it will be felt greatest in border areas. Our Executive should be taking measures to counter the implications that it will have for Northern Ireland.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I draw the Member’s attention to the wording of his amendment — "taking account of the wider European economy." I have yet to make that connection in my mind. Please continue.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The implications for the wider European economy are that employers and employees in the quarrying and construction industry have advised me that, in anticipation of this tax, they are already taking steps to move their operations across the border. That is an implication for the wider economy and it is the reason for my amendment. I believe it should be taken into account.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

First, I must register my disappointment at having only six minutes to speak on what is a crucial issue for all Members. Nonetheless, we will use the time appropriately. I congratulate the Member for South Belfast (Dr Birnie) for bringing the motion, and his Colleague from North Antrim (Mr Leslie) for supporting it.

I have less support for the amendment than I have for the motion. It may have looked good on paper, but I did not follow it or understand it as it was proposed, and I do not believe that Mr Gallagher understood it either. Therefore, I am unable to support the amendment as it was not articulated in a way that would give it any sense.

I do not share Dr Birnie’s optimism about Northern Ireland’s economic performance to date. I agree we have low inflation because we are part of the United Kingdom. Also, our medium growth rate has been good, but it is still essential to set targets for low inflation and high economic growth and we should pursue those goals. It must be understood that this will be a long haul, mostly caused by the 30 years of violence that the Province has suffered — 30 years of violence against economic targets and investments. Of course, the Members opposite have been at the cutting edge of that economic warfare. As political representatives, we must repair the quite deliberate damage they have done to the Northern Ireland economy.

Many aspects of economic performance are beyond the Minister’s control. Unfortunately, he will be blamed for poor economic performance even though he cannot influence the price of sterling or the weakness of the euro. Neither can he do anything to address the over 50% drop in farm incomes. In my constituency, so much depends upon a thriving rural community. I wonder if any cross-cutting measures are being considered to link industrial and business development issues with rural farm businesses. That is essential if we are to see an upturn in farm development, which is an integral part of business and economic performance in my constituency. The Programme for Government has paid only lip-service to that concept.

Over the summer, 300 jobs were lost in my constituency at the Agivey and Ahoghill pig processing plants, and to date these have not been replaced. I urge the Minister to press the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for a fulsome agrifarm regeneration scheme or farm retirement scheme that will allow for the redevelopment of farm businesses. Farm businesses need young blood, and that can happen only if the Department puts its money where its mouth is.

Yesterday, we were disappointed to learn that, according to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the time is not right to press for low-incidence BSE status. However, if we had that, it would help rejuvenate farm businesses in Northern Ireland. I do not share Mr Gallagher’s confidence — he did not express any, but it was inherent in his written amendment — in our European partners helping us out of this hole. We are in this by ourselves, and we must get out of it ourselves. We have no confidence in our European partners helping us.

A more flexible approach to farm land development would have a sound impact on economic performance. I agree with Dr Birnie, who proposed the motion, about the importance of rural diversification. Such diversification is necessary, and I have stated many times that farm land is an under-exploited asset. It is essential to realise the economic benefits that can be derived from that asset if we are to have a more flexible approach to its development. I appeal to all the Departments referred to in the motion to work together to realise the economic potential of farm land development.

Northern Ireland has much ground to make up. Lack of entrepreneurial skill or drive in the Northern Ireland business community is not to blame for the economic deficit. That deficit derives solely from an orchestrated terror campaign against business development in Northern Ireland. That must go on the record. We are failing as representatives if we do not make that point. It is the people sitting under the Gallery opposite who have destroyed economic investment in our country for so long. We are now left with the long haul of trying to make that up. Other countries have moved forward while Northern Ireland has been so disadvantaged and handicapped. I agree that the Northern Ireland business sector is determined to move forward in spite of terrorism and failed political initiatives.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I do not think anybody would argue with the concept of a competitive, dynamic and sustainable economy. However, we need to closely examine the unemployment figures. I fear at times that there is a sustained campaign to paint a brighter picture than actually exists. Are the unemployment rates decreasing because people are getting decent, high- quality jobs, or is it just because the figures are presented in such a way as to paint a better picture? How many young people and adults are being forced onto New Deal programmes to bring down the unemployment rates? What is the quality of the work coming in? Instead of providing high-quality jobs with decent wages and working conditions, we are becoming a society that is dependent on a low-wage economy — an economy which depends on contract labour and in which workers’ rights are continuously eroded.

What about the job losses in the traditional industries? As a member of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee I hear evidence on a depressingly regular basis from people in the textile industry, the bakeries and the agrifood industry about the problems facing those sectors. We still have a war economy. We are in receipt of a huge subvention from Westminster, and we are over-dependent on the public sector and the huge security and military industry which has been built up.

What are we getting to replace this? It seems to me to be call centres and supermarket chains. We are losing our manufacturing base as a result of years of neglect. Can we, as a society trying to achieve normalisation, sustain this?

The figures also reveal huge geographical and community differences. There are pockets of serious disadvantage. In the main, these are Nationalist working- class areas, disproportionately adversely affected by decades of institutionalised discrimination and sectarianism. That is not to say that Unionist and Loyalist working-class areas are not also suffering high levels of unemployment and the associated socio-economic deprivation. They are, and these areas need to be equally targeted and uplifted.

However, the reality remains that young Catholic males are still 2·5 times more likely to be unemployed that their Protestant counterparts. This figure has not changed despite a raft of fair employment legislation. The lack of change is not because of the innate inabilities of those suffering from such discrimination. It is the result of the lack of political will to seriously address these issues. There are serious disadvantages being suffered west of the Bann. They do not just relate to unemployment, but go right across the board in relation to issues such as infrastructure, health and social services.

Long-term unemployment rates in Derry City remain at the level of 30 years ago. We must be realistic about all this. The Minister, Sir Reg Empey, has also referred to and given evidence to the Committee on the 60,000 people not included in official unemployment statistics. What are the reasons for the hidden unemployed not being on any register, and where are they? There are very serious issues to be tackled. Are these 60,000 people among those who cannot escape from the poverty trap?

I also point to the fact that there has been no real attempt by Government agencies to redress serious unemployment imbalances. The Industrial Development Board in particular is failing to live up to its targeting social need and policy appraisal and fair treatment (PAFT) obligations, merely replicating patterns of disadvantage. I therefore welcome the review of agencies and hope that whatever new structures are put in place herald real and fundamental change.

Returning to the motion, we all want an economy which is "competitive, dynamic and sustainable". No one here would argue with that, but we must be realistic. Let us not massage the figures or pretend that everything in the garden is rosy or equal. We want a society where issues of economic justice and equality are central. Go raibh maith agat.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

While the purpose of today’s debate is to produce an overview of the economy, I feel somewhat restricted in what I can say since the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee will be finalising its report to the Assembly on ‘Strategy 2010’ and the recommendations therein over the next few days. We shall also be finalising our response to the Minister on the proposals to create a single development agency.

If one is among the large band of long-term unemployed in Strabane or Moyle, two council areas we visited during our investigation into ‘Strategy 2010’, or even in Carrickfergus in my constituency, which has the fifth-highest level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, one cannot take much comfort from what the motion proposes. However, I do not wish to be wholly negative about the issue, for there has clearly been an increase in inward investment into Northern Ireland in recent times, one of the main reasons for it being the region’s greater perceived stability. While I welcome that, there remains uncertainty about the future — even about the future of this Assembly.

I earnestly believe that those people who can deliver should do so. I am thinking in particular of the IRA’s May 6 statement that it would re-engage with John de Chastelain. That could be a major step forward in itself to ensure that people in areas of high unemployment such as west Belfast, east Belfast and Strabane get the jobs for which so many of them are crying out. I welcome the fact that President Clinton has taken the decision to visit Northern Ireland once again. I hope that all those who can resolve the difficulties which we are facing at present will take advantage of the opportunity afforded by that visit.

However, one of the important aspects, if we are to move forward and develop a progressive economy in Northern Ireland, is the need for joined-up Government. I recognise the close co-operation we have seen so far between Sir Reg Empey and Dr Farren in trying to develop the skills required for the new industries coming here. We only have to look at Nortel Networks with the huge expansion in Monkstown and the benefits that can be gained from that. Other companies are supplying them and other new companies are investing in the area. There are great opportunities. I also appreciate that quite a large number of further education institutes are now trying to develop the skills of their students to meet the needs of the new industries. That is to be welcomed.

Other Members have mentioned infrastructure and that is vital. If we are to have joined-up Government as well, it is also important to look at ‘Strategy 2010’ in conjunction with the ‘Shaping our Future’ document, which deals with the whole question of future infrastructure developments in Northern Ireland.

In essence, the main message I am giving to the Assembly is that if we are to move forward and maximise the benefits of economic development, it has to be on the basis of liaison and partnership between the different Departments in Northern Ireland. I appeal to the Minister of Further and Higher Education that there is an urgent need for a substantial increase in university places here.

The question of energy is one which myself and others have dealt with both inside and outside the Assembly. It is vital that the gas pipeline goes to the north-west. There could be problems if the Irish Government insists on a special levy for a North/South gas pipeline. There are opportunities there, but what I want to see in Northern Ireland is a level playing field so that all areas can benefit from the opportunities I see being created by the new political disposition in which we find ourselves.

I could say lots more but I have run out of time. I will look very closely at the amendment put forward by the SDLP.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

I had hoped to deal with some general aspects of the Northern Ireland economy, but due to the time constraint I will focus on a specific issue relating to the Northern Ireland labour market that is worth detailed comment.

The ratio of Catholic/Protestant unemployment in Northern Ireland of 2·5 to 1 has persisted for over three decades. This unemployment differential constitutes a chronic labour market problem in Northern Ireland. The solution of this problem requires, at least as a necessary condition, a proper diagnosis of the cause or causes.

The politically dominant view, and the most important in terms of policy formulation, is the understanding that this Protestant/Catholic unemployment differential is due to a single cause — systematic discrimination by Protestants against Catholics in the Northern Ireland labour market. The political dominance of this understanding of the causality of the unemployment differential has given rise to the so-called fair employment legislation of 1976, 1989 and 1998. This legislation has and will continue to impose a heavy administrative cost on business in Northern Ireland.

This cost would be socially justified if in fact the differential were due to systematic Protestant discrimination against Roman Catholics. The leaders of business in Northern Ireland and Unionist politicians failed to effectively counter this allegation. That is an inexcusable failure for the simple reason that the claim was never based on anything more sophisticated than anecdotal comment and theoretically and empirically inadequate research.

Prof John Whyte, in a highly revisionist evaluation of the extent of discrimination published in 1987, nevertheless resorted to mere anecdote in retaining the claim of systematic labour market discrimination against Roman Catholics.

This theoretical and empirical inadequacy was exemplified by the work of the Policy Studies Institute, sponsored by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and published in 1987. Politicians in the House of Commons, such as Kevin McNamara, applauded that research as highlighting

"the appalling levels of inequality in Northern Ireland."

However, the research was publicly rubbished by two external reviewers in an article in ‘Fortnight’ magazine in January 1988, on the grounds of obvious theoretical and empirical inadequacies. That criticism was reinforced by Prof Tom Wilson — one of the most eminent economists in the United Kingdom — in his book ‘Ulster: Conflict and Consent,’ published in 1989, in which he showed that inferences about anti-Roman Catholic labour market discrimination in the Policy Studies Institute research simply could not be sustained.

The fact that the religious unemployment differential has persisted for three decades — despite so-called fair employment legislation and massive changes in the Northern Ireland labour market, including the significant reduction of unemployment in the 1990s — prima facie suggests that this unemployment differential is not significantly due to discrimination. The key to isolating the real cause of persistent religious unemployment differential was set out by Prof Paul Compton in a contribution to ‘The Northern Ireland Question: Myth and Reality,’ a book that I co-edited, in 1991.

Prof Compton’s core argument was that

"The explanation of high Catholic unemployment and under- representation in many types of employment lies not in discrimination but primarily in the structure, attitudes and aptitudes of the Catholic population."

That is in characteristics self-chosen by the Catholic population, such as exceptionally high fertility rates and geographical labour immobility.

The work of researchers such as Dr Graham Gudgin and Prof Richard Breen has now made it intellectually impossible to argue that discrimination is the only or significant cause of the chronic religious unemployment differential. Dr Gudgin set out the detail of this research in an accessible form in a contribution to ‘The Northern Ireland Question: Nationalism, Unionism and Partition.’

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member obviously has some things that he wishes to say. I appeal to him to connect his words as directly as he can with the wording of the motion.

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

The fact that the religious unemployment differential can no longer be understood as significantly due to systematic discrimination by Protestants against Roman Catholics must be accepted by those who genuinely wish to alleviate this characteristic feature of the Northern Ireland labour market. That characteristic is also a significant feature of the Northern Ireland economy, because the labour market is part of the economy. That logic could hardly be clearer.

Unfortunately, it was apparent from Mr Mallon’s statement on this issue on 20 November that he refuses to abandon the old Nationalist sectarian dogma. His mindset on this issue can only be accurately described as a state of invincible ignorance that bodes ill for the alleviation of some of our long-standing economic problems. That mindset was used repeatedly to justify 30 years of IRA terrorism on the basis that Protestants discriminated against Catholics, but there is not a shred of evidence to support it.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I will try to lift the debate on to a higher, perhaps more global, plane.

Economic development strategists have a very important decision to make. Should we prepare the Northern Ireland economy to play catch-up in the high-tech revolution? Or should we try to leapfrog the dot-com wave and move into much more interesting, more exciting uncharted waters? The catch-up option is the easy option. The role model is, as Mr Roche is very aware, just 100 miles away.

The Republic of Ireland has shown us that it can be done. All we have to do is follow suit and wait for the Celtic tiger to come hunting north of the border. I agree that the leapfrog option carries more risk, but it could be more interesting. It is about preparing the way for the next wave of industrial development without knowing for sure what it is going to be. It is about leading the market instead of following it.

As Northern Ireland moves out of conflict and into a new phase of political stability, there is a golden opportunity to rethink our economic development strategy and set a blueprint for the future. We have two choices: play it safe and chase the "dot", or relaunch ourselves as the global pioneer of truly modern socio-economic development. We have to think big.

The Northern Ireland Programme for Government and the economic consultation document ‘Strategy 2010’ call for a sea change in economic attitude, from the fear- of-failure society to a new risk-taking culture of innovation and creativity. If this strategy is to succeed, those sitting in the economic driving seat must lead by example.

Northern Ireland is perfectly positioned in both human and physical capital terms to take advantage of what is now an unstoppable move towards a new direction in socio-economic thinking. Our island situation at the northern part of Europe, with nothing beyond but ocean, gives us a clean, green image, so essential to, and the envy of, environmentalists the world over. We must not let that be tarnished and we must take advantage of it.

Our position at the English-speaking intersection of Europe and the Americas, and our ability — as will be demonstrated by the arrival of the President next month — to win friends and influence people on both sides of the Atlantic is hugely important and gives us an incredibly valuable edge.

Also, our young and increasingly educated population — and as has been said, our young people are now staying or returning — is an incredible reserve of energy and know-how, which is second to none in human terms.

Finally, our worldwide reputation for manufacturing excellence, our solid industrial skill base and our high quality of life gives Northern Ireland the reputation it requires to relaunch itself into a new global economy where quality, high-value-added specialisation and diversification will compete over price.

Time is short, but I want to give five pointers on the way forward for economic policy thinkers. First, there is the increasing awareness of the effects of industrial and domestic pollution on our climate. We have seen the effects of global warming — flooding — and we have seen the consequences of the collapse of the climate change conference. We must grasp the nettle and head right down the line of pioneering new, clean, green technology. That is the leapfrog into the new areas. Secondly, we need to be aware of the changing trade and investment patterns that will emerge as a result of single European currency arriving on our doorstep. It cannot be ignored. We are already severely handicapped by — [Interruption]

Patrick Roche (NIUP, Lagan Valley)

What are those patterns?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The changing trade and investment patterns caused by the single currency are very clear. Investors who want to use Northern Ireland as a stepping stone into Europe may have to think twice when they realise that we have sterling and that the rest have the euro. I hope that explains that.

Northern Ireland’s export potential is already hugely handicapped by the strength of sterling. Innovative ways to overcome that must be found.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

On a point of order, does giving way take up my time?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Of course.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

In that case I will not give way.

I have two final points, but they are not necessarily the most important. First, we have to take account of and accommodate female participation in the workplace. Secondly, social responsibility and traditional industry is the way to go.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Of course, everyone has difficulty in giving up their old shibboleths and beliefs, and Paddy Roche may have touched a nerve when he suggested that perhaps the unemployment ratio between Catholic males and their Protestant counterparts was not entirely, or not really, because of discrimination.

It was interesting that one vital piece of evidence that supported him in this debate came from, of all sources, Sinn Féin. The Sinn Féin Member said that over the last 30 years the rates of unemployment in Derry City have not changed. We have been told that Derry City is the "jewel in the crown" of the economic achievement of John Hume’s SDLP. We have heard of the myriad jobs that have been brought to Derry.

What do we find? The rate of employment of Catholic males has not changed, and the reason is not difficult to see. Between four and five thousand new jobs would be required annually in Derry City alone to meet the number of wage earners coming in to the labour market. Think about that when you jeer or sneer at suggestions that Catholic male unemployment may not be due entirely, or at all, to discrimination.

Let me move on to some of the other valid points made by the Sinn Féin Member in relation to industries like textiles, bakeries, agrifood and heavy industry. This Assembly gives itself a competence that it should well question. A lot of our problems will not in any way be solved in any circumstance by anything that this Assembly may do. That is because they are occasioned — for example, in relation to heavy industry, textiles, and agriculture — by global markets and by policy decisions in Europe and the United Kingdom over which this Assembly does not, and will never, have any control.

What can we do about the question of competition with Denmark and Holland on the importation of pork, when the British Government decides that it will impose certain measures on tethering that make our pork industry uncompetitive? What can we do about the textile industry, when it is quite plain that even those, like Marks & Spencer, who wish to support British and Northern Irish manufacturers, find that it is impossible to compete in the market place unless they purchase from Sri Lanka and other places? What can we do about the competition between French and German shipyards and Harland &Wolff, or about textile manufacturers that compete with the virtually defunct Mackies, or about the Sirocco works? Nothing.

As for the visit of President Clinton, the "Old Mother Hubbard" president, it is quite clear that every president, and particularly those who have served two terms, wants to leave some legacy. Roosevelt had the "New Deal," Reagan had "Star Wars," and even poor Dick Nixon had the détente with China. Poor old Billy has got absolutely nothing. He has put no major legislation through Congress, and the Middle East is in an infinitely worse situation than he found it. As for Northern Ireland, many people think that he is really scraping the barrel and that, like Old Mother Hubbard, he will find absolutely damn all in the cupboard when he comes here.

Let me deal with some other matters. We want real jobs here. We do not necessarily want call centres or supermarkets. I agree with that. The Industrial Development Board and other agencies seem to be entirely within the control of the propaganda department of the Northern Ireland Office.

Every time there is a wobble in the peace process the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, the ‘News Letter’, the BBC and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all announce a wave of new jobs which mysteriously disappear as quickly as they appeared. The Audit Committee has investigated the IDB and its virtually fraudulent claims about jobs that have been produced, of which the situation at Montupet UK Ltd is one example. There needs to be some honesty in the business of job creation.

What is the North/South Ministerial Council doing about the massive smuggling operations that are illegally supplying one third of fuel consumed in Northern Ireland? That smuggling is putting many of our workers and industries under pressure. What is being done about that? I asked the Deputy First Minister, and he skilfully evaded the question. If we are going to have any relations with the Republic of Ireland let us hope that they will be honest.

The Assembly’s objective is not to prattle, as some people do, about major visionary projects, but to consider the level of its own competence and what it can do within those limitations.

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

I welcome the motion and the amendment. It is important to place the objective of a sustainable regional economy in the wider European context as matters concerning ever-closer European economic integration and the single currency have far-reaching consequences on the economic competitiveness of this region.

Joined-up Government is fundamental to the success of the economic performance of the region. ‘Strategy 2010’ states that its key objective is the creation of a knowledge-based, value-added economy, building upon the opportunities provided by the information and communication technologies (ICT) sector. That area of economic activity has been developed very successfully in the Republic. That key objective can only be achieved if the 10 Government Departments that have a direct or indirect impact on the North’s economic performance work together to develop and implement economic policies with all Ministers playing a co-operative and constructive role.

The need has never been greater for the devolved Administration to develop a coherent and integrated economic development strategy to inspire the confidence of all sections of the community that the new political dispensation can really make a difference to their lives.

With regard to the development of the infrastructure of the region, the Programme for Government has taken an imaginative step forward and adopted joined-up government as its guiding principle. If this Administration is to implement a successful economic development policy it is critically important to ensure that the proper standard of infrastructure is in place to facilitate and sustain economic growth.

A competitive regional economy also requires a competitive energy market. The recent announcement by the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he is to present a Utilities Bill before the House should put the electricity regulator in a position to make statutory price recommendations. Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) must abide by those recommendations, and that will lead to a reduction in the electricity bills of industrial and domestic customers.

In April 2002 central Government will introduce an aggregates tax or quarry tax that will be charged on a weekly basis of around £1·60 per tonne, as Mr Gallagher already mentioned. That may hamper the creation of a competitive economy and place a burden on the Roads Service budget. Products for export will be taxed, but exported aggregates will be exempt. Even though imported aggregates will be taxed, imported products such as blocks, kerbs, lintels and mixed concrete will be exempt. That will result in a large increase in construction costs, and the Roads Service will experience a reduction in spending power of between 10% and 15%.

Recent labour market statistics show that unemployment in Northern Ireland is on a downward trend. The number of those out of work and claiming benefit in the North is currently around 5·7%. That is still higher than the Irish Republic’s unemployment rate, which is 3·7%, and Britain’s, which is 3·5%, but nevertheless it is a welcome development. However, we should not be complacent. New TSN highlights that there are many areas of economic deprivation in this region which require special assistance. For example, in my constituency of West Tyrone, Strabane has 12·6%, the highest rate of unemployed males claiming benefit in Northern Ireland, and overall has the highest unemployment rate in the region. Also in the Omagh District Council area we have three of the most deprived council wards in Northern Ireland. This persistent long-term unemployment has been further compounded by the crisis in the agricultural sector, the decimation of the textile industry, and the punt- pound disparity which is wiping out border petrol retailers and damaging the retail sector along the border zone.

The IDB’s 1999-2000 annual report gives a very positive assessment of the North’s current economic situation. It shows a growth in manufacturing output and increase in manufacturing productivity, and a significant increase in the new projects negotiated by IDB. There are 52 new projects in total, with an anticipated 7,000+ new jobs. However, as a public representative from West Tyrone — a new TSN area that has seen very little from the IDB in recent years — one has to emphasise the importance of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s ensuring that TSN areas also receive their fair share of inward investment projects.

Joined-up Government means not only co-operation between the Departments and Ministers in the Executive, but also listening to the views and working alongside local government. The recent launch of the ‘Omagh 2010’ strategy, and its endorsement by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is an example of how local communities can develop a vision that fits in and complements existing regional frameworks such as ‘Shaping our Future’ and ‘Strategy 2010’. It is an example of how local communities can collectively seize the initiative and put in place a vision to shape their own future. An increase in this sort of interaction between the two tiers of Government will enable the Executive to listen to the public’s views at ground level. The challenge now is how can we develop the regional economy so that it is more productive and less dependent on the public sector as a percentage of overall GDP output with increased employment and general prosperity.

Jim Wells (DUP, South Down)

It is extremely frustrating having to cover such an important issue in six minutes, but I will try my best in the time given. Implicit in this motion is a subtext that the present encouraging trends in economic development in the Province are somehow linked to the Good Friday Agreement, or to the appointment of the Minister. It is important to emphasise that many of these trends were occurring long before the signing of the agreement in 1998. Therefore, while we have enjoyed the benefits of those trends continuing, it would be totally wrong to lay them at the feet of the accord.

The IDB report states that the upturn in industrial production commenced in mid-1991, and has continued ever since. The trend in exports is even more apparent. In 1991-92 exports worth £1·78 billion were shipped out of Northern Ireland. That rose to £3·13 billion by the 1997-98 financial year. That is a very clear and welcome trend. The point that has not been made is that we are inextricably linked as part of the United Kingdom to the United Kingdom economy. As it has expanded we have enjoyed the enormous benefits that have accrued from being part of the United Kingdom.

In the rush to indulge in North/Southery and in all the cross-border bodies linked to the agreement, the Minister and the Department have failed to grasp that Great Britain is our main market. Thirty-five per cent of our trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is where concentrated efforts should be made instead of running down South where only a small proportion of our trade comes from.

I had some direct experience of the IDB’s work when I expressed concerns about B/E Aerospace in Kilkeel. I found IDB extremely co-operative, and that was during direct rule. Lord Dubs, the then Minister of the Department of the Environment also moved mountains to facilitate the development of that company with very obvious success.

It is totally wrong to attribute all of this to recent developments. Once again, it has to be emphasized, that the economic upturn has been very unevenly distributed. I have a few statistics from a recent IDB report.

In 1999-2000, the most recent financial year, 2,400 jobs were created as a result of inward investment in Northern Ireland. In reality, over 70% of those were created in Belfast — 1,879 of them. The previous year, 2,657 jobs were created, again, over 2,000 of them in Belfast, which means that great swathes of Northern Ireland benefited very little from inward investment.

Is it any wonder this has happened, given the number of visits by potential investors to Northern Ireland, which are sponsored by IDB and LEDU? To give an example, in 1998-99, there were 299 visits, yet how many of those went to South Down? We know that five went to Down, one to Banbridge, and seven to Newry and Mourne District Councils. Of course, those councils cover parts of other constituencies. From what I can see, about four out of 299 visits that were made by potential investors came to South Down. I have to agree, for once, with the Member for West Tyrone; it is quite clear from the statistics that very few of these visits are made outside the Greater Belfast area and Londonderry.

There is enormous potential in the areas south of Belfast and west of the Bann for inward investment. Unfortunately, when an investor rings up, he seems to be pointed in the direction of Greater Belfast. The problem with that is that Belfast is becoming congested. There is a huge demand for housing, and people have to wait an enormous time to get into Belfast during the rush-hour period. All we are doing here is storing up considerable trouble for ourselves by concentrating investment in one part of the Province.

While we all welcome the large call centre, which I understand will employ 1,500 people on the Ormeau Road, in south Belfast, one has to think of the implications of an extra 800 or 900 vehicles going in and out of that part of the city. How on earth can the present road system cope with that? That investment could have easily have come to Banbridge, Kilkeel, Omagh or any one of our rural towns. It would have had the most enormous impact on the economies of those towns, without a huge increase in congestion.

I have to come back to the one nettle that we have not really grasped, and the Assembly must grasp it if we are to have a meaningful impact on unemployment, and that is of decentralisation. Why is it that we are still concentrating most of the Civil Service jobs within half a mile of this Building? That is totally unacceptable. Already, some parts of agriculture and education have been successfully decanted to Londonderry with very few difficulties, and that has increased the economic performance of those areas. Why is the Department of Agriculture’s headquarters in Dundonald House and not in South Down, Mid-Ulster, or West Tyrone? Why do we need to have that Department there? We must grasp this nettle and mean business about getting jobs into Northern Ireland which are out of the Greater Belfast urban area.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I would also agree, along with most other people, that six minutes is a very short time in which to contribute to this debate, but it is useful in that at least it allows continued debate on the same subject. The motion mentions the unemployment figures and the fact that they are declining, but I would question that to some extent, because while there can be unemployment figures of the like of seven per cent, we should use the re-unemployment figures as a barometer. In certain areas of deprivation, such as were mentioned by Dr O’Hagan, the situation is similar to what it was years ago with very high unemployment or low-paid jobs, and working in menial jobs at very low pay is almost as bad as being unemployed. The New Deal or jobs schemes of that nature are not much better than an excuse for leaving people locked in to unemployment for years to come. That needs to change. Those areas need to be targeted in a different way to try and give them real jobs. The idea that areas have been designated exclusively for New Deal and that that is their lot, must change. There has to be change in the mindsets of those Departments and cross-departmental structures, which has been mentioned.

We are emerging from a conflict situation that has perhaps affected Nationalist areas in particular. The Robson deprivation indexes and the incidence of school meals are still very valid in terms of those areas. Nationalists, for decades did not have the crutch of subvention in the security economy that others have been able to make use of.

The motion mentions "competitive, dynamic and sustainable economy". Ministers, and especially politicians and heads of Departments have to change their present mindsets. It has been mentioned that if IDB or LEDU want to target jobs they will have to change from the idea that jobs have to be centred in Belfast, or the larger built-up areas, and move the economy to all areas. That would solve a lot of problems at once.

The North/South institutions have a tremendous amount to offer regarding our future. If people do not change their present political mindsets, in which they are only willing to look at this as a situation where Northern Ireland can survive on its own and without looking wider, they are going to be wrong. However, they have to bring their people along with them. Politicians need to bring their own people with them in this. It is not simply good enough to have your political tract when elections come up and then talk about the economy as if it is a totally different subject.

There are certain realities concerned with competitiveness and the dynamic economy of today’s world that have to be put across to employers and ordinary people. The global market is a reality, and you will have the continual business of mergers, which is standard practice of global industries at the present time.

People feel angry, as I know from experience. Fermanagh Creameries is closing and that is causing a further increase in local job losses. We have had that ten-fold in Fermanagh. It happens in rural areas for reasons of distance and roads structure, all of which come into vogue when people decide to stay in an area.

I also think that pushing forward indigenous small industries is the way forward for rural areas, perhaps more so than trying to bring in large industries which will move out at the first sign of difficulty.

Mr Gallagher mentioned the quarries, and the quarry industry is a very important one for people in Fermanagh. It is a very high employer, at a time when our local agriculture industry is declining. We will lose hundreds of jobs in the quarry industry if that tax lands on us because quite a number of quarry firms will simply move South. That is the only option they will have if almost one quarter, or one third, of the price of a tonne of stones is added. It will have a knock-on effect. Many small industries are attached to the quarry industry and that issue needs to be highlighted. It was a tax designed to put pressure on the number of roads being built in England and it has to be stopped with respect to our area. People should at least look at that.

Overall, there are those in the political situation who are not prepared to move forward or to bring their people forward. We have Mr Paisley Jnr talking about the economy. He met delegates recently and told them that the polity of the situation was not going to work, the agreement was going to break down, and he asked them to invest with us anyway — [Interruption].

We had another politician earlier who perhaps has no time in his diary to meet President Clinton when he visits here, a meeting that would be of great importance to this area in terms of how the people outside look at us. That is very important. Go raibh maith agat.

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

I regret that time is limited as I am sure all of us could contribute a lot more. The motion welcomes the decline in unemployment and all I can add is that it has not declined far enough or fast enough — it has a good bit farther to go.

I have particular sympathy with unemployment black spots, regardless of what side of the sectarian divide they are labelled with. Somebody who is unemployed suffers a considerable loss of dignity, worth and personal credibility, and that can never be measured in absolute terms. The motion calls on all the Ministers to develop policies that will promote a competitive, dynamic and sustainable economy. I would like to enter into a detailed critique of the strengths and weaknesses, the opportunities and the threats to our economy, but time does not permit it.

We must systematically remove the obstacles, bottlenecks and restrictions to economic growth. There are many of those scattered right across our economy; outdated, bureaucratic, restrictive practices that may have had a place in the nineteenth or possibly even the twentieth century, but certainly not in the twenty-first century. We must do more than pay lip-service to our own particular narrow interest or whatever angle any of us as individuals might have in the economy.

We must all make sacrifices to help move the economy forward. We have just seen the exchange across the Chamber here; we heard the pot calling the kettle black regarding who did what to whom first. Instability is the biggest threat, and if there were stability here, the unemployment rate would be halved. Some have raised the question of the Northern Ireland Office and all sorts of manipulative things, but the biggest obstacle has got nothing to do with the NIO and manipulation. I have had the good fortune, on numerous occasions, to be in the United States — usually on behalf of Belfast City Council but subsequently as part of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee — and those who are considering investing here are, at times, tottering on a knife-edge about whether they will or will not. However, when the circus — the carnival — takes place at Drumcree every July, that certainly persuades them in the wrong direction.

There has been a significant failure here to consolidate the peace. We can all point the finger; we can all poke each other in the eye; but most of the parties in this Chamber could do a good bit more to consolidate the peace. If they were genuine and wanted to back up the rhetoric, they could go that extra mile to underpin the peace that we have, thereby encouraging a further reduction in unemployment.

All of the political jockeying that has taken place here at times — and in any assembly there will always be political jockeying, but some of ours goes a bit far, whether it be blocking Ministers from going to meetings of North/South bodies or suing Ministers for not being allowed to go to North/South meetings — sends out a disastrous message —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

That the agreement does not work.

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

I could say that Ian Paisley Jnr does not work, but I think that has been obvious to all of us for a long time. Ian Paisley Jnr has not made much of a contribution to the prosperity of the people of North Antrim during the time that he has been elected.

‘Strategy 2010’ was useful, but it may not have gone far enough, or been inclusive enough, but I believe that the sterling efforts of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee since then have gone a long way towards rectifying any possible exclusion. We must strenuously embrace a knowledge-based economy. There are a number of opportunities throughout the whole spectrum of e-commerce — and I include e-government in that, because we have got to embrace this, at Government level as well as a commercial one — and the whole field of bio-technology.

Therefore, we must try to achieve the right financial factoring for our small businesses. As the motion suggests, we must pay attention to the cross-cutting and inter- connecting issues with the Department for Regional Development, the Department for Social Development and the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. We must also look at the availability of land use right across our community, in Belfast, Derry and the rural parts, in order to get the balance right.

Mr Speaker, I realise that time does not permit me to go on though I could.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Your time is up. A number of Members who have spoken have remarked on the shortness of their time. All of those who did so remark were at least able to speak. A number of Members who also wished to speak were unable to do so because of the shortness of time.

The length of the debate is decided not by the Speaker, but by the Business Committee. If Members want a longer time to be made available for debates, they should speak to their business managers, who, in turn, will strive to ensure that longer time is made available.

I am reminded of a Member who apologised to his audience for making a long speech because, he claimed, he did not have time to prepare a short one.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Dr McDonnell spoke about underpinning the peace. Perhaps he will help to underpin the peace by declaring that the SDLP will support the Police Service of Northern Ireland. SDLP Members should sit on the board of the Police Service rather than cling on to IRA/Sinn Féin or look over their shoulders at it.

I welcome the fall in unemployment that has taken place over the past years. Last month there was a rise in the unemployment figures, but that may just have been a blip. I imagine that it is possible to trace the fall in unemployment back to before the ceasefires. It has more to do with the world economy, new information and communication aids and job creation in those areas that are experiencing falling unemployment than with the security situation. It is related too to new Labour, the Assembly and a number of other political ideals that some people may have.

Northern Ireland has become less peripheral as a result of new communication aids and, therefore, we have greater opportunities to sell ourselves on the worldwide market. However, there are some issues that need to be addressed. For example, announcements are made about jobs that we do not get. I know of one factory that announced 500 new jobs. However, management was later notified that it was not to take on any more staff. This still stands. Those jobs have not come into being in spite of the announcement that was made a number of months previously. Job announcements must not be made for political purposes. When jobs are announced they should be genuine jobs that will come into being then and not at some time in the distant future.

A number of other matters also need to be addressed by the Minister. With regard to the quality of jobs available, Northern Ireland employees are said to be paid at a rate of 85% of what employees in the rest of the United Kingdom are paid. We must create a better quality of job to encourage people to come back to Northern Ireland and reverse the brain drain that took place during the 1980s. It is well-paid people who drive the economy forward. They invest more in the economy and do more to provide a greater number of jobs in it.

I hope to see a greater concentration of resources directed at indigenous companies, as such companies tend to remain where they are when the going gets tough. They tend to invest more into the economy and thus create more jobs. Given the high cost of flights, ferries and transport in and to Northern Ireland, we are paying through the nose for fuel. We are on the edge of Europe, and we seek to export our main manufacturing base to the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe. This obviously costs us a lot more money because of the high fuel and ferry costs.

12.00

Those issues must be addressed by the Minister. I realise that in the matter of fuel costs his hands are somewhat tied by the Exchequer, nevertheless he has to make the case. That has been part of the problem faced by the manufacturing and agriculture industries, one that has had a major detrimental effect on them. The textile and agriculture industries have lost 8,000 jobs over the last five years, and while other industries — particularly electronics — have stepped into the breach, the transition has been a difficult one which has created problems, particularly in rural areas where there was a higher dependency on such jobs.

We also need to look at the current infrastructure. It is essential that the Department for Regional Development get sufficient finance to proceed with the intended road network. The £30 million cut should not take place in years 2 and 3, and the intended road developments should be allowed to proceed apace.

There is much merit in looking at the value added to what we produce in Northern Ireland, particularly by the agriculture industry. Companies such as Moy Park have done great work in developing that whole area, so why can it not be done in, for example, the pork and lamb industries? It can be done if there are companies which are prepared to do it. Unfortunately, one company involved in the pig industry here does not seem to be forward- sighted. It seems to wish merely to cream off the market here and not to create jobs and make real investment for the future.

Mr Gallagher proposed an amendment to this motion, although I did not hear anyone speak in support of it, including Mr Gallagher. In relation to the European dimension, it would be short-sighted to go into the Euromarket, to enter the euro-zone at this time. More difficulties would be created for the Irish Republic’s economy as a result of the United Kingdom’s not entering the euro-zone. It must be remembered that 71% of our exports are to the United Kingdom, and we are currently doing very well with low inflation and high growth.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

I welcome the opportunity for this debate. There have not been many opportunities to concentrate on some of these very important matters. One has to remember that our economy, and how it progresses, affects every home in this Province, and sometimes that tends to get a back seat when other things are on the agenda.

A number of Members have focused obviously on unemployment. I want to strike a note of caution. We have been enjoying a significant fall in unemployment and long-term unemployment throughout the last few years. That has continued, but as everybody who knows about economics will tell you, we live in a series of cycles. My caution is that there are limits to how long this process can continue without some reverses being undertaken. We have been making very welcome progress, but that cannot be guaranteed to go on for ever.

Some Members have complained about unemployment in their areas, and that is fair enough. It has been said that no effort has been made by the IDB and other agencies to deal with particular districts which might be TSN areas. However, Members who frequently put questions to me about unemployment and how it affects their particular areas should look at some of the figures. In every single district council area — without exception — unemployment has dropped in the last year, although by varying degrees. The percentage is not uniform, but some of the drops are quite significant and are in some of the areas that have been worst affected. That is largely because those areas have further to go.

The approach of organisations such as the IDB and LEDU to TSN is serious, and I and my Department take the situation very seriously. If Members were to look at where jobs went last year they would find that three quarters of the new jobs brought in to Northern Ireland by the IDB went to TSN areas in accordance with the targets.

Mr Wells and others referred to another frequently raised issue — visits. No one, not the IDB nor LEDU, can dictate where companies go. We encourage companies to visit TSN areas and have set a target of 75% of first-time visits to go to TSN areas. The out-turn achieved last year was 76%. Companies decide where they go and where they invest their money. We will offer them additional incentives to go into TSN areas and frequently that does happen. However, the idea that we are some kind of Soviet-style economy that can direct companies to go to these places is not right. That does not happen.

It is a matter of regret to me that during the debate a number of Members who raised these points are no longer in the Chamber to hear my reply.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The Minister has raised a number of points which I would like to respond to. Neither I nor my Colleagues are calling for the Minister to act like a Soviet director, dictating where certain businesses go. However, when businesses and trade groups come to visit Northern Ireland they should be brought to much wider areas than would previously have been the case. My area has on its doorstep a major university, a research facility. It has a high youth population which desires employment, and I hope that the Minister will be able to bring trade groups to the area and encourage them to invest.

Reg Empey (UUP, Belfast East)

The Member is correct that we can not direct; but it is appropriate that we encourage. Up to the moment we have been reaching these targets.

With reference to Dr Birnie’s point, I have made it clear that with regard to the structural and institutional changes that we are proposing, subject to Executive approval, it is my intention to make a statement to the House before Christmas. I am awaiting a response from the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, and when that is received I will be able in the next couple of weeks to move towards making decisions. We do not want uncertainty or any further delay.

It is over 30 years since the structures were developed for LEDU, 20 years since the IDB was set up and 10 years since the IRTU, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, was set up, and it is an appropriate time, now that local authorities are very active in local economic development, to review the situation and see whether we are delivering the services to the business community in the best way that we possibly can. Due to the changing nature of the businesses that we are dealing with — the whole innovation/ICT sector now emerging is very strong — it is appropriate now that we take the opportunity to review our structures. We hope to bring forward proposals to the Assembly within the next few weeks, and it is my intention, if possible, to get them in before the recess.

Dr Birnie mentioned significant cost and competitive issues. We all know about the energy situation, and a number of Members have referred to that. It is very depressing. I read an article recently that talked about gas and electricity charges in Great Britain going up by 25% due to fuel costs and gas pressures which might emerge early next year.

We are working hard to find a total package to deal, once and for all, with the question of energy costs. It has been a millstone around our necks for some time, and we have been severely disadvantaged by the privatisation that was carried out between 1989 and 1992. A very bad deal was done, and we are struggling with the consequences. That has a huge impact. We have opened up competition for the business sector, but sadly, as Members know, domestic consumers still do not have any choice and face significant difficulties.

Members referred to farming, rural diversification and tourism. In many rural areas, unemployment figures disguise the difficulties that farmers, suppliers and processors face. They may count as employed or self- employed, but it is no secret that they are in dire straits and suffering greatly. In the Programme for Government, we attempt to address those problems. My answer to Mr Paisley Jnr’s question is that I have been in regular contact with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Through the vision group, we are examining the whole processing sector. However, we recognise that it goes much further than that; a number of farmers are not going to survive. What are the alternatives? That is where the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development comes in, because it is rural development programmes that will help to replace traditional jobs. Tourism can also play a role. We are underperforming significantly, for reasons to which I will refer later.

Members spoke about the trends in the economy. Mr McCartney said that there were many things over which we can have no influence and about which we can do nothing. I consider that to be a helpless attitude, although I appreciate that we are a regional economy, that many fiscal decisions are made in London, and that currency issues are dealt with in London.

I suspect that Ms Morrice thinks that the single currency might be the panacea. That is false. The euro is undervalued; sterling is not overvalued. There are downsides to that. For example, some companies have found the currency situation beneficial, because they are able to buy cheaply in the euro sector. If they are selling to the dollar area, where an increasing amount of our export trade is going, the disadvantage does not apply. However, I accept that many exporters suffer as a direct result of the currency situation. I hope that, in due course, the euro will come back up to a more realistic level; it is undervalued. Nonetheless, I am far from convinced that we can extrapolate from that that we would be better off within the single European currency.

Mr McCartney also referred to fuel smuggling. We have been lobbying the Treasury very vigorously, and I have had several communications with Stephen Timms, the Financial Secretary. Customs and Excise has recently introduced additional measures that have resulted in seizures. There are huge businesses involved, and we strongly believe that they are closely linked to paramilitary organisations. Huge resources are being syphoned off from the economy and directed into the coffers of such organisations. But we have been lobbying on this issue very strongly with Stephen Timms and the Treasury. They are very acutely aware of the situation, and some success has been achieved.

I must highlight the plight of the petrol retailers, many of whom have been brought by Members to see me. We have faithfully conveyed their views to the Chancellor. I have been working with the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, in lobbying on the matter of aggregates, and we are very aware of their potential to do very significant damage to our economy.

A number of Members mentioned instability. As Dr McDonnell pointed out, a number of companies are delaying making major investment and employment decisions because we have not yet sorted out our problems. Business needs stability, and competition is intense for a limited number of mobile investment projects. We need to convince investors that Northern Ireland is good for business and that there is no longer any threat to their enterprises. Naturally, some investors are holding back, and I cannot blame them for delaying.

That is why I tell people to decide what they want and if they want peace and prosperity to do away with weapons and stop behaving like warlords, intimidating whole communities. People need to be aware that when they call for investment and the creation of jobs in TSN areas while continuing to insist on holding onto paramilitary structures and weapons, they stand little or no chance of attracting private capital. The warlords must make up their minds. They can continue to preside over continuing punishment beatings, growing hopelessness and dereliction, or they can acknowledge the great opportunity that awaits us all. We had to mobilise the entire political community and work extra hard to secure investments that were threatened by the disturbances surrounding Drumcree last summer. Other areas are also suffering. Tourism is operating at only one third of its potential, and it is very difficult to enhance performance unless issues such as Drumcree and the ripple effect throughout the community are sorted out.

We have the chance to establish a vibrant sustainable economy. We must not lose it or allow others to squander what is the best opportunity Northern Ireland has had since partition. Let us be under no illusions — investment today is mobile. It can be made anywhere in the world and there are increasingly fewer pieces of foreign investment with increasingly stiffer competition. India, China and the Far East are opening up as potential competitors with Northern Ireland.

Members made the point that the linkage between my Department and Dr Farren’s will be crucial, and we recognise that — we have set up working parties between our Departments and we have had an away day. We recognise the point in ‘Strategy 2010’ that the degree to which we succeed will be directly linked to the degree to which we can match skill needs to the requirements of businesses, thus ensuring that a supply of labour is available. Members will also be aware that we launched the Back to Your Future campaign last week to attract back to Northern Ireland those who have had to leave our shores. This campaign is aimed at people who have gained experience, particularly those with three to five years of experience. We urgently need them to come back, and we are trying to get them back through a web site, exhibitions at airports and seaports and by tracking people individually. We will offer them the opportunity to come back and take up positions here because we need their expertise very urgently, and that is a wonderful change in circumstances.

However, it would be naive to assume that this can happen in complete isolation from what is going on around us politically. It is accepted that Northern Ireland has been improving since the 1990s, as illustrated by its production. Nevertheless, we must recognise that the ceasefires and other events of the mid 1990s played their part.

Our job now must be to seize this opportunity to put in place the high-value-added jobs that many Members have referred to. People have been somewhat dismissive about call centres; we have to be very careful about what we are saying here, because "call centre" is a generic term. There are very great differences between one and another. Some of them are very sophisticated; some of them have potential for growth; and some of them develop their own products and start to resell them.

If the House genuinely wants to get investment into TSN areas, we must all recognise first that it is going to require the continuing use of selective financial assistance and, secondly, that we have to bring into TSN areas jobs that the residents of those areas will be able to take up. There is no point in putting a factory or a call centre or whatever in a particular TSN area and congratulating ourselves, if the people who live in the area are unable to work in it.

We are overlooking one important point, while placing too much focus on visits. What we must ask is this: are the people in those areas trained? Can they apply for these jobs with a reasonable expectation of being hired? Without a skilled resource in a TSN area, there is no point in establishing an industry there.

A number of Members have talked about the redistribution of resources. In some industries, companies — particularly those on the high-tech side of things — simply have to go to areas with a high population density, because that is where the workforce is. Young people want bright lights and urban facilities. Some of them simply will not move away from that. However, one of our Department’s objectives under the Programme for Government is to ensure that investment packages such as the broadband telecommunications infrastructure are spread throughout the Province to try to put everybody on a level playing field. In those circumstances, it will be up to us to see that skill audits are carried out in local areas to ensure that people can apply for jobs with a reasonable expectation of getting one.

I can say emphatically that we have a wonderful platform from which to launch ourselves — if we are really serious. This generation will never get another opportunity like this. These economic prospects are the best since partition. Opportunity knocks: I hope and pray that we have the will and the wit to seize it.

Tommy Gallagher (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I acknowledge that the Minister has been present for the duration. In my view today’s amendment takes into account the two biggest issues facing this community in the immediate future.

The implications of the Chancellor’s policies, particularly the aggregates tax, have the potential to drive much of the quarrying industry south of the border and therefore to result in more job losses here.

The advantages currently enjoyed by the Republic of Ireland’s economy are crippling and strangling the economy all along the northern side of the border. We must all recognise the particular difficulties that we have at present. Let me reiterate the fact that the impact of both those policies is greatest closest to the border.

Most of us here will accept that these areas have traditionally experienced high levels of deprivation and unemployment. I noticed the Member for North Antrim, Ian Paisley Jnr, behaving in his usual form as if no one other than he knew anything. He rushed to dismiss the plight of the people in the border areas and attempted to rubbish the amendment, ignoring the plight that the quarrying industry is now trying to address.

I make no apology for speaking up on behalf of the people I represent in the border areas. They expect to be part of this new and inclusive society we are all attempting to build, and they are entitled to share with the rest of Northern Ireland in our improved economic prospects. I hope the Executive will take note of the amendment. I listened to the Minister’s comments, and I hope that all Executive Members will continue to lobby the Chancellor about the adverse impact of his policies. It is important to do that and to follow up on the commitments given by both Governments in the single chapter they submitted for the new round of European funds. In it they made commitments to bring about a greater degree of economic co-operation and harmonisation between the two parts of the island, especially in the border areas, and we should continue to remind them of that.

We all want to achieve a successful economy, but we must first recognise the context in which our economy operates. By voting for the amendment, Members will be recognising and acknowledging that that context is a wider European economy. If Members cannot support the amendment, they ignore the fact that this is the case, and they ignore the plight of people in the quarrying industry whose future jobs are under threat. This is why I support the amendment.

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

I would like to thank all Members who have contributed to the debate and to thank the Minister for his response. A number of useful points were made; I will not be able to answer them all, but I will choose those that I think are pertinent.

I would like to make some comments on the amendment. The idea that policies for promoting the economy should be linked to the wider European economy demonstrates a simple misunderstanding of the nature of that economy. I think Mr Paisley Jnr was right when he said that you cannot expect your European partners in a political project to be your partners in a business project. Nobody in the European Union has to, needs to, or will trade with somebody else in the European Union. Trading depends on price, quality, delivery and branding — the right product at the right price and in the right place. Perhaps someone will buy your product, but the fact that you are in the European Union is neither here nor there.

If someone wants to export to the European Union, he or she will have to produce to European Union standards. This applies to any market — you produce to the standards of the market you are trying to sell to. Look at Norway. Foreign export to European Union member countries constitutes a great deal more of Norway’s gross domestic product than that of the United Kingdom, and Norway is not even a member of the European Union. Look at Japan’s export performance in the 28 years since the United Kingdom joined the European Union. Japan has increased its rate of export to the European Union at a rate far higher than the United Kingdom increase. The increasingly important economy is the global economy.

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

Is the Member advocating that we pull out of the European Union? Is he also saying that we should reject the transfers we get from the European Union?

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

We pay a fortune for our transfers to the European Union. The United Kingdom pays £12 billion into Europe and gets about £6 billion out, so it is hardly good economics. What I am addressing is blind Euro- enthusiasm, of which, I think, there is far too much.

I would like to move to the Minister’s contention that the Government cannot bring jobs to the people. The Government, however, do have to facilitate people’s being able to get to jobs, and what we have here is another Euro-fallacy: the European Union is supposed to enable a member of one European country to move freely to a job in another European country, yet, funnily enough, it does not seem to work as well as it is meant to, not even at the legal level, never mind the practical level.

That is the huge difference between the European Union and the United States. In the United States not only is there a free movement of labour, there is a positively ruthless movement of labour. People simply get up and go where the jobs are. We should not lose sight of that massive difference. One or two Members mentioned the Assembly’s relative lack of influence over economic matters. We have to accept that there is a measure of truth in this. It was also apparent to the electorate of the United States. It clearly understood that the Federal Reserve and not the President was responsible for the economic growth, and that contributed to the election result there.

On the subject of unemployment rates, the remarks made by some Members perturb and surprise me, given all the information available to the Assembly and the work being done in it. This is quite a simple piece of mathematics. If the rate at which people come onto the job market is greater than the rate at which jobs become available, clearly there is an imbalance and insufficient jobs. In fact, the current recruitment ratios accurately reflect the ratio between the communities. I accept that the long-term unemployed remain a problem. However, initiatives to address that are in train, with more to follow. I hope that they will be successful.

Mr McHugh said that the Robson indicators were still valid. What he is really saying is that they are still giving the answers he wants to hear. I do not regard those indicators as valid. A major review is taking place at the moment, and I look forward to its outcome and to the new census. We have to come up with a much more sophisticated system that is able to target deprived areas within affluent areas. That will give a different perspective on the subject.

Dr O’Hagan said that manufacturing had been subject to years of neglect, eroding our manufacturing base. I do not agree. If you look at the money that the IDB has thrown at manufacturing over the last 10 or 15 years, you could argue that, for an industry that was in fairly serious decline, it was used rather recklessly. That decline was well understood outside Northern Ireland, and it is a pity that it was not better understood here. We could perhaps have put money towards the developing economy rather sooner had we not been focusing so hard on businesses that turned out to be unsustainable.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Does the Member agree that products for which we have a worldwide reputation, such as Irish linen, should be promoted and developed?

James Leslie (UUP, North Antrim)

We are able to sustain a brand for Irish linen that enables us to hold on to a share of the market. Unfortunately, linen can be manufactured to the same standards but at far less cost elsewhere. That is the essence of the problem. We have to be realistic about that. I fear that the mistake made there rather reflects the mistake being made in the amendment. You have to look much further afield than the European economy.

I did not think we would be able to get through the debate without hearing from "Team West Tyrone"; and so it was. While I appreciate the problems there, unfortunately in my constituency of North Antrim one area, Moyle, is in the unenviable position of vying with Strabane for the place at the bottom of the unemployment tables. The highest unemployment levels swing between those two council areas. I sometimes think that TSN has been redefined in the Chamber to mean "Targeting Strabane’s Need".

The one growth industry you could have in Moyle is tourism. Tourism is an industry that is very clearly directly related to the state of peace. Business has proved itself to be remarkably robust, despite the predations of terrorism over the last 30 years. It is quite incredible that Northern Ireland’s business base is so strong, given the difficulties it has had to endure. Tourism cannot be so robust. If we can achieve a peace that is believable, and demonstrably believable in terms of a considerable drop in the levels of violence and intimidation, then our tourism industry will grow, and we will be able to address difficulties in a number of peripheral areas and in the rural community.

We must accept that the size of the public sector in Northern Ireland has shielded us from the effects of the economic cycle. This was noticeable in the early 1990s, when not only did Northern Ireland escape the recession that occurred in the rest of the United Kingdom, but as Mr Wells correctly said, our economic revival began.

As the Minister has correctly said, we should not assume that we will be cycle proof in the future, and we must continue to develop business niches in which an economy such as this can prosper. I oppose the amendment, and I have pleasure in supporting the motion.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to make a remark to the House, which in the nature of things does not apply particularly to those present, although I trust that the Members who are here, particularly the business managers, will convey it to those who are errant. A number of Members commented on the courtesy that the Minister did the House by being here throughout the debate. I echo that. It is a proper courtesy and one that we expect our Ministers to extend to the House. We are grateful to the Minister for doing so again on this occasion.

Some Members were very keen to put their own views and to ask questions of the Minister or the proposers of the amendment or substantive motion, but I regret to say that they were not here to hear the responses. That is not returning the courtesy in the way that the House ought to. This should be conveyed, not only to those who are errant today, but to others. This happens from time to time, and we should acknowledge that. I am grateful to the Minister.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the custom in the House of Commons, and a required courtesy, that a Member who has just spoken remain in the Chamber until the next Member has completed his address. However, there is no requirement for anyone to sit through an entire debate. Indeed, if that were the case, I doubt if the House of Commons could function.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall not comment on the functioning of the House of Commons, which frequently is less courteous than it might be. What I said was not a request that Members remain for the whole debate, even though the Minister quite properly did so. Some Members, in their remarks, were expecting, and properly expecting, the Minister to reply to questions raised, or that the proposer of the motion or the amendment would take note of their comments. However, they are not here to hear the Minister, nor the winding-up speeches from the mover of the amendment or of the substantive motion, and that is the discourtesy to which I refer — a discourtesy that is appreciated in the House of Commons and in other parliamentary assemblies.

Question put,

The Assembly divided: Ayes 41; Noes 35.

Ayes

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, Mark Durkan, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Eddie McGrady, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers, John Tierney.

Noes

Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Boyd Douglas, Reg Empey, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Mark Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly welcomes the recent announcement of a continuing decline in the rate of unemployment; and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and all Ministers whose Departments have an impact on economic performance to continue to develop policies which promote a competitive, dynamic and sustainable economy, taking account of the wider European economy.

The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.

On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

On-Course Gambling

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly supports changes to the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and any other relevant statutory provisions to legalise Sunday on-course track betting in Northern Ireland and calls upon the Minister for Social Development to bring forward proposals to this effect.

First, I want to apologise for my cold; it is a hurdle, or a handicap, but I will have to live with it this afternoon.

Before presenting the motion, I want to remind Members that I placed a second motion with the Business Office on the same day as this motion, which is equally relevant to my overall proposal, and which will, I hope, be debated before the Christmas recess.

The second motion deals with important employment- related matters relevant to the question of Sunday working at racecourses, which cannot be legislated for in the motion now before the Assembly. The necessary legislation required to deliver the desired outcome of my overall proposal falls within the remit of two separate Ministers, namely the Minister for Social Development, Mr Morrow, and the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey.

I am proposing the motion to the Assembly today in the interests of a variety of people living in Northern Ireland, particularly those living in rural communities, and in the interests of the management committees of the two local racecourses who are seeking nothing more than parity with their counterparts elsewhere in these islands.

Horse racing is more than a leisure activity for a spectator to enjoy. The industry involves diverse economic sectors, including agriculture, tourism, sport, catering, entertainment, trade and professionals. Consequently, its success has wide implications, as the livelihoods of many individuals, either entirely or in part, depend on it. These include many farmers who have diversified from non-profit making enterprises to the equine business; horse breeders who sell their horses to horse-owners and horse-owning syndicates; those who rely on farmers and employ vets and trainers; those who employ staff such as assistants and stable hands; and racecourses, which employ regular and ancillary staff to provide the services to the public.

Finally, there are the public who pay to avail of such services, and the small businesses who sell their goods outside racecourse premises either in food stalls or in local pubs, cafes, restaurants and shops. It is a huge economic field.

At present, Northern Ireland is the only region in the United Kingdom or Ireland where Sunday on-course betting is prohibited by law. Such betting has been available every year since January 1995 at over 60 Sunday race meetings held at racecourses located throughout the United Kingdom, from Musselburgh and Perth in Scotland to Salisbury in the south of England. Moreover, Sunday on-course betting is available every year at 60 Sunday race meetings held throughout the Republic of Ireland.

It is therefore understandable why the managers of our two racecourses are often quoted as seeking parity with their opposition elsewhere. Northern Ireland currently has 19 race meetings every year, including two very promising festivals. I refer to the Down Royal, a two-day event in November, and the May time two-day event at Downpatrick. Imagine the economic potential for locals in Northern Ireland if these events could be extended to three-day, week-end festivals of racing.

The lack of development of the horse racing industry in Northern Ireland appears to arise from the Government’s lack of support for the industry — which contributes to Northern Ireland’s being economically disadvantaged in the bloodstock and horse-breeding world — and from the absence of rates concessions on racecourse buildings.

In the Republic of Ireland the horse racing industry and surrounding industries are thriving. The continuous growth appears to arise from the Irish Government’s positive approach to such industries. They recognise the particular contribution to the overall economy of the Republic of Ireland made by Irish racehorses. There is worldwide demand for them. Countries such as Australia, Japan and others in the Far East have identified Irish racehorses as a means to assist and improve their competitiveness in the lucrative worldwide racehorse market. The Irish Government continue to recognise the horse racing industry’s contribution to the Republic’s economy.

Earlier in the year their finance Minister announced that it was the Irish Government’s intention to make all the taxes collected on the IR£500 million wagered in the Republic’s betting shops available to the Republic’s horse racing authority. Similarly, the British Turf Club has recognised the importance of establishing a board to protect and promote the industry in Great Britain. It is only proper that Northern Ireland’s horse racing industry is given an opportunity to fulfil its potential.

I kindly request the Assembly to support the introduction of legislative measures to assist in attaining this goal. A good starting point would be the Department of Health and Social Service’s consultation paper issued in 1997, which examined the existing legislation in Northern Ireland governing betting, gaming, lotteries and amusements. That paper led to an announcement in 1998 by the then Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr Tony Worthington MP, and the then Minister of State, Mr Adam Ingram MP, that it was the Government’s intention to relax the legislative controls on betting and gaming in Northern Ireland, including those relating to on-course betting on Sundays, together with 14 other recommendations to reform betting legislation.

The proposed changes were to boost Northern Ireland’s economy overall. It may be appropriate at a future date for the Assembly to discuss all the recommendations made by Mr Adam Ingram MP and Mr Tony Worthington MP. However, at this stage I want to concentrate on one of the recommendations, which simply seeks to expedite the legislation on on-course betting on Sundays in Northern Ireland.

The fact that I am proposing only one of the many changes sought will make it relatively easy for the Minister to implement it, because it will take up very little of the limited legislative time available to the Assembly. Furthermore, I am very conscious that the Department for Social Development has many greatly needed changes to bring forward. Therefore, I simplified my motion to the basic proposal it now is.

Of the 15 recommendations made by the former Ministers, the intention to legalise Sunday on-course betting was, and remains — in my view, and in the view of many others — the most important. As the anticipated impact on the North’s economy will be considerable, the development will be welcomed in Northern Ireland and abroad by those who earn their living from the horse racing industry and spectators who enjoy the sport. Such change is welcome.

Members are probably aware that plans are in place at Westminster to review the current gaming and betting laws and to bring them into line with Europe. It would be so easy for Members to say that we should wait until then when the desired changes will come about. I understand that completion and implementation of the report could be four or five years away. For that reason alone, the Assembly should not force the industry and those depending on it to suffer such an unnecessary delay. The implication of going without for a long period was best summed up in newspaper reports in mid-July, when one local racecourse manager calculated that a lengthy delay would result in the loss of approximately £20 million to the Northern Ireland economy.

I propose this motion on the assumption that the Assembly has legislative competence, pursuant to section 6 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to amend the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries & Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 as suggested, so that Sunday on-course betting in Northern Ireland is legalised.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Two amendments in respect of this motion have been selected. I will call Mr S Wilson and Mr B Hutchinson respectively to propose their amendments. At the end of the debate, I will call the proposers of the amendments to wind up. Before the winding-up speeches, I will invite the Minister to respond to the debate. After the Minister’s remarks, Mr B Hutchinson will wind up before Mr S Wilson. Finally, Mr Bradley will be called to wind-up the substantive motion.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

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

"the decision of the Minister for Social Development not to give further consideration to a change in the law to allow on-course Sunday betting until he has considered the implications for Northern Ireland of the outcome of the current gambling review in Great Britain."

First, I want to deal with a couple of pertinent points from Mr Bradley’s speech before explaining the reasons for this amendment. I understand the constituency interests that he has. I know that he, and probably other Members, have received a letter circulated by the Northern Ireland Course Bookmakers Association, pleading that on-course betting on a Sunday is a special case and should be introduced.

First, we have to understand that the plea that has come before the Assembly is on behalf of what can only be described as the narrow economic interests of the Course Bookmakers Association. The issue must be viewed in wider terms.

Secondly, I find the motion in Mr Bradley’s name rather surprising, because the time to have spoken up for the inclusion of such a measure in the legislative programme would have been when we were discussing the Programme for Government. I took the trouble to look up the Official Report of the House on the Programme for Government. Mr Bradley did indeed speak in that full- day debate. I notice that he started by saying

"I welcome the Programme for Government".

So effusive was he in his speech that he welcomed the Programme for Government on no fewer than five occasions. Incidentally, he did not mention any legislation in respect of on-course gambling on a Sunday.

I wonder what has triggered this particular interest in the issue. Was it the missive that we received from those — I must emphasise it again in the House — who have a particular narrow economic interest in widening the gaming legislation to include on-course betting on a Sunday?

There are two reasons why I believe that the House ought to support the amendment that I have placed before it today. First, as the motion says, there is an ongoing review of gambling legislation in the whole of the United Kingdom, and the review body is to report to the Government in the summer of 2001. It is a wide-ranging review that takes into consideration

"the current state of the gambling industry and the ways in which it might change over the next ten years in light of economic pressures, the growth of e-commerce, technological developments and the wider leisure industry and international trends."

It is also very important, in Northern Ireland terms, to look at preventing gambling from being carried out in a way that allows crime, disorder or public nuisance. There is a need to keep the industry free from infiltration by organised or serious crime and from money-laundering risks. I could go on. Anyone who wishes to see the terms of reference of that review can obtain the necessary information from the Department for Social Development or from the Library.

Nevertheless, there is an ongoing, wide-ranging review. Anyone looking at its remit is bound to see that legislative change will be required, and this House will want to look at that. It would be most unusual for us to revise the existing laws and then to find, in the light of the outcome of this review, that there is need for another revision.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the Member accept that any review of gambling in the UK as a whole will start off from the basis of accepting the status quo in the UK, which would include a provision in the rest of the UK for on-course betting on a Sunday?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member misses my point. Perhaps his interests cloud his view. We all come to the debate with our own particular interests.

Let me re-emphasise the point. When the outcome of the review in the United Kingdom becomes known, there may be a need to change the legislation. The Minister for Social Development is being asked to change the legislation on on-course betting in the knowledge that, in a year’s time or less, further changes will be required. As Mr McCartney said, those changes may well be on top of the issue of on-course betting on a Sunday.

If we know that there is a wide-ranging review taking place that is likely to result in changes in the present legislation, why rush into making changes now? If there are to be changes, let Members see what those changes are likely to be and then let them decide whether those changes are acceptable. The Assembly can debate the issues at that stage and make a decision on that basis.

Proposed changes in legislation require not only the time of the House, but also time for scrutiny in Committees. Mr Bradley said that such a change would take up very little time. I do not know if that view is coloured by his interest in the matter. I would like to think — and I have heard it said by many Members — that the advantage of doing away with the direct rule Administration and having a local Administration is that it gives us the time and opportunity to scrutinise legislation. I do not know if it would take very little time or a great deal of time. However, it would require a slot in the legislative timetable and in the work of the Social Development Committee.

There is already a full timetable of Bills before the House. The difficulties of that timetable have been exacerbated because different Committees have requested extra time to look at over half of those Bills. There are some Bills that are not on the timetable, but Members have given them priority. For example, I have not heard anyone from the Social Development Committee say that priority ought to be given to Sunday on-course gambling. However, I heard last week that members of that Committee wrote to the Minister for Social Development, because they had not yet been presented with the Housing Bill. That Bill has about 100 clauses, and it will go on top of the work that the Committee is presently carrying out on the Street Trading Bill.

If I had to choose between a Bill that represents and aims to cater for the narrow economic interests of the gaming industry and those engaged in on-course betting and one that deals with homelessness, disruptive tenants, houses in multiple occupation and the sale of housing association houses to their tenants, I know which I would give priority to, and I suspect that members of the Social Development Committee, by the indications they have made to the Minister, would endorse my view.

Most of Mr Bradley’s speech was centred around the economic advantages to particular parts of Northern Ireland of allowing horse racing and betting to take place on a Sunday. I am sure that for some people that is an important aspect of the Assembly’s work — and by some people I mean those who run racecourses and bookmakers. The Assembly and, indeed, the Executive produced a Programme for Government, which was endorsed by almost every party in the Assembly — although the party which gave the least support to it was my own. Yet we are now being told that this should be included.

I am not sure how quickly Mr Bradley believes that this should be introduced. For example, is it more important than a Housing Bill? Is it more important than the Street Trading Bill? Is it more important than the other 14 Bills that are already listed on the Assembly’s official papers?

Given that there is an ongoing review of gambling legislation in Great Britain that will eventually have lessons and implications for Northern Ireland, and that we already have a full legislative programme, and there are many other priorities that Members are likely to endorse, I beg the Assembly to support the amendment which stands in my name.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move the following amendment: In line 4, after "Northern Ireland", insert

"and to provide for gaming machine permits to be made available to turf accountants,".

Before I discuss my amendment I have a couple of confessions. I come from a long line of gamblers, so I have to declare an interest in this. My father was one of the first people to manage what used to be called "pitches" when they were legalised in Belfast in the early 1960s. I also attend regular meetings at Down Royal, so I have an interest in this.

I put forward my amendment, because I believed that PJ Bradley’s motion was addressing only half of the story. If we are going to move forward, we need to do so on the basis of the recommendations that were made in 1998 by Tony Worthington MP and Adam Ingram MP. We need to look at those proposals. They were not implemented as part of a gaming review in Great Britain — that came later — they were implemented following the introduction of the Lottery Bill. Anyone can now gamble in a garage or a shop by going in and buying a scratch card. There was only a certain amount of money that could be gambled in this society, and people decided that they would gamble it on the lottery or on scratch cards. This was a sweetener to try to offset the effect of the lottery, and we should look at it in that context. This is not just about on-course betting on a Sunday, it is about how we deal with betting shops throughout the United Kingdom.

One hundred and fifty jobs in the betting industry could go to the wall in Northern Ireland if we do not make these changes immediately. People are now spending their money on lottery tickets and other things. Betting shops in Great Britain were allowed to have two amusements with prizes (AWPs). These machines paid out a maximum prize of £10. The Treasury, in its wisdom, has now increased this to £15, because it wants to get a slice of the action. By allowing this increase the Treasury will be able to take some of that money back and recycle it throughout the Government. If I remember correctly, Tony Worthington recommended back in January 1998 that there could be two gaming machines in betting shops with prize money of £10 each.

Some people might not want to see gaming machines. As a member of Belfast City Council I have opposed gaming machines. I have opposed their being put near bus stops where children congregate on their way to and from school. However, we are talking here about betting shops and where betting takes place in a controlled environment and those who use them must be at least 18 years of age. Gam Care, which is a nationally respected charity for people with gambling problems, supports this and believes that that sort of environment is the best place for gambling to take place.

I hope that Members will remember that the relaxation of these laws was to counteract the effects of the lottery on bookmakers and their shops. I also want to say to the Member for South Down that this amendment is designed to complement his motion rather than to challenge it.

There are some issues that I want to raise regarding Mr Wilson’s amendment. We should realise that the review that is taking place in Great Britain is about the technological changes that are going on. Last Sunday afternoon I was watching television, and Leeds United were playing Arsenal. I could have put on my digital television, accessed a company called Blue Square and placed a bet of whatever amount I wanted — as long as I had enough money in my bank account — that Leeds United would beat Arsenal one nil. I did that, so I should have some money in my bank account by Friday.

I could also have chosen what was going to be number one in the UK chart by Christmas. I could have chosen Westlife. I could even have chosen Willie McCrea, but I realised that he probably would not reach that slot, because he is already number one with the Pope. That is probably enough for him, going by some of the newspaper reports.

My point is that one can gamble on just about anything. If people have access to a digital television, they can gamble on a Sunday on who is going to die in the next soap opera. People also have access to computers. Through the Internet, people can access William Hill, Coral or any other company and place a bet. However, those who calculate odds on those bets and pay out winnings could be somewhere in Saudi Arabia, not in the UK. They could be offshore, and, therefore, no money will go to the Government. That is what the betting review is about. It is not about whether Sunday racing is going to take place.

The hon Member for North Down made the point to Sammy Wilson that it is unlikely that they are going to change the status quo. In the UK race meetings are held on a Sunday, and because of that, 63 race meetings are no longer held during the week. Consequently, betting shops that open from Monday to Saturday have lost that income, and they want to get it back from gaming machines and on-course betting on a Sunday.

I want to emphasise that in changing the law there is no suggestion that betting shops in streets across the Province would be open on a Sunday. That is not what this is about. It is about gambling at a course — either Down Royal or Downpatrick.

As regards the income that comes from tourism, I remind Members that for every horse which comes to Northern Ireland to race — and there has been racing in Ulster for 316 years — four people come along with it. Each of those people needs food and drink and a bed for the night, because for most of them it has been a long journey, and they cannot travel back on the same day. I remind people of the amount of money that such tourism could bring in.

There was a race meeting held at Down Royal — I think that Mr Bradley referred to it earlier. I attended it. Some other Assembly Members attended and were given corporate hospitality. I notice that they are not here today. Some Presbyterian ministers and others might have phoned this morning and left messages for them, but they are absent.

The meeting was held on Friday and Saturday and brought in 10,000 people — 3,000 on Friday and 7,000 on Saturday. If it had been held on Saturday and Sunday I have no doubt that the figure would have been closer to 40,000. People would not have been at work, and they could have chosen whether to go to the meeting.

We need to focus on what this is about. It is not just about on-course betting on a Sunday; it is about allowing bookmakers to be competitive in the light of the other laws and legislation that have been introduced regarding the lottery. It should be looked at in the context of the significant growth of Internet and offshore tax-free betting, something that has been introduced in the last two years. If you have a digital television you can access it that way as well as through a computer.

This morning I heard the hon Member for North Down, Mr McCartney, along with others, talking about the smuggling of petrol back and forward across the border. We are continually hearing about the disadvantages facing industry along that border. One of the disadvantages is that the Irish Republic has reduced its tax from 10% to 5%, and betting shops in border towns are going to the wall. These are things we need to take into consideration.

Let us remember that all of these things are happening around us while we fail to bring forward legislation. Going back to Mr S Wilson’s arguments about the legislative timetable, I always thought that that was the responsibility of the Business Committee, not an individual Minister. As a member of the Business Committee, I, along with his party’s Whips, have criticised Departments for not bringing forward legislation. There have been weeks in this House when there has been no new legislation. I understand what Mr Wilson is saying, and I support him with regard to dealing with life-and-death issues — homelessness, for example. We need to bring those forward. However, we need to be realistic. There is other legislation that is not any less important, particularly for the tourist industry and for jobs — 150 jobs could be lost if this legislation is not brought forward.

The Minister for Social Development has this legislation sitting on his desk. He has made a reasonable point that he does not believe it should be brought forward — the same point made in Mr Wilson’s amendment. The review in Great Britain has got nothing to do with on-course betting or gaming machines. There was a long- lasting consultation period when the views of the public, the bookmakers and others were sought. As a result of that consultation it was decided that there should be fourteen amendments, and both the Minister of State, Mr Adam Ingram, and the then Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr Tony Worthington, decided that those should be brought forward. Then we had devolution, and all of these amendments were put on the back burner until after the review. Unless the Minister brings forward this legislation we are in great danger of losing 150 jobs in the betting-shop industry. These are viable, well-paid jobs that we should be supporting.

Finally, with regard to the legislation covering people working on Sunday, the Minister of State, Mr Ingram, has already put that forward, and it is in this package. Whether it is with the Minister for Social Development or with Sir Reg Empey is immaterial. It is there.

I ask the House to support my amendment and these 150 jobs. If we do not act quickly they will be lost.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Due to the number of Members wanting to contribute and the time needed at the end for the movers of the amendments and the motion, I ask that Members restrict their contributions to six minutes. I will give a warning when there are 30 seconds left.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat. I rise to support the motion which calls for the Minister for Social Development, Mr Maurice Morrow, to legislate to allow Sunday racing and on-site betting.

While I do not have a problem with the amendment in Mr Billy Hutchinson’s name, or its content, I believe that that is a separate motion which could be brought forward in its own right. It is important to debate Sunday racing and on-site betting first.

Sunday racing has been in existence in the Twenty-six Counties since 1986. It started with a modest six fixtures, and there are now more than 50 Sunday meetings. Statistics provided by the Irish Horse Racing Authority show that Sundays have the highest attendance figures of all the days in the week, with more than 335,000 people attending Sunday fixtures in Ireland last year. An estimated 23,000 people are employed full-time in the Irish horse racing industry; exports of our thoroughbred horses are worth more than IR£100 million per annum, and 50,000 visitors travel to Ireland specifically to attend race meetings. Should we not capitalise on the potential for growth in this industry in the Six Counties as well?

Given the pressures in our lives, and the fact that many of us work on Saturdays, it is not surprising that leisure activities are in big demand on Sundays. Gaelic football is the biggest sport in Ireland. Clubs and parishes all over the country compete at every level in not only this sport, but hurling and camogie as well. These matches are occasions enjoyed by all the family, and the atmosphere at county and provincial championship games is fantastic, rivalled only by the all-Ireland finals themselves. These games have a huge following and are a great excuse for a weekend away. However, I wonder just how many of us could find time to go to matches if they all took place on a Saturday or a Friday afternoon.

Earlier this month we had the annual fixture at Down Royal, which was a great success, not just for the horse racing fraternity and the patrons who attended it, but also for the local hotels, bed and breakfasts, pubs and shops. Spectator facilities at both Down Royal and Downpatrick are excellent, as all profits are reinvested, yet these resources are used for a total of 19 days a year. If the racing industry staged only seven Sunday meetings a year, it is reckoned that 47,000 people would attend, with 17,000 from outside the Six Counties. The estimated loss to the industry is around £8·5 million per annum, and this does not include ancillary industries which would also benefit.

Why should this industry be deprived of extra, much- needed income because of the Minister’s and the DUP’s failure to move into the twenty-first century with the rest of us? The fundamental bigotry of Maurice Morrow and Nigel Dodds before him is the only reason why this issue has been put on the long finger. The DUP is famous for saying "No". For many years its members have said this in councils all over the Six Counties: "No. You can- not go to the swimming pool on the day of rest, for we have closed the leisure centre. No. You cannot play with your ball, as it is a Sunday. You cannot play on the swings; we have chained them up to ensure that children do not enjoy themselves on the sabbath. No. We will not allow you to enjoy horse racing on a Sunday". Despite what the Minister says, that is the only reason why this legislation has not yet been introduced. The Six Counties is the last remaining area of the European racing industry that does not have Sunday racing, putting the industry here at a great disadvantage.

The wide-ranging review of gambling in England that Mr S Wilson referred to is not even likely to recommend changes to Sunday racing. Its remit is to concentrate on the impact of e-commerce, interactive television, worldwide media rights and offshore gambling, and could take five years between consultation and implementation. How much money will have been lost by the racing industry in that time? How much money will Maurice Morrow have lost the industry in that time? How much damage will he have done to our tourism industry? How many jobs could have been created?

Given that Sunday racing has also been extremely popular in England since it was introduced in 1995 — the number of fixtures has increased from 12 to 62 — I am surprised that the Minister, who has been keen on so-called parity legislation to date, is not willing to introduce this. The support for this issue today should prove to the racing industry that the Assembly will do all it can to update the legislation. Sinn Féin will be supporting the motion. Go raibh maith agat.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

We should ask the business managers to extend these debates. Six minutes is a very short time.

I am neither a betting man nor a horsey man, but I know a winner when I see one. If the horse breeding and horse racing industries had been properly supported by the Government, they would be winners. However, we have the opportunity to achieve that now.

Shortly after devolution, following representations from the horse racing fraternity I raised the subject with the previous Minister for Social Development. As a fervent supporter of devolution, I was disappointed by the response that I got from the Minister, who was also a supporter of devolution. If the Good Friday Agreement had not been signed, we would still have had direct rule administered from London by cross-channel Ministers, and all the betting and gaming laws in Northern Ireland would have been modernised.

On 7 January 1998 the Health and Social Services Minister, Tony Worthington, issued a statement. It said

"The Government intend shortly to bring forward legislation to provide a number of modest relaxations in legislative controls on betting and gaming in Northern Ireland".

The Minister goes on to say

"I would stress, however, that this is a limited relaxation of the law on Sunday betting. People can choose for themselves whether they wish to go to the racetrack to bet on a Sunday, or not".

That statement shows the respect that the Minister had for everyone’s wishes. It was a genuine attempt to keep everyone in Northern Ireland happy — a difficult job at the best of times.

Mr Worthington’s decision followed 12 months of consultations. As the creation of a new Assembly was just around the corner, the Minister decided to leave the changes to local politicians. Unfortunately, the new Ministers were not prepared to go along with their predecessors and delayed the process. The excuse used was that a new review was taking place across the water. I thought that devolution meant that we could rule ourselves and make legislation for the people of Northern Ireland. Every citizen has rights. If people wish to bet on a horse on Sundays, it is their right to do that.

There would also be enormous loss of revenue for the business people who run racing facilities. Recreation is a necessity for everyone. People are able to attend almost any sporting fixture on a Sunday, and we should not deny them such a basic right. We should not deprive the racing industry of the custom of the visitors that we are trying to attract to Northern Ireland. Such discriminatory action is unjustified and must be put right.

I want to turn the discussion away from the question of whether individuals should or should not bet on a Sunday. Instead, I wish to examine the experiences of racetrack owners and workers and those of the owners of betting establishments and their staff. At present, people can watch races on a Sunday and can place bets on them using the Internet, their televisions or their mobile phones. Nothing that the Assembly does today will be able to stop people placing a bet.

The present law puts up an unfair — possibly illegal — barrier that prevents racetrack owners and gambling establishments from pursuing their business. The Assembly should change that. In the Republic of Ireland people can bet on a Sunday; in England they can bet on a Sunday; and they can bet using their phones and computers. However, in Northern Ireland, they cannot bet at a racetrack. Given such damaging restrictions, Northern Irish businesses cannot compete.

Let us consider the multimillion pound horse racing industry south of the border. European law dictates that we must not infringe on our businesses’ ability to operate and compete. The present law violates the right of businessmen, businesswomen and workers to seek to earn a living while existing in a common and unified market. I quote from an article in last Monday’s edition of ‘The Times’ which stated that

"The Down Royal has been raised from poverty, decay and stigma of being overlooked by the observation towers of the most notorious of jails. For decades this area had been farmed, feared, but not properly lived in. Now the Maze is empty and a community that dares to lift its head has its own race festival."

This is excellent news. We have a duty to move forward together, and the Assembly should support the motion.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to retain the very special nature of the Ulster Sunday. For most, it is a day of rest or, if not, one of worship. Over the last five years, in particular, the unique nature of this day has been greatly eroded by the introduction of the Sunday opening of large shopping complexes and the seven-day opening of pubs. Now the latest intrusion is a motion to propose seven-day gambling at racecourse tracks.

What is driving the lobby that we witness today from the proponent of the motion? Reference has been made to the situation in other regions of the United Kingdom, and there seems to be a suggestion that we should follow suit. I read with interest the comments by Mr Ian Morrison, who has researched this matter and has suggested that shortly after the Government introduced legislation on the mainland to permit horse racing and on-course betting on the Lord’s Day, a large number of bookmakers took up that option. In a small number of months, however, many of them had decided that it was not worthwhile. There was not the demand that they had been led to —

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

No, I am sorry, I will not.

The really sad aspect is that Mr Bradley has said publicly that it is his view that horse racing without betting is pointless — flat, boring and uninteresting were, I think, his exact words. This is not the view, I am sure, of all those who are involved in the sport of horse racing. It is a sad reflection on society in Northern Ireland, across the rest of the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic that there is now a link between sport and practices such as gambling and the promotion of alcohol and tobacco on which it depends.

I appeal to Mr Bradley and to those in a position of authority in sporting bodies and areas related to sport to refuse to allow the promotion of alcohol, tobacco and the culture of gambling and betting. Even if they do not care for themselves, their immediate kith and kin or their generation, I appeal to them to think of the young people and of the influence on them of these things that are detrimental to their well-being. Gambling is an increasing problem across the United Kingdom, particularly among young people. Those in a position of authority should take a lead on this issue. The Government’s introduction of legislation to permit the national lottery was detrimental to our society and to our people across the United Kingdom — this is not the line we should be taking.

The only argument that I have heard in support of the motion from the other side of the House and from Mr Hutchinson related to the economic effect. I do not believe that this point was well-argued or that the economic impact was well-researched. There was a notional idea that it might be good for tourism.

I believe that we have a duty and a responsibility to give a lead. I will not be perturbed by whatever the review in the United Kingdom may show or by whatever proposals may come forward as a result. My guiding star shall always be that I want the best of British, but I will not follow sheep-like in simply endorsing their legislation. If there is any merit in people in Northern Ireland having control over their own affairs, it is that we can use an elected forum such as the Assembly to give a lead and set standards that other regions may decide are worth following.

The views expressed in support of the motion have looked only at the so-called economic benefits. In line with comments made by yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to other matters, I suggest that people should consider what is best for family values and for families in Northern Ireland. Keep Sunday a special day — a day of recreation. We should not allow further erosion of our particular heritage and ethos and a strong cultural trend in Northern Ireland. The matter should be put to the people of Northern Ireland, and the resounding answer would undoubtedly be to keep Sunday special.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

It is unfortunate that the time for speaking is limited to six minutes, as the motion gives rise to some of the most fundamental views of our political life in Northern Ireland. Unlike Mr B Hutchinson, I have no personal or family record of placing bets on or off racecourses on Sunday or any other day. I give my unequivocal support both to the motion and to Mr Hutchinson’s amendment.

I am not just a Unionist, I am a pluralist. I believe that the fundamental nature of a democracy is that we must not use the institutions of the state to provide some sort of fire brigade or police force for delivering the moral, ethical or religious dictates of any religion. I fought against that in my criticism of successive Governments of the Republic of Ireland and their oppressive, Catholic theology in relation to social and economic matters. Equally, I am not prepared for some dark Protestant cloud of sabbatarianism to descend upon the Assembly.

I will not rehearse the economic or, indeed, the tourism arguments for introducing the legislation. They have been well and fully stated by those who support the motion and relatively poorly negatived by some of those who would oppose it.

I was saddened by the argument of Mr Sammy Wilson, whose intelligence and sense of humour I have always admired, that all of us, including myself, bring some narrow argument to the motion. I bring nothing to the debate except my experience as a senior member of the Bar in many licensing and other applications and a knowledge of the bookmaking and racing industry of which some others may be deprived. Therefore, any suggestion that I have any narrow interest as a punter or that I have been lobbied by anyone who has influenced my views is just nonsense. I did not receive the round robin to which the Member referred.

Sammy Wilson’s arguments did not do him any credit. It is fallacious to argue that implementing this particular piece of legislation would in some way bar social matters of much greater importance, such as the Housing Bill, from being dealt with. That is nonsense. It is the setting up of an Aunt Sally; an argument that no one made and that can therefore be knocked down.

He made a second point about waiting for the review. We have already had a review. It was carried out by the relevant Ministers, and they made recommendations, including this one. It is nonsensical to have a law that prevents on-course betting in a society in which people can bet on anything — even two flies walking up the wall — on a Sunday.

The review in England is unlikely to suggest anything other than an extension of bookmaking and, perhaps, a more draconian control of off-course bookmaking through the Internet. Let us be clear as to the real purpose behind the opposition to the motion. It was perhaps most vividly — or luridly — exposed in the speech of Mr Cedric Wilson. I will not be betting; I will not be at the course. In a perfect world, if I had my way, there probably would not be any gambling. However, as a pluralist, I will defend to the last the right of those who wish to gamble to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a democratic society, provided that they do not harm or interfere with others. On that basis, I hope that the House will give its support to Mr Bradley’s motion and Mr Hutchinson’s amendment.

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

Members have referred to the historic link between racing and the island of Ireland, and one Member suggested that Northern Ireland has had racing for 315 or 316 years. That is correct. We have two well-established race courses here — the Maze and Downpatrick — both of which have been remarkably successful and have shown a 30% growth in attendance figures. That indicates the potential in ordinary, everyday racing. Racing is organised on an all-Ireland basis, and it would not be unreasonable to put the value of the racing industry as a whole at £1 billion. Three thousand people are employed in the industry. It is economically very significant. So far, no Member has seriously challenged those facts, and there is no point in my going over them. Many Members have spoken ably about them.

I would like to concentrate on the amendment. The problems with the amendment were highlighted by the Member for North Down (Mr McCartney). Initially, Mr Sammy Wilson introduced the amendment with great enthusiasm but, as he went on, he seemed to run out of steam.

Mr Wilson’s argument had a certain transparency. He talked about the time needed for scrutiny in Committee and the difficulties for the Committee in determining priorities. Perhaps, he had forgotten that we did not receive the courtesy of a consultation from the previous Social Development Minister. He went off without consulting the Committee, and decided not to implement the legislation. Dismissing the Committee and its work in that way could be described as a discourtesy. However, it is much worse than that: the Minister was imposing his moral and religious views on everyone else, removing their freedom of conscience and freedom of choice.

I say that because while Mr Wilson referred to the terms of reference, which are readily available, he failed to refer to them in depth. He did not explore the fact that the issues under examination are far removed from the subject of Sunday racing, which will not feature at all in the deliberations. It is the extension of course betting into shops, pubs and clubs to provide a greater liberalisation of the existing situation, which will be under consideration. This will not affect Sunday racing, as the Minister was attempting to suggest. The position was a tenacious one, which was taken because he wanted his views to have an impact on the rest of us.

There are other important issues on which I will comment. From my experience in the Down Council area, I am aware of the potential for the tourist promotion of Downpatrick racecourse. We have worked on this and we have seen the potential of the racecourse to increase the income of local businesses with overnight stays in the area.

If Sunday racing were to take place on our two racecourses, there would be a possible increase in visitors by around 17,000. Even more significant is the potential for a series of meetings between the two courses, which would create a complete weekend of racing, attracting an even greater number of participants and followers. Sunday race meetings would provide many options for the tourist industry. Many possibilities exist, and to fail to take on board this motion would be very wrong.

I have plenty more to say but I see that you have risen to your feet, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will simply conclude by saying that I support the motion.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

There have indeed been some Aunt Sallies dragged into this debate. Straw men have been set up and then knocked down. I am glad that my friendship with Mr McCartney is such that it will see us through a disagreement on this matter, but I do disagree. The issue of the Lord’s Day observance is not one that I heard Mr S Wilson raise. It is not one that I heard Mr Dodds advance when it was first raised with him. Nor was it one that I heard Mr Morrow advance when, recently, he expressed views on and cast judgement on the issue. Nevertheless, the issue has been brought into this debate by Sinn Féin, which has told us of the glories of the GAA and camogie that happen every Sunday. There is no reason for introducing this issue.

As far as I know, there is no ban on horse racing in Northern Ireland on a Sunday. Horse racing, as a sport, can take place. The view, which seems to be endorsed by Mr Bradley, is that horse racing is not a sport unless you can bet on it. That seems to be the bottom line, and that throws into question how much of a sport horse racing is, when it is the winning or losing of money that is central to it.

I will also deal with the Aunt Sally brought in by Mr ONeill, who suggested that there was discourtesy on the part of the previous Minister because he had not brought the issue before the Committee. That is absolute nonsense. The Minister goes to the Committee if he is going to make changes. He gets hundreds of letters every day and every week, but he does not go to the Committee to ask for its view on matters that he does not intend to change. Rather, he goes to the Committee if he does intend to effect change. The matter of prioritising the business of the Social Development Department is what is essential — it is the key issue in this debate.

The motion asks for legislative change, which requires legislative time, and that means Assembly time to see a Bill through from beginning to end. It means Committee time to scrutinise it properly, and it means legislative draftsmen’s time. A Bill should not be started unless it can be finished. The Assembly has to prioritise its business, and if something new is to be inserted into the legislative programme, something else will have to be removed.

When the House debated the Programme for Government, the SDLP made no suggestions or proposals. No change was asked for; no amendment was put down, and there was no reference during the course of the debate to this vital change that it now seeks. It is a matter of prioritising business. I can recall nothing in the statement by Mr Dodds, or indeed in the statement by Mr Morrow, to suggest that there should never be changes to the betting law in Northern Ireland. From time to time there will be changes. If you intend to have a comprehensive change in the betting law in Northern Ireland, let it be after all available expertise has been drawn from the review that is currently under way. One comprehensive piece of legislation is required rather than a piecemeal proposal.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I did not see the Member give way when he had his six minutes, and I am certainly not about to give way to him in mine. If he made an inadequate speech, he can kick himself afterwards.

The Member has come forward with one piece of legislation. The appropriate time to do that is when all information is available. The present Minister and his predecessor took the intelligent and rational approach of not determining the future until all evidence was available. I wish others would adopt that position before making pronouncements. When Mr Bradley comes to wind up, I wonder if he will explain to us this new motion on the issue of on-course betting. I think he now realises that if his proposals are accepted, he will have created problems. Presumably someone has contacted him and said "Look, what do you think you are doing? You are going to cause us difficulties."

He has another motion down in the Assembly asking the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to bring forward legislation on employment protection rights for these people he suggests should be working on Sundays. If you choose to go half-cocked at these issues without scrutinising them fully, these are exactly the kind of problems you will have.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

In conclusion, neither the present Minister nor his predecessor has said anything that has ruled out change. Change comes after proper analysis, when the review is complete and the Assembly has dealt with it in one comprehensive piece of legislation rather than by way of this piecemeal approach that has been proposed by the SDLP.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat. I rise to support the motion. Horse racing is a major industry on the island of Ireland. The horse racing industry is worth IR£1 million per year to the Irish economy. The export of Irish thoroughbreds accounts for IR£100 million each year. Twenty-three thousand people are employed full-time in the industry. There are two racetracks in the Six Counties, Downpatrick, in my constituency, and Down Royal. The tracks have received substantial grants from the horse-racing fund administered by the Department of Agriculture. These grants are funded by an annual licence fee that is levied on bookmakers’ shops and on on-course licensed bookmakers.

Racing is a 32-county sport, administered by the Irish Horse Racing Authority. There is no parity of esteem regarding the two local tracks while their counterparts in the rest of Ireland have the privilege of Sunday racing. Downpatrick and Down Royal are deprived of much needed funding for the upkeep of their courses, which Sunday racing would provide. The local economy would also benefit from much needed finance. What do we say, while there are so many people in certain parts of our community opposed to Sunday opening? They are the "No" voters, the "No tampers" in our society. No sport on a Sunday; no anything. You do as I say, not as I do.

However, if I want to go down Garvaghy Road on a Sunday — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— and protest, I will do so, but you are not to go to horse racing. My local track needs our support for Sunday racing. Its overheads are enormous. Sunday racing would provide much needed finance towards the survival of Downpatrick racecourse. It would also bring massive employment, tourism and much needed income into the local economy. I ask the House to support the motion.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

Quite a number of very good points have been made, of which Mr McCartney’s contribution was probably the most enlightening and responsible. That shows what the House is about — making law that is beneficial to society, so that its citizens may enjoy the interests they wish to pursue provided they do not harm others. Treating Sunday as a day of choice, rather than as a day of enforcement, would offer a degree of competition, and not just between racetracks in Northern Ireland and those on the island of Ireland. It would allow people to make up their minds about where they wish to go, when they wish to go and if they wish to go. They can choose to go horse racing; they can choose offshore betting on the Internet; or they can choose to go to church. They should not be precluded from doing any of those. In fact, dare I say it, I know people who, if they had the choice, would do all three. And as a minister of religion struggles with his economic difficulties, he might be pleased to see them in church rather than enforce some form of embargo that said "Because you go to Sunday racing you cannot come into my church."

One of the shining lights on the periphery of my constituency has been the Dundonald Icebowl. The joy and appreciation that our society has experienced in its hallowed halls —

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

And why not? Peter Robinson’s rearguard defence of the Minister was quite commendable —[Interruption].

Is that for me?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

Mr Robinson’s rearguard action in defence of the Minister is commendable. However, regardless of how articulate and well-argued his position may be, we do not believe that that is the real reason why the Ministers, both the present one and his predecessor, have taken the decision that they have.

Why not allow the people of Northern Ireland to be treated as big boys and big girls? Why not allow us to decide? The legislation is not complex — as far as racing is concerned, it simply makes Sunday like every other day of the week. The DUP cannot do that. They offer us the belief that a legislative Assembly should not make legislation — or at least not too much of it — and not too much of it back to back. We might have to work extra hours, or perhaps an extra couple of days, and the Committees might have to work a little harder, but the public will have to wait. That applies to anything that society wants with which the DUP has any ideological difficulty — perhaps beating the kids in schools. What happens if we end up with a protest against a decision made by a DUP Minister — in this case outside a racetrack — and the protester a Free Presbyterian? We could not have that, could we? Effectively, that is what this is about.

Without question there are secular people in the DUP, and I recognise them and know who they are, but there is a core belief within the Democratic Unionist Party that does not allow society to make decisions based on the fact that people in it are big boys and big girls.

However, there is hope for the racing industry. The swings used to be locked on Sunday, and they are not now; similarly the pubs used to be closed on Sunday, but they are not now. In respect of the changing circumstances of a new society, it has lost every battle it has taken on. So there will be racing, and I advocate it, and you can bet there will be an illegal bookmaker, and then what are you going to do — get the RUC to go in and close it down?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I support the motion for a number of reasons that have both a social and economic impact. Much could be done to bring Northern Ireland racecourses, in particular Down Royal in my constituency, into line with those in the Republic and across the water. This would increase tourism and promote the existing amenities in the surrounding areas.

First, there is the potential of an increase in positive publicity for the area. Traditionally there is much local interest in racing, and the press, radio and television stations give regular coverage to the sport. Many excellent local jockeys have gained international recognition. In recent years four Grand National winners and four Cheltenham Gold Cup winners have come from Northern Ireland.

Secondly, there are social aspects. Racing can move away from its previous negative image towards a more popular family-orientated leisure pursuit and as a result of this, could have a significant impact on the local economy. For example, many visitors to racetracks here come from England and all over Ireland. While events are taking place — especially two-day events — there will be an increase in the demand for hotel beds. For instance, during the recent two-day event at Down Royal, an estimated 2,800 beds were booked. The increase in bookings in local restaurants will also help to create more jobs in the hospitality industry, especially at off-peak times during the year.

Lisburn Borough Council jointly promoted this successful festival of racing at the beginning of November. There were over 10,000 out-of-town visitors, and the total spend on accommodation and food alone was in the region of £0·5 million. These figures exclude other activities like shopping, evening entertainment and visitors going to some of our tourist attractions. There is also the increase in trade for local shops and shopping centres. If families are encouraged to come along to race meetings, many will go shopping locally, with the knock-on effect of increased trade in the area.

Local industries related to the racecourse would also stand to gain from an increase in the demand for improvement of facilities and maintenance of the courses — electricians, painters, tack shops, farriers and so forth. The disadvantages that our racecourses operate under, in comparison to those in the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain, need to be addressed. Tax levied on betting in Northern Ireland amounts to £14·5 million per annum, but not one penny is returned to our racecourses, being spent instead on courses in England and Scotland.

Sunday racing and on-course betting could bring courses in Northern Ireland into line with competitors in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Europe. Currently, approximately 20% of people who attend events in the South come from Northern Ireland. It is a family day out for many. People wishing to gamble on a Sunday can do so on the telephone, on the Internet, or through digital television, as Billy Hutchinson said.

This extension would not be unrealistic. There would only be a few meetings each year. We are not asking for the promotion of gambling, but rather the promotion of a huge industry and a family leisure pursuit. The cost to our economy if we choose to ignore this issue will be enormous. We need to maximise investment in the economy by bringing it into line with our neighbours. I support the motion.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I support the motion, a LeasCheann Comhairle. When I was a young man, I knew of a renowned Unionist politician. He was a barrister, but he is not in this Assembly. Every year on the Twelfth of July he would park his car at the back of the city hall and join the parade at Carlisle Circus. On the way back to the field, he would leave the parade at the city hall, take off his bowler hat and sash, get into his Jaguar and head for the Dundalk races. That was how he celebrated the Twelfth of July each year.

There is a fundamental puritanism which says that what you enjoy should be done furtively, in the dark, or behind a closed door. David Ervine is right. The Brylcreemed and pink-faced hypocrites of morality in this debate have no other argument than that of the whited sepulchre — white and shining on the outside, but rotten on the inside. Bob McCartney mentioned the dark cloud of Protestant puritanism that denies people the right to enjoy themselves. That was the way it was in the days I spoke of, and that is how it would have remained had we given up what they called a priest- ridden society for a Paisley-ridden society. The DUP wishes to make people live by a new puritanical dispensation by which its members do not abide in their private lives.

Horse racing is the sport of kings, enjoyed by most people who have an outgoing attitude to life. They are not afraid to enjoy themselves in public, not afraid to go to race meetings, either on a weekday or a Sunday, and are not afraid to bet on a horse race —[Interruption].

Mr P Robinson is right. This debate is not about horse racing on a Sunday — it is about having a bet on a Sunday —[Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Your magic is working, Madam Deputy Speaker. The rabble has subsided.

I shall go on, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It is interesting that at the last Down Royal meeting the sponsors and those who promote racing at the course were delighted to invite the racing fraternity from all over England, Scotland, Wales and the Twenty-six Counties. They brought both horses and people of some renown to the meeting, the former group including Florida Pearl, Doran’s Pride and Looks Like Trouble. The last horse mentioned, which won the Cheltenham Gold Cup last year, was foaled in south Armagh.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Tell us about Shergar.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

If you have the time, I shall.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Tell the police.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

No, I shall leave that to you.

Looks Like Trouble was foaled in south Armagh on a night when there was a great deal of British Army helicopter activity. People were trying to decide the name of the horse at the time, and the owner looked up and said "I think we shall call it ‘Looks Like Trouble’." That remark reminds me of the people before me, who not only look for trouble, but also look like trouble. I support the motion.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have listened with interest to the comments made, some of them well-informed, some ill-informed. There were some good speeches, and some were read well. Some were not read so well, and some were misinformed. We have had the whole range today, and I suspect that it will all generate more heat than light. It is patently obvious that some of those who have spoken today have not done so from a knowledge, but that would be nothing new in an Assembly such as this.

Perhaps it would be helpful to Members if I tried to elucidate some of the confusion. There is no legislative impediment whatsoever to racing on a Sunday. Certain learned people in the Chamber seem to be ignoring that fact; perhaps they have forgotten it, or think it insufficiently important to state it. Sunday racing has been legal since August 1996, but racing interests do not consider it financially viable without betting facilities. Are we discussing a sport or a commercial industry here today? Some people seem to be talking about different things.

The motion is specifically directed at the provisions in article 48 of the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 prohibiting Sunday betting on racetracks. The Order also prevents Sunday betting in licensed bookmaking offices. I was not, of course, party to the considerations which led to the prohibition on Sunday betting, but I view it as an acknowledgement that, for many people in Northern Ireland, Sunday has special significance.

My predecessor as Minister for Social Development, Mr Dodds, decided earlier this year not to proceed with the package of betting and gaming changes announced by the previous Administration before the outcome of the current review of gambling law in Great Britain. The package included a change to allow on-course Sunday betting together with new employment protection rights for track-betting workers. The employment protection aspect now falls within the remit of the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.

I wish to make it very clear that I fully support Mr Dodds’s decision, both generally and in relation to the specific issue of on-course Sunday betting.

The amending legislation required to remove the prohibition would be subject to the full Assembly procedure for primary legislation, and would inevitably take time. It would be completely irresponsible to submit proposals for legislative changes on this issue to the Assembly at a time when a comprehensive review of gambling law is being undertaken in Great Britain, which is likely to have implications for Northern Ireland. To suggest using valuable Assembly time to pursue an issue of only limited interest to the people of Northern Ireland would clearly be considered by many to be an inefficient use of resources.

I have a wide range of ministerial responsibilities for the community at large. There are many pressing issues affecting a large number of vulnerable and needy people throughout Northern Ireland. At this time, my priorities remain the much-needed reform of legislation covering housing and street trading and, as Members know, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act, which has now received Royal Assent.

The Housing Bill alone runs to more than 200 clauses and represents an intensive piece of work for my Department, the Social Development Committee and this Assembly. It will make important and much needed provisions for homelessness, antisocial behaviour, housing for travellers, housing in multiple occupation, the right for housing association tenants to buy their homes, and more targeted grants to enable us to tackle unfitness.

For these reasons, I cannot support the motion. I am confident that, having heard my reasons, Members will support the amendment and endorse my decision not to give further consideration to a change in the law until I have considered the implications for Northern Ireland of the current gambling review in Great Britain.

I will now deal with specific points raised by some Members. First, I want to make an important general point. I want everyone to listen to it, particularly those who support the changes. Not one individual has contacted my Department, either by phone or in writing, and said that it is time to change the legislation, other than those deemed to have a vested interest. Members may not want to hear that, but the thought prevails today that people only want to hear what they want to hear, and they are not that interested in anything that is contrary to their view.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Mr Morrow would be pretty expert in that.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Some others are very learned in it too. We cannot all be as articulate as Mr McCartney. That is the weakness that some of us have.

Mr Bradley mentioned a figure of some £20 million. I do not know where he got that figure, as he did not substantiate it in any way. He plucked it out of the air. He said that some £20 million would be lost to Northern Ireland as a result of not having on-track betting on Sundays. He will probably inform the House how he arrived at that figure in his winding-up speech.

Mr B Hutchinson said that some 150 jobs were in jeopardy. Again, he did not elaborate and it seems to be a figure pulled out of the sky. No doubt he will elaborate later.

Much has been said today about the impact on tourism. It is all very well for Members to stand up and wildly pluck figures out of the sky. They would be far more convincing if they could show where they get their figures from. For reasons best known to themselves, none of them decided to substantiate any of their figures. Of all those who made the argument for the motion, no matter how articulate they might think they are, not one said that we had got our priorities wrong.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

Will the Member give way?

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No. Not one of them suggested, either to me personally or on the Floor of this House, that the Department for Social Development’s priorities were totally wrong, and that gambling legislation should take a higher priority than housing legislation. They did not have the courage, or they did not seem to want to do it.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I did not interrupt Mr McCartney when he was speaking.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Many people want to make a contribution now. Why did they not do so while they were speaking?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

We only had six minutes.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Michelle Gildernew, of Sinn Féin/IRA no less, stands up and says quite clearly — [Interruption].

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order. I asked this question before, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it allowable that a Member of this Assembly should address a party other than by the name with which it has been designated in the list of the Assembly’s political parties.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Members have been referring to each other in many different ways. As long those references do not fall into the category of unparliamentary language, they are allowable.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Further to that point of order. Can we then refer to the DUP as the DUP/LVF or DUP/Orange Volunteers?

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was dealing with a point made by Michelle Gildernew of Sinn Féin/IRA before I was interrupted. She goes on to say that she is concerned about the impact this would have on the economy and the money that would be lost. Can you believe that, coming from Michelle Gildernew of Sinn Fein/IRA? She talks about the loss of revenue when the organisation that her party is inextricably linked with has caused 30 years of devastation, murder and terror. Millions upon millions of pounds have gone down the drain because of the actions of Sinn Féin/IRA — and she insists that she is concerned about the economy. She is not very convincing. She needs to try a little harder.

Mr McCarthy knows a winner when he sees one — that is undoubtedly why he is in the Alliance Party. He is not as good at picking a winner as he thinks he is since he has not convinced anyone, even though we listened to him very carefully.

I want to say to Mr McCarthy that there is no prohibition on betting on a Sunday.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

Not on-track betting.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You can place your bets — and it had been mentioned several times today that numerous facilities are available to you to place your bets.

Mr Ervine, the fountain of all knowledge, tells us that this has nothing to do with betting or not betting on a Sunday. It is something more sinister than that. He is the one individual who can look into everybody’s soul and discern exactly what they are thinking. He is actually telling Members that what they are saying is not what they are thinking — they are far more devious than that. By the same logic, I would then have to say that what Mr Ervine says is not really what he is thinking. He must have a devious motive. Therefore, whatever he has said today is not genuine. He has another motive.

He is not interested in Sunday on-track betting. That is not his motive. He has not revealed his motive yet. Therefore, Mr Ervine, as you tar others, you shall be tarred. He will have to be called into question. Everytime he has something to say, we will have to discern that his motives are not right.

Mr B Hutchinson asked if the Minister could justify ignoring the employment and economic benefits for tourism in Northern Ireland as a result of Sunday on-track betting. I do not take lightly any proposal that would benefit industries or increase job opportunities in Northern Ireland. In this case, I take the view that other considerations far outweigh such benefits.

When the Programme for Government was announced, I did not hear any Member stand up in this Assembly and say that there should be a change in gambling legislation. I would have thought that all those who claim to be knowledgeable would have caught on to that point at the time, and not need hindsight. It should have been right at their fingertips to tell this and other Departments that our priorities were all wrong; that housing, street trading and child support legislation should not have priority over betting and gambling legislation. I think that they should have priority over gambling legislation. That is why Mr Nigel Dodds adopted those priorities, and that is why I support those priorities in the House today.

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

The Minister did not address my amendment at all. He did not talk about gaming machines in bookmakers’ shops. I understand what he said about the need to write the legislation. However, my understanding is that two of his advisers are dealing with the Street Trading Bill. That Bill is nearly finished, so why can they not tackle other legislation? They are not involved in other legislation that I know of, and they have never come before our Committee. I assume that they have been working on the Street Trading Bill and have now finished it. They could easily get on with preparing other pieces of legislation. In January 1998, both direct rule Ministers announced that they were ready to bring forward the legislation shortly. Therefore it must not need much preparation.

What the Minister said was reminiscent of those occasions when direct rule Ministers gave the weasel- concept of choice: only one thing can be chosen, so choose between these three — that is what we are being given. This is not about choice, or about which legislation comes first. The legislation needs to be prepared and brought before the House. As I said, these are not life-and-death issues. Everyone wants to see child support matters and the Housing Bill brought forward, but they are not ready yet. The legislation should be prepared and brought forward, because we have been crying out for it for long enough.

The hon Member for North Down, Mr McCartney, made a good case on my behalf. He got right to the core of the political argument. However, I am not sure that the Minister listened to what Mr McCartney said. If he had, he would understand that Mr McCartney’s short six-minute speech summed this up very well.

This issue is not just about on-course betting on a Sunday. It is also about jobs in the industry. In GB, 10% of betting shops have lost their business because of the lottery. A 10% loss in Northern Ireland would equate to 150 lost jobs. I draw that figure directly from GB. If the lottery causes bookmakers to lose 10% then 150 jobs will be lost. That is why I brought forward this amendment. I want the Minister to bring forward legislation to allow two gaming machines in every betting shop. That would cover those losses and safeguard jobs. Members talked about family values. If 150 people lose their jobs, what use will family values be to their families? They will be on the dole and have no money. We need to focus on the real issues. It is about bread-and-butter issues and how people can make a living.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Did the hon Member hear anything in the speech of the relevant Minister that concerned the timing of the introduction of on-course betting, and was not a clear refutation of the principle of on-course betting on a Sunday?

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

I agree with the hon Member for North Down. One of the most disappointing things is that the Minister has not made a case about any of those issues. The case that has been made is for keeping this legislation away from the Assembly. That is very unfortunate. The Minister should have argued the case that it should not be done. Although tourism was mentioned, he admitted at the end of his speech that he was not going to get into that argument.

It is a valid argument, because it concerns how we can bring money into this society.

I refer back to the consultation that took place over a two-year period before 1998 between the public, proprietors of bookmakers’ shops and owners. After consultation the opinion was that things should change. There has been no change to that view.

The review in Great Britain that has been mentioned is not about on-course betting but offshore betting. That is what we will be talking about — multimedia, interactive television, digital and all that brings.

The point was made earlier that the review is not saying that there should be no gambling on a Sunday. You can have horse racing without betting. I do not want to draw analogies, but you would not get the same kick from it. People go to the races to place bets and win, not just to look at horses. I will resist the temptation to draw an analogy with a supermodel.

As to how we move forward, the Minister needs to look at the legislation governing bookmakers’ shops.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

Mr McCartney tried to ask the Minister if he has a principled position. The Minister told us that he agreed with the previous Minister’s decision, but he did not tell us why. Is this a principled decision by the Minister, or is it simply that there is no legislative capacity in the Programme for Government to take this legislation forward?

Billy Hutchinson (PUP, Belfast North)

With the exception of the DUP, most people in the House, accept that. It is a well-worn argument, and I would like to move on.

We need to introduce this legislation for gaming machines and for Sunday on-course gambling. Otherwise the industry will be curtailed and people will lose their jobs in bookmakers’ shops.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

One is tempted to draw a number of racing analogies in winding up this debate. The bookie’s whip has been applied as far as some parties are concerned today, and I have already pointed out that it is significant that the motion before the House coincides with pleas to certain Members from on-course bookmakers.

There has also been a certain amount of grandstanding today. While people have been putting down motions —[Interruption].

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Are you flogging a dead horse or are you on a beaten docket?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am flogging a dead horse, but I will come to that in a moment. Stop stealing my lines. I hope that my amendment is not a beaten docket, but the vote will decide on that.

There has been a certain amount of grandstanding today. Some Members, not all, have not taken this debate seriously and have used it as an excuse to attack the Minister for Social Development rather than further the case that has been put forward by Mr Bradley.

If Mr Bradley were really serious, or, indeed, if those Members who spoke so fervently were really fervent in favour of this legislation, why did they not bring forward a private Member’s Bill to the House? Why did they not take the initiative rather than use this debate as an excuse to beat the Minister?

A number of people have jumped the gun — that really is a racing term, but I am sure that you get the idea. They have used arguments that neither the Minister nor I have advanced in the House. It is easy to set up fences that Members can subsequently knock down, or fail to jump.

The motion is not a Sunday issue. In the words of David Ervine, it is all about a puritanical dispensation. He had a field day today because he was given unbounded chances to use big words.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hansard will show that I did not say "puritanical".

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I wrote it down. I got the "dispensation" part right and I am sure that "puritanical" was in front of it.

People have sought to put arguments and reasons into my mouth, and into the mouths of Members who have supported my amendment. I have not put forward such arguments. However, those people have failed, and that is important. It is easy for Members to put forward those arguments because it means that they do not have to address the questions I posed at the beginning of the debate.

Mr McCartney was first to mention a review, but other Members have raised it since. Any review is likely to add to the liberalisation of the gambling legislation. I suspect, given the terms of reference, that that is true. Particular measures will add to the liberalisation of the legislation. However, the legislation will require changes. Why not make all those changes at the same time, rather than bring in one piece of legislation and then another?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Does the Member appreciate that it may be four years before that question is addressed?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I do not know the length of time that is likely to be involved — it may be three or four years. The direct rule Minister first mooted the issue before 1998 and made his announcement at the beginning of 1998. He did not feel that it was urgent, and he did not introduce it during direct rule.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

The House has choices to make. Billy Hutchinson is right — we did not debate the case for and against Sunday betting. That is what Members would do if they had the Bill in front of them. The Assembly has to decide what its priority for legislation is. The House should give priority to the programme that it has before it and to those matters that the Social Development Committee has raised. Legislation can be looked at then.

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

With regard to Mr Wilson’s amendment, it was Mr McCartney who said that he admired Mr Wilson’s sense of humour. However, Mr Wilson extended that too far when he said that my interest in the motion was geographical and constituency-based. My nearest racecourse is at Dundalk, and Down Royal is not in South Down. Therefore, either I got my geography wrong or I missed canvassing in those two areas during the election.

I cannot support Mr Wilson’s amendment. Either he was not here, did not hear or did not wish to hear my opening remarks, and I also draw that to the Minister’s attention. I will quote from my opening remarks to illustrate where I got the figure of £20 million:

"It is my understanding that completion and implementation of the report could be four or five years away".

For that reason alone the Assembly could not force the industry, and those depending upon it, to suffer such an unnecessary delay. The implications of going without for a lengthy period was best summed up in newspaper reports in July when one local racecourse manager, whom I regard as a professional person, calculated that such a lengthy delay would result in an approximate loss of £20 million to the Northern Ireland economy. Mr S Wilson totally failed to recognise the benefits to the economy that are contained in the motion. This morning his Colleague Mr Paisley Jnr stressed the importance of a thriving rural community. My motion deals with that. Therefore I cannot support the amendment.

I am more reluctant to go against the second amendment in the name of Mr B Hutchinson. It does not directly relate to the content or substance of my proposal. I recognise that Ministers Worthington and Ingram favoured the introduction of gaming machines in betting offices, and I accept that if they were placed in betting offices they would be subject to rigid control. However, that is a totally different matter from the debate before us. We all know that the issue of gaming machines can be very contentious, regardless of location. I also know that if the words "gaming machine proposals" were added to my motion, it would pose an undue delay on the introduction of Sunday on-course betting. It would add to the Minister’s workload, making my proposal more difficult to introduce in the desired time frame. I do not want the Minister to have any excuse to put off on-course betting, or to put it on hold. Therefore in the interests of expediency and my concern about the timing of the implementation, I have to vote against Mr Hutchinson’s amendment.

I thank all the Members who participated in today’s debate, especially those who spoke in favour of the motion. As I stated at the outset, I propose the motion in anticipation of the long-awaited boost that it would bring to Northern Ireland’s economy. It appears that those who earn their livelihood from horse racing, as well as those who simply enjoy the sport, have patiently awaited new legislation on Sunday on-course betting in Northern Ireland.

The Minister said that no one contacted him. Did his advisers not draw his attention to the 1997 consultation paper on Sunday on-course betting in Northern Ireland? The Department of Health and Social Services received over 2,500 responses from organisations, businesses and individuals from a wide range of perspectives including churches, bookmakers, district councils, youth organisations, local action groups and private citizens. Apparently 78% of those who responded were broadly content with the proposal to legalise on-course betting on Sundays in Northern Ireland, compared with 22% who were opposed. That is a ratio of approximately 4:1.

By supporting this motion Members will be supporting a variety of individuals and groups throughout Northern Ireland. In recent years millions of pounds have been invested at our two racecourses, Downpatrick and Down Royal. That level of investment has benefited local businesses as well as the wider economy of Northern Ireland. The racecourses and other businesses, however, have not fulfilled their economic potentials. This is partly due to existing legal restrictions such as on-course Sunday betting restrictions. The earliest possible implementation of the motion will allow such businesses to realise their potential and will help to boost the overall economy. If the relevant legislation can be guided through the House before next July, when the Irish racing programme is drawn up, it will facilitate the introduction, in 2002, of six or seven additional meetings per annum at the two local racecourses.

The motion does not seek to legalise Sunday horse racing, as the Minister and others have said. That activity is already legal in Northern Ireland. The motion seeks to legalise Sunday on-course betting in Northern Ireland, and that has been long awaited by those who earn their livelihood from horse breeding and horse racing, as well as those who enjoy the sport. I remind Members that the motion to be debated at a later date will deal with the protection necessary to safeguard the rights of employees who cannot work on Sunday for religious or family reasons.

In response to Mr P Robinson, I have to say that out of concern I did table the two motions at the same time, and I would have preferred them to be taken jointly as motion A and motion B. Unfortunately it did not happen that way.

I thank all Members who voiced their support for the motion and request that those who have reservations about it refrain from action that will deprive Northern Ireland’s economy of any anticipated growth that the motion may facilitate.

Question put,

The Assembly divided: Ayes 27; Noes 49.

Ayes

Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, David Ervine, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, George Savage, John Tierney, Jim Wilson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question,

Main question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 48; Noes 28.

Ayes

Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Ivan Davis, Arthur Doherty, Pat Doherty, David Ervine, John Fee, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, John Gorman, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Seamus Mallon, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Robert McCartney, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Alan McFarland, Eddie McGrady, Martin McGuinness, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Danny O’Connor, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, George Savage, John Tierney, Jim Wilson.

Noes

Fraser Agnew, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Boyd Douglas, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, David McClarty, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Jim Wells, Cedric Wilson, Sammy Wilson.

Main Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly supports changes to the Betting, Gaming, Lotteries and Amusements (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and any other relevant statutory provisions to legalise Sunday on-course track betting in Northern Irelnd and calls upon the Minister for Social Development to bring forward proposals to this effect.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in Chair)

Term-Time Workers (Education): Retainer Payment

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I beg to move

That this Assembly supports the call for retainer payment to be made for term-time-only workers and commends the proposal of the Education Committee for the provision of funds from the education budget to pay the salary cost incurred.

In the past, some Members have been unhappy about the timing of this discussion in the Assembly. Negotiations between the unions and the joint negotiating committee are ongoing. Some have felt that, since the negotiations are not complete, it is wrong for the Assembly to reopen the issue. However, the motion was put to the Business Committee around two and a half months ago, and the timing is more to do with the Business Committee than with any particular event.

Nevertheless, the motion is particularly timely because we have reached a stage in the negotiations where the employers must consider the possibility of a total breakdown if there is not some movement. Secondly, the Department must realise that a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations cannot be reached unless additional money is made available.

There are two parts to the motion. First, there is a group of workers in the education industry who, because of the way contracts have been drawn up, are left in an untenable position over the holiday periods. The motion recommends a particular course of action. Secondly, if something is to be done about that, money must be made available.

I do not want to go through the well-rehearsed case of the hardships faced by term-time-only workers. Attempts have been made to paint these employees as people who are simply bringing in a second income to the household. Since some consider that just to be pin money, the conclusion reached is that this is not a big issue.

However, the vast majority of these workers are women and, for a high percentage of them, their income is the household’s only one. Therefore, to be left for a long time without an income and without the ability to claim benefit is intolerable. The employment structure is totally chaotic. Among employees doing the same job, some are regarded as full-time workers, some are classed as part-time workers with payment during holiday periods, and others are part-time workers with no payment during holiday periods. They are all doing the same kind of work — sometimes in the same school — and that is untenable.

There is an equality issue involved because of the gender aspect and also because people are doing the same job within the same school, yet receiving different rates of pay.

The motion will command widespread support in the House. When the matter was debated before, Members saw the strength of the term-time-only workers’ case, and they will give it a ringing endorsement today.

This motion today is different, however, because it asks Members to go a bit further. This is where the difficulty is created. It not only asks for support for the case but also recognises that there are financial implications, which cannot be met within the existing schools budget. Therefore, if there is to be a satisfactory resolution, it requires additional money from the Department. I am sure that members of the Education Committee will rise and protest their innocence in this matter, but that particular issue has already been recognised by the Committee, which unanimously agreed that the Department should make the additional money available. We are talking about approximately £2 million to finance this scheme of retainer payments — half pay — for those who are term-time-only workers and who are currently not on retainers nor on the 52-week cycle.

It is, of course, the finance aspect which has caused difficulty. I am glad to see that the Minister is here today — perhaps we will get some answers from him. It is very easy for people in the Assembly to say that they support the case of term-time-only workers. The Minister did that. In fact, at the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance conference on 3 March this year the Minister was photographed signing the petition. Let me remind the Minister what the petition said:

"We, the undersigned, strongly support the payment of a retainer fee to term-time employees in schools and colleges during periods of school holidays."

On 3 March the Minister took the view that that was a great idea, and he gave it support. On 28 June the joint negotiating committee made an offer which did not contain any retainer payment. It simply said that they should take their income, which is presently allocated for nine months of the year, and spread it over 12 months. I want to come back to that issue in a moment, to see what it means for some of the people concerned. The Minister issued a press statement, encouraging the term-time staff to accept the payment offer. Therefore, from strongly supporting the retainer fee, we now find the Minister telling the staff to accept an arrangement which paid no retainer.

Of course, when I put it to the Minister in the House on 25 September he had changed his mind again, and he indicated that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on the issue. I suppose we can be thankful that Minister is here today to tell us what his current position is. Is it the 3 March position, the 28 June position or the 25 September position, or is it some other position? Of course, promises from Sinn Féin, in this House or elsewhere — it does not matter whether those promises are to Mrs Hegarty in Londonderry, to the de Chastelain Commission, or, indeed, to the First Minister — are not worth the paper they are written on. The words spoken just disappear into the vapour. They are never followed up.

It is not just the Minister who seems to have this loss of memory. On 15 September the Education Committee wrote to the Minister indicating that it unanimously agreed that there was a need to take swift and decisive action and for the Department to make sufficient funding available to the education and library boards to pay retainer fees. It now seems that the two members of IRA/Sinn Féin on the Committee did not unanimously agree to this. They had a difficulty with this. I am sure that they will speak for themselves later.

I wanted this debate today in order to get some clarification from the Minister. I also wanted to give the House an opportunity to endorse the rightness of providing funding for people who could not in any way be described as well paid.

I want to look at the arguments that have been advanced for not paying a retainer fee. The joint negotiating committee has produced a booklet listing them. I find the first one very odd in light of the recent press release and the Northern Ireland Audit Office inquiry. It is that one cannot pay people for no extra work. If a retainer were to be paid to term-time-only workers, they would be getting additional money for no extra work done.

According to the Northern Ireland Audit Office, there are no such qualms when it comes to school principals. More than half of the principals surveyed by the Audit Office had no clear criterion on which they received a pay increase. The total value of the pay increase was £1·4 million, and in some cases the extra pay to individual principals was more than the yearly pay of term-time-only workers. Some principals got an increase of over £7,000. It is not right that in the education sector people can say that workers should not get extra money for doing nothing, while the people at the top of the education tree do — and in vast amounts.

The second thing is that this pay is not unusual, and these people are not the lowest paid in the education industry. The joint negotiating committee claims that some of them earn £7·00 an hour. I have a constituent who recently applied for a job as a school caretaker. His payment was going to be £4·86 per hour. Averaged out over 12 months, that would have become £3·49 per hour. As a school caretaker he would be earning less than the minimum wage, yet the argument is that these pay rates are not unusual.

Another argument put forward is that if a retainer fee were to be paid to people who are not working during the holidays, it would be a discouragement to the full-time staff who have to work over the holiday period. However, we are not asking for full pay over the holiday period for term-time-only workers. The retainer will be only half of what those who work over the holiday period — secretaries, technicians, or whatever — will be getting.

The next one — and I noted the wording used — is that if these people are paid then everyone else will want to catch up, and restoring differentials will create an enormous bill. However, the unions have not indicated that this will be the case. Even the joint negotiating committee’s own document says that there might be a potential for additional spend, but it does not quantify it. It does not say that representations have been made by people who want differentials restored, but it simply throws it in as an argument.

There are some other arguments in the document, but none of them stands up to public scrutiny. It is untenable to maintain a situation in which different people are paid in different ways, where some people are left destitute over the holiday period, or where solutions are proposed that put people working in the education industry below the minimum wage. None of these situations is acceptable. The Minister may choose to ignore this, but he will have to account for the fact that he ignored the views of the Assembly. The Assembly should clearly signal to the Department of Education that people who are an essential part of the education industry are being badly and unjustly treated.

I would like to put this in context. The funds that the Minister proposes spending on the educational promotion of the Irish language would pay the retainer fees for those claiming them twice over. This Assembly should be sending a signal to the Minister of Education that it is wrong to treat these people this way. He should redress the situation by making resources available so that the joint negotiating committee can work out a solution.

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

A large number of Members have indicated that they wish to speak. Each will have seven minutes.

Danny Kennedy (UUP, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issues concerning the ongoing dispute. The Education Committee has shown an interest in this extremely difficult year-long dispute. The Committee has stated many times that it wishes to see a speedy and equitable resolution to the problems experienced by all involved. As Chairperson of the Education Committee, I want to concentrate my remarks on the Committee’s role in this issue. Later my Ulster Unionist Colleague Ken Robinson will outline the party’s position.

The Education Committee has written to the Minister urging him to take swift action to make the necessary funds available so as to ensure that no further financial burdens are being placed on school budgets already under severe pressure.

Members should be aware of the extremely complex background to this dispute, which involves term-time staff throughout the Province. The Education Committee has received several briefings on this. We understand that approximately 5,000 staff fall into the category of term-time employee. They include classroom assistants who work in special schools and in mainstream primary and secondary schools. School secretaries and technical staff are also involved. They are contracted to work only during school term, and they play a vital role in the provision of our education system.

In the past, such employees were entitled to receive benefits from the relevant Government Departments when they were not working and receiving wages from the education and library boards. Owing to changes in the social security regulations such employees have been deemed ineligible for those benefits and have accordingly suffered grave financial loss.

That situation is complicated by the fact that some of the five education and library boards’ term-time staff are paid for the full 12 months of the year. This has arisen for a variety of reasons, and the Education Committee seeks an assurance that such anomalies will be rectified as part of the ongoing negotiations. The Committee has heard presentations from both trade union representatives of the term-time-only staff and the management section of the education and library boards’ joint negotiating council.

At constituency level, I have received numerous representations from term-time workers who find themselves involved in this long-running dispute. The Education Committee and I believe that a more flexible and innovative approach is required to address this issue. I urge the Minister, as well as making strenuous efforts to have this matter resolved quickly, to ensure that the necessary money be made available for whatever solution is found. We have written to the Minister asking for swift action to do this so that no further financial burdens are placed on existing school budgets. That is an important consideration, and I hope very much that he will address these points when he comes to speak in this significant debate.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I support the motion. Many people here will realise that the issue of payment for term-time workers is not new. Indeed, it has been with us for the last 20 years. However, the situation has been exacerbated in recent years by the Government’s tightening of social security regulations to exclude term-time workers from claiming benefits during school holidays. Term-time workers include administrative staff, laboratory technicians, classroom assistants, school dinner staff and even cleaners.

The education and library boards did not deal with the problem of term-time workers; instead they swept the issue under the carpet, camouflaged by the fact that such workers could claim social security benefit during holidays. Since the changes in social security legislation, however, there has been significant hardship. As Sammy Wilson put it in his opening remarks, how can a person on a low income make financial provision to survive over the two weeks at Christmas, the two weeks at Easter and the eight weeks of the summer holiday?

Of these workers, 98% are women, and a high percentage head single-parent families. Many work part-time to facilitate their families because of the poor availability and expense of childcare. The hardship endured is totally unacceptable. Negotiations have been ongoing since April 2000, and we have seen the summer come and go without a resolution. We now have Christmas on our doorstep, still with no agreement. The circumstances of these employees have not changed over the last few years and still create hardship.

One of the biggest problems with this issue is the lack of consistency shown by the boards in dealing with the problem. There is an unacceptable, patchwork approach. Some boards have been involved in negotiations with term-time workers and unions, but I understand that one in particular refuses to talk to staff and unions while another has offered to spread payments for 10 months’ work over 12 months. That would cause even more hardship for term-time workers, possibly taking their hourly rates to £3·49 — below the minimum wage.

Another board has offered a payment of £200. It is not clear if this is a one-off payment for this year only or if workers will receive this amount every year. I suspect that it is the former. Consider the emotional blackmail that many of these employees are put under and the gross demoralisation and demotivation among workers who are essential to making our schools function.

In our efforts to provide equality of opportunity for all, we must ensure that the plight of term-time workers is dealt with fairly and in accordance with the equality legislation.

John Fee (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

My Colleague has just put her finger on it. This is about equality, fair play, treating employees properly and social justice. The people we are talking about make the education system work. They allow boards of governors to govern, civil servants in education boards to serve, teachers to teach, and children to learn, and I cannot think of a more offensive way of treating them. They are being told "You will be retained throughout the summer, and you cannot claim any benefit support, though you will not be paid. You must be here next September, in loco parentis, to look after and protect our children, look after their welfare and make our education system work, but we are not going to value your services."

It is in that context, and the context of fair play and equality, that this debate should be continued. I ask the Minister to look at the motion carefully. It does not tie his hands, as previous motions have.

Patricia Lewsley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his intervention.

What is required is equality of treatment with other staff. These people need at least a 50% retainer during holiday periods. I am concerned that if the situation is allowed to continue, many of these workers, who are essential to the education sector, will look elsewhere for continuous employment. We need a Northern Ireland-wide policy. It is time for the Minister of Education to intervene by making the funds available and in future to ring-fence the money to provide funding for salaries. At present, money for term-time staff comes from school management budgets. Term-time staff, unlike teachers, have to compete with the need for equipment, books, and so on. We have also seen in recent weeks — Mr Wilson mentioned this — the pay increases that have been given to some head teachers. This is totally unfair and the situation needs to be redressed without further delay. I support this motion.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As the Committee Chairman has said, we have some difficulty with the motion. In the Committee there was agreement, to a large extent, that there was a need for an amendment as a more flexible and appropriate response to the ongoing negotiations. The motion moved by Mr Wilson is inappropriate and untimely. By going forward together, the Committee should try to resolve the issue and not create difficulties. Perhaps Mr Wilson was not in attendance when the presentation was made on this issue.

We have great sympathy for these people’s situation. This problem has gone on too long, given that it is so important for schools.

They are very hard-working, committed and responsible people. Therefore they need our praise and our support, particularly for morale, so that they will stay. We need people to stay in these jobs rather than have them leave because they are not being properly paid. They have to commit themselves to the job as a full-time job rather than a part-time job. Also, they are key people in the schools; they are key to the overall running of the school and especially to the children’s education at primary school level.

While, to some extent, full-time teachers are being paid off, the number of term-time people is increasing. It should be the other way round. We need more permanent staff and less use of putting people into this part-time bracket. This problem has been allowed to go on for years and the education and library boards did not try to deal with it although they had an opportunity to do so. The difficulty started when income support was removed. At least that was helping to alleviate difficulties during the holiday periods.

I could ask Mr Wilson to consider, as a way forward — and it is one of the flexible approaches that we are trying to get as far as options are concerned — to ask his own Minister, the Minister for Social Development, to reinstate income support for holiday periods. Ultimately, we are talking about which budget the money should come from. If we are arguing that money should come out of the present budget for children, should it be taken from the money for their books or their needs? Where should the money come from? These are particularly difficult arguments and we really do not want to get into them. We want the issue to be resolved. However, I could again point the finger at Minister who deals with social security. This is what joined-up government should be about.

The Department for Social Development has made considerable savings by putting pressure on people receiving incapacity benefit and other benefits to come off those benefits. Most people receiving benefits are in need of them. However, there have been massive savings so as to try and massage the figures so that things will look well at the next British Budget.

I want to see fair play and fair pay given to the term-time people in particular. This issue should not have been raised at Assembly level while negotiations are ongoing. For that reason, this motion is inappropriate and untimely. The Assembly’s intervention could have been put off to another time. At the moment it amounts to interfering. From my recollection, the letter which was mentioned — and which was sent to the Minister — actually did not properly designate whose budget the money would come from.

If we try to go down the road that has been pointed out then the whole question is about implementation. How will it be enacted? There are particular difficulties with trying to enact what has been said in the motion. That is one of the problems, pointing again to the budget and who is going to end up paying. We certainly do not want to see children losing out.

I want to see this issue resolved as soon as possible for those involved. However, the substantive motion does not do this and it is inappropriate at this particular time. The Committee, including the Chairperson and the proposer, were happy to go forward with the amendment. We were all in support of that, and thus against the motion. To do the right thing we should — rather than getting into a controversial situation and causing difficulty — have been going forward with the most flexible and appropriate approach. What Mr S Wilson has proposed is not that, and I have great difficulties with it.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

This issue has been rumbling on for some months and years, and it is still being discussed.

Those members of staff who are directly affected have been left in confusion and anguish. Therefore we must show our support for them today, with regard to both their working conditions and their need for proper salaries. I must take issue with Mr McHugh and say that I do not think that this will be seen as interference; rather it will be seen as support for their cause. As Members of the Assembly we should demonstrate that support.

No one has given them any assurance that their salaries, or even their posts sometimes, are safe. As Ms Lewsley pointed out, there have been many meetings between the unions and some of the boards, but most of them have ended in acrimony. As usual, money is the bottom line. There appears to be no money in the Department, none in the boards and certainly none in the schools themselves for allocation from their local management of schools budget. We cannot treat people in this way.

For some time now, term-time staff have been left to their own devices over the summer and other holiday times. Some of them have holiday work, but most claim benefits so that they can have a break from their demanding positions and look after families, et cetera. Remember that we are talking about school secretaries, supply teachers, classroom assistants and school meal attendants — people whom any school would be hard pushed to do without.

The Education Committee has met with all the interested parties. The Committee has talked to those directly affected. It has discussed, in detail, the nature and role of the Education Committee and how it can encourage a realistic solution for all. I have to declare an interest and say that I have two relatives who are directly affected by this, and I have heard some disappointing stories from them.

The necessary resources must come from the Department of Education. Perhaps the Executive’s Programme for Government and the Budget could be examined. I do not think that the money can come from any other source, but, again, I hope that the negotiations will assess that.

Furthermore, as Ms Lewsley said, the money must be ring-fenced and directly focused on the payment of those salaries so that it does not go anywhere else, leaving us in the same position in the future. The problem has been around for some time. Staff who are classed as term-time workers have worked with commitment and loyalty. That record must not be forgotten. We cannot treat people so badly.

Following its discussions, the Committee hopes that a mutually acceptable and adequate solution can be reached during the current negotiations. I hope that this debate will not restrict that goal in any way. It will be helpful for the Minister to know that he has the Assembly behind him when he talks to the unions and the term-time employees.

We must allow these negotiations to continue, and it is our wish that a speedy and equitable outcome be achieved. The decision must be made soon so that staff will not feel forced to take industrial action. That eventuality may be on the cards. We cannot treat people like that. Members of staff have been left in the dark for too long. They must be given some comfort and assurance that their posts are secure and that a consequential salary will be provided. I am concerned about the wording of the motion, because it talks about a retainer fee while the matter is still under negotiation.

In conclusion, I express the hope that the Minister and the Department will take on board the view of the Education Committee and the Assembly and, once a solution has been reached, allocate the necessary funds for salary costs. It is my desire that a decision be made soon so that there are no more holiday periods without income. I support the motion as a gesture of solidarity with the staff. The decision must be made as soon as possible. Would that not be a nice Christmas present for them?

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

Before calling the next Member, I want to remind Mr Wilson that he was allowed to speak for approximately 10 minutes without an ongoing private conversation in the background. He will please afford that same courtesy to others.

Boyd Douglas (UUAP, East Londonderry)

I support the motion, and I commend the Education Committee on its proposal that funds be made available from the education budget to pay the salary costs incurred by a retainer payment. I must refer to the excellent service provided by classroom assistants.

These are professional people who are committed in their support for the teaching staff and to the well-being and education of children. They are valued throughout Northern Ireland for their considerable input in the development of young children, who will be the adults of tomorrow.

Up until the summer of 1999, term-time employees were able to claim jobseeker’s allowance. It meant that at least some form of income was available and that their national insurance credits were kept up to date. Unfortunately, after the new ruling by the Department of Health and Social Services came into practice, term-time employees who worked more than 16 hours per week were ineligible for such an allowance. As a result, as has been referred to, for a period of two months no payment is received at all and no credits are paid. Moreover, once back at work, they receive no salary until the middle of October.

In addition, I draw Members’ attention to the fact that at Christmas and Easter classroom assistants receive no salary for two weeks. Therefore their income in January and April is also low.

The union that represents term-time employees has been negotiating with the education boards to get a retainer fee that would bring them back into line with other ancillary staff. I have been in contact with the Western Education and Library Board in my own area, and, to date, it has offered merely to divide the current income over 12 months. That would be most unsatisfactory because overall it reduces the monthly income and still does not solve the jobseeker’s allowance issue. Reducing the agreed hourly rate in this way would devalue their status. The choice appears simple — either permit them to apply for the jobseeker’s allowance or pay them a retainer fee.

In February of this year I asked the Minister of Education to advise what measures were being devised to end these short-term contracts. At that time he indicated that it was a matter between the term-time staff and their employing authorities. However, he assured me that the discussions were ongoing. Nine months later this important issue is no closer to being resolved.

This debate gives the Assembly the opportunity to see progress on this question and a resolution to this long-standing problem. It is inconceivable that trained people with appropriate qualifications who provide a dedicated and essential service to teachers and young people alike should not have their worth recognised and be lost to another profession.

To lose the people with these skills and experiences is extreme folly, the impact of which may not be fully known for years to come. However, that is clearly the way that this matter is heading, given that people are faced with no choice but to find alternative employment in other areas unless substantial action is taken.

Consequently I welcome this motion from the Deputy Chairperson of the Education Committee and support it wholeheartedly.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

There are a number of principles that I would like to raise, particularly as the Minister is with us today.

First of all, why is there such a variation between the boards in relation to this issue? Also, why do we allow in Northern Ireland such a lack of uniformity across the public sector? Workers doing the same job can have different conditions depending on where they are placed. As I understand it, in some board areas the conditions apply for 38 weeks and in others for 40 weeks. On average that leaves around nine weeks when no payment is received. That is the first issue — the variation in the number of weeks. Would it not be better if we applied the same conditions to all workers across all boards and that that edict came from the Department?

Secondly, 1,000 of these workers currently receive their full entitlement and 4,000 do not. Why is that the case? I believe it is because of the expansion by employers of term-time contracts.

The issue of "can’t pay", "won’t pay" and low pay will be raised. I think that we can pay. I have received a costing of between £2 million and £3 million — of course, a million pounds does make a substantial difference.

In this country, it makes economic sense to pay manual workers a decent level of pay throughout the year. Research shows that when that happens, the money is spent in Northern Ireland. However, if the level of pay among professional workers is increased, the money is spent outside Northern Ireland. Therefore, for economic reasons, never mind reasons of morale, it makes sense to pay that money to those people who are part of the school support structure. They are essential workers.

In recent weeks there have been annual prize givings in schools, and, like a number of other Members, I have been asked to address them. When making those addresses, we are conscious not to comment only on the input of the teachers, but to refer also to the school support staff. I know that because I made a telephone call this afternoon in response to a call from a school secretary. They are absolutely essential for the protection of children.

My child, who is in year eight, had missed the school bus and was stranded. He did not know who to go to, so he went back into the school and the secretary was still there. Very often the secretary is the only person still in the school at that time of the evening, long after others have gone.

Laboratory technicians are in a similar situation. This is not the first time that Members have commented on the conditions — not just the pay — of laboratory technicians. No doubt, there will soon be another motion on the variations in pay for manual and non-manual workers in this country. As Ms Lewsley says, it is no coincidence that well over 90% of those workers are female. It was once argued that those people work from their heads, but they work with their hands and they are working with their hearts. That is all demanded of their skill. However, they are told — particularly the classroom assistants, laboratory technicians and secretaries — that they will not be remunerated for a number of weeks, even though they probably burnt themselves out being part of the tool belt of the school throughout the year.

It is unfair that that message has to come from the school. I believe that the Department of Education can find the money for retainer payments. The Assembly should send out the strong message that our education system counts for something and that all those involved in it should not suffer from low morale because of the conditions under which they are expected to work.

An important message has come from David Blunkett. He recently issued a press statement saying that he supports the issue in relation to teaching assistants. It would be incredible if that message came from London and a different message came from Belfast.

Estelle Morris from the School Standards Office released a report in which she said that

"a package of measures to improve the role of teaching assistants in the classroom"

should be introduced. She went on to recommend that package, one element of which we are talking about today.

Rather than there being differences among the various departmental boards in Northern Ireland, it is shocking to think that we may fall behind England, Scotland or Wales on this issue. Let us agree to lead the field and not be behind it.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I declare an interest in the debate.

There are several points to be considered, but I will take up on what Ms McWilliams said about ancillary staff. A lot of those have recently come to schools because of the changes in schools and the curriculum, et cetera. However, there is a group of almost entirely female workers who have endured this problem for over 20 years — the school secretaries. It is their role that I will address.

Schools depend on the loyalty of all their staff, but it is the school secretary in particular who gives a school its positive public image. The secretary is the first point of contact on the telephone or when one enters the school. Sadly, in modern times, it is the school secretary who operates the security system that schools are forced to have.

If there is an unruly entry into the school, that person often arrives at the school office first, and some unpleasant experiences can occur. Therefore, the tact, patience and guile of the school secretary is vital to the public image of the school and its efficient day-to-day working.

Their conditions of service have also changed. Once upon a time, they answered the telephone, gave out the dinner tickets, and that was it. Today, they are required to have adequate IT skills because all schools, including some smaller primary schools, are going onto the computerised local administration system for schools (CLASS). The daily role expected of schools from the ever expanding CLASS system is quite horrific, and the school secretary bears the burden of that.

Over the last 20 years, in my former role, I worked under three school secretaries, and I could not have operated efficiently without their confidentiality, loyalty, tact and humanity. The school secretary deals with the child who has missed the bus, or with the child who has fallen. If the teacher is not sure whether the injury is serious, the school secretary has to telephone the pupil’s home, without alarming the parent or, in many cases, the grandparent or the childminder. The school secretary has a tremendous social role as well as an educational one. The "Miss" in the office is known to every child in the school. They may not know who the principal is, but the child will always know the "Miss". She gives out dinner tickets, sorts out school trip problems and deals with parents in very sensitive situations.

For the principal, the confidentiality of school secretaries is absolutely central to the smooth and efficient running of the school. They exercise interpersonal skills that are very hard to quantify, but without secretaries the schools would be much poorer places. For almost 20 years, the school secretary has not qualified for a retainer fee. To add insult to injury, the secretary has had to fill out the timesheets for those employees who were entitled to retainer fees. So we have been rubbing salt in the wound, to some degree.

For the last 20 years I have taken the earache, so today I am willing to transfer it to you. On many occasions, you have talked to us, in the context of many topics, about equality. This is an issue of equality. As my Colleague Sammy Wilson said —

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

Please address your remarks through the Deputy Speaker.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

We have a group of poorly paid workers who bring a particular expertise into the school, and that benefits the school population as a whole. There is a burning sense of injustice among school secretaries. I looked up some old newspaper headlines — "Insult added to secretary’s injury", "No retainers for the faithful". It seems that their loyalty to the school is not being recognised. I and my party think that this injustice needs to be dealt with now. We have a local Administration, and this is an opportunity to bring its resources to bear on this problem. The case is nearing resolution. It should not be brought to an industrial tribunal, and I am sure that those affected do not wish to take industrial action. I ask the Minister to treat this issue seriously.

If money can be set aside in the budgets for other new education sectors, why can it not be used to address this long-standing problem for these long-serving workers? Given the political will, we have the solution. I am not in total agreement with Mr S Wilson’s timing, but I am in total agreement with his sentiments.

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

I support the motion, although I feel uncomfortable with the term "retainer fee". In a sense, it makes a statement that these workers are in some way less valuable than other employees in the education system. That is not in the interests of the people who matter most — the children. I have often spoken in the Chamber about literacy and numeracy problems, and I will continue to do so until the problem is addressed. However, on a positive note I draw some comfort from the enormous contribution made by classroom assistants who give many children the first leg-up that they desperately need to avoid becoming the next generation of people who have problems with reading and writing.

Through my own experience as a teacher I have seen how much term workers mean to children, and I deeply regret that management does not value them more. In many cases they have been the springboard that has enabled teachers to raise standards and build relationships with parents. If management had appreciated the contribution made by term workers the many problems, which those management boards are accountable for, might not exist.

Term workers carry out a variety of jobs. They may work on a one-to-one basis with children with disabilities, and many do. What more honourable vocation could one have? Yet, they are classified as being almost a by-product of the education system — second class and not equal. Not only is it wrong, it is a fundamental flaw because it prevents the whole concept of equality and targeting social need becoming a reality for children and workers.

The term worker is often a critical resource, helping to provide many children with a healthy breakfast when they arrive at school. I recently saw that on a visit to schools in Belfast. What better way for a child — particularly if that child has special problems at home — to start the day than with a nutritious meal before going to the classroom? That is what is happening in many socially deprived areas of Northern Ireland, and I applaud it.

Term workers are involved in many other aspects of school life, for which they receive meagre pay. Much of their additional work is done on a voluntary basis with no recompense, yet they do not complain. They are a bit like the home helps. Very often, term workers are people who have made great sacrifices to gain qualifications and experience — but for what? Is it to be treated as second-class citizens and be devalued in what they do?

Last night, I had the pleasure and privilege to attend the annual awards of the Northern Ireland Playgroups Association in Templepatrick. I met some of those wonderful people who have devoted their lives to the care of our young people. Surely it is unjust — and it does not coincide with the aspirations enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement — to treat them unequally. Those who are holding up progress are doing no one any favours, not least the children.

This anomaly cannot be addressed adequately without a complete transformation of how management views children and the term workers who support them. The very expression "term worker" fails to recognise how critical they are to the well-being of schools. The term may be more adequately applied to such seasonal activities as potato harvesting. However, children are not vegetables; they are human beings with distinct personalities and needs — and so are the workers who mould their lives.

I support the motion, but I am firmly convinced that much more has to be done if we are to seriously address the needs of our people and not least our children who benefit from the support they receive from the people we call term workers.

Let us give term workers equality. By doing so, we will strike out positively for children. They are our investment in the future, if we treat them properly. It means giving equal status to all those who are helping to mould their future. It is fundamentally wrong to deny some of those workers pay while simultaneously denying them benefits, and it must be put right. The issue has much to do with justice — there can be no "ifs" or "buts". It has to be either right or wrong, and I believe it is right to treat people in the spirit of justice and fair play. That is what the Good Friday Agreement promised the people of Northern Ireland, and it cannot exclude any of them. This issue cannot wait any longer; it has got to be addressed and addressed now.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I support the motion. It is a matter that particularly affects my area, Lagan Valley, as it is concentrated in the South Eastern Education and Library Board area. There are a number of anomalies in the system, and these have been accepted by the boards.

I would like to home in on the fact that staff signed contracts to do these jobs. They agreed to the terms before they took up the jobs. Let me state the position these people were in before they took up their contracts. Some were employed before schools had their own budgets and had been employed for many years. They were forced to accept these contracts or go on the dole. Others were unemployed and were told that if did not apply for a certain number of jobs they would lose their jobseeker’s allowance. Many workers were forced to take jobs and accept the contracts on offer.

We have a Minister of Education and a Minister of Health who claim to be socialists. Yesterday there was a confession that nurses were not being paid what they were entitled to. Previously we had a debate on biomedical research personnel not being paid what they are entitled to. Today we have term-time workers in schools not being paid what they are entitled to. These people want an imperialist Ireland rather that a socialist Ireland, and Sinn Féin Ministers’ policies are more akin to those of Sir Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher than to Trotsky’s and the people who envisaged equality for all, the old Communists.

We had pathetic nonsense from the Sinn Féin/IRA representative who asked if we wanted to take books from children to employ these people. Of course we do not. What we need represents less than 1% of the budget, yet the Minister can pile money into Irish-language education and open schools for 12 children, when there is virtually no demand for those schools, and use education money to take the First Minister to court. We have the ridiculous situation in which Sinn Féin has raised $4 million in the USA over the past three to four years but is not prepared to use that money for its court case. Instead it is to use money from the education budget — [Interruption].

I do not care if Sinn Féin/IRA take the First Minister to court. It is not my concern. However, the fact that it is using money from the education budget is wrong.

It is wrong to employ people and not pay them adequately. One of my constituents, a laboratory technician, went into school during the summer to ensure that the tools were in good order and that the classroom was ready for the children coming back in September. He no longer does this because he is not being paid for it.

Take classroom assistants. Do we not recognise the worth of classroom assistants? If staff are demoralised they do not give as much as they could to the children. If you pay staff well, you respect them and their worth and you get the best out of them. Classroom assistants love their jobs. They enjoy working with children, and they do not want to give up their jobs just because they are driven to look for other sources of employment by the attitude of the Education Department. The Minister has had substantial time to do something about this and thus far he has chosen to do nothing. Some people say that this is not the right time for the motion. When will it be the right time? When is the Minister going to deliver? When will people be adequately paid for the work they do?

Many staff are not eligible for training. A Member mentioned earlier that some staff involved in computer work are not eligible for training. This issue must be addressed so that our children are served well. Our children are a tremendous resource, and the Education Minister does not appear to recognise their needs or the importance of the people who educate them to the highest standard.

He seems to think that it is more important to take money out of the education budget to fight court cases. I think that that is very sad. I support the motion.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt i bhfabhar na n-oibrithe uilig inár scoileanna, agus go háirithe i bhfabhar na ndaoine sin nach bhfaigheann tuarastal i rith na laethanta saoire. Tá an t-ábhar seo faoi chaibidil faoi láthair agus guím rath agus bláth orthu sin uilig atá ag obair le réiteach a bhaint amach.

I want to speak in favour of improved salary arrangements for term-time employees. The question of how they should be paid is a long-standing and vexing issue. Who could argue for one minute that classroom assistants, secretaries and laboratory technicians do not play a crucial and indispensable role in the education system? It has already been said that secretaries in particular play a central role in supporting principals in every aspect of school administration, consistently going beyond the call of duty on a daily and weekly basis. Both Ms Monica McWilliams and Mr Ken Robinson detailed the social skills that secretaries use on a regular basis.

The irony and the anomaly is that because of current arrangements for term-time workers, many school secretaries are forced to resign on financial grounds. Any school that has lost the services of a secretary between the end of June and the beginning of September knows how costly it is. Administration lacks continuity, staff morale is low and the general smooth running of the school is inconvenienced.

The primary 1 initiative, which began in 1995, provided all primary 1 classes with classroom assistants. That was an excellent, if overdue, initiative that benefited the delivery of education. It would be inconceivable to reflect on the situation prior to that for many of our teachers.

Other Members have highlighted relevant factors such as the equality dimension, social justice, treating workers properly, the fact that 98% — what a huge statistic — of employees affected are women, the question of entitlement to pensions, the anomalies and disparities between the five education and library boards, which are the employing authorities, and the financial hardships imposed on the workers affected, especially during the Christmas and summer periods.

In the earlier debate about gambling on Sundays, Sammy Wilson asked people to focus on the merit and substance of the issue and not to engage in Minister-bashing. I will leave that as it is, but suffice to say that Sammy is deploying double standards. Part of his motivation here is simple Minister-bashing. There is no doubt about that. Delicate negotiations are ongoing at present and Sammy should know that — [Interruption].

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

Mr McElduff, please do not refer to Members by their first names.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

OK.

Mr Wilson should know that. He would have a better understanding of the issue if he had bothered to remain in the Education Committee meeting on 16 November to hear a confidential briefing from some of the people involved in those negotiations. Mr Wilson has acknowledged that he initially submitted the motion 10 or 12 weeks ago. At the most recent Committee meeting, he invited other Committee members to intervene and stage-manage mutually acceptable amendments.

My closing remarks are in the context of the ongoing negotiations. I hope to see a speedy and fair resolution that will ensure that all term-time employees are treated properly and with respect. Therefore I support the negotiations. All Ministers should play their part when the time is right — sooner rather than later. I envisage a favourable response that will improve terms and conditions for hard-pressed term-time employees. Go raibh maith agat.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I wish to concentrate on the changing circumstances that have caused the financial losses experienced by term-time workers. Her Majesty’s Government have changed the benefits system, removing the school holiday benefit entitlement for term-time workers. Most of those people — caretakers, cooks, secretaries, classroom assistants, playground supervisors and patrolmen and women — signed their contracts in the knowledge that they were entitled to benefits during the school holidays. However, the Labour Government changed the criteria that had allowed workers to receive social security benefits during school holidays, giving them the money to feed their families and pay their bills. That will influence their decision on whether to take up a job. The Government changed the financial situation.

Most term-time workers are not highly paid. We must place a high value on their role in schools and reward them accordingly. They carry out an essential role in looking after our children and providing other support services in schools. The current situation is unjust. We cannot afford to lose such people’s experience, guidance and knowledge. If we do not address the situation, many term-time workers will, undoubtedly, seek other employment.

It is within the Assembly’s power to put right the wrong that the Government have done. The Assembly should rectify the inequality by agreeing additional payments to replace the money that these workers would have received previously. We must give proper value and respect to education workers.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

This is an excellent proposal, and it comes at an opportune time. Today we have the chance to address the crucial issue of conditions for term-time staff. The issue has been discussed in all the council chambers, and the unions have lobbied hard and heavy on it. We all know the background. The 1,500 term-time staff contribute so much to the working of schools and to the teaching of our pupils. Term-time staff do their jobs as well as teachers who receive better pay. We should acknowledge the commitment of term-time staff.

The Education Committee has backed the request. The matter now rests with the Minister. Will he make the move? Will he put his money — taxpayers’ money — where his mouth is? Will he ensure that term-time staff receive equal pay?

The education boards have not escaped their responsibilities. They tried to get out of their moral and statutory obligation. That attitude is unacceptable. No school, large or small, can survive without term-time staff. They are an integral and important part of a school. It is crucial that their case be answered, for it is a justifiable case. The education boards have labour of the highest quality at the lowest price — good workers on the cheap. The education boards should respond to the requests made by term-time staff and ensure that their wages are upgraded and that they receive the equal pay they deserve.

Each holiday, term-time staff have to sign on. This year has been particularly difficult for them. Paperwork is off-putting for anyone, but it has been especially difficult this year. We should reflect on that; if they are not paid adequate wages, they will have to go through those problems again.

Sinn Féin Members have said that the Minister — their Minister — is paying off teachers and other staff. That clearly illustrates the fact that he is not in control either of his manifesto or of the manifesto for the education system that we would like to see delivered. We must retain teachers and make sure that the system gives adequate education to our children. The Education Minister is completely out of touch with the ordinary people of the Province, in his community and in ours; the Province is united on that. Together with the education and library boards, he has shown scant regard for term-time staff. I suggest that board members and the Minister go to schools and acquaint themselves with the work and the commitment of term-time staff.

Some Members have suggested that the motion is untimely — it is both timely and appropriate. It is right that the matter should be discussed here. It is nonsensical to say otherwise, and it does not reflect popular opinion. Staff have discussed the possibility of industrial action to address the issue. They have refrained from such action, although they have every justification for considering it.

Term-time staff carry out excellent clerical and teaching work in schools. Without their help, schools could not function properly. In my constituency, there are some 200 term-time staff. They are all committed to their job and to their vocation. If they were to withdraw their labour, the education system would fall apart. That could happen in many schools, but the staff do not want that; they want to negotiate.

We have all seen the paper on the issues that should be negotiated. It reflects badly on management that they were not prepared to pay a retainer and refused to negotiate. The term-time staff and the unions are still willing to consider an accommodation that will ensure that pupils receive their education. I understand that education and library board management has thrown out the unions’ proposals. They are unable to negotiate correctly and honestly with the union staff, and that is an unpalatable and unsavoury reflection on them.

The education and library boards and the Minister must react positively to our proposal. The term-time staff deserve equality. They have earned their parity and should not be treated as second-class teachers or staff. The boards have quality labour at a low price, and they must acknowledge that fact.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

The people who rely most on our help have been identified by Members from all parts of the House. Given the cultural and economic background from which the Minister emanates, those people might, perhaps, have hoped that there would be new opportunities for them. The Minister was someone who came from where they came from themselves, and he might understand their plight. I do not want to accuse the Minister wrongly — he is well able to defend himself — but it seems to me that in some cases we have a comedy show playing all day and every day in our Departments — ‘Yes, Minister’. For us, however, it is not a comedy. This Minister and others find it difficult to cope with the attitudes of departmental "experts".

The Minister must address this issue; it is an issue of inequality at a time when we are demanding equality. It is affecting those people who receive a paltry return, but it must also affect the morale of those they work with and move among. It is bound to affect the morale of the schools where we invest so much in the hope that our children will benefit.

I conclude by saying to the Minister that he must — not that he could, would, should or might, but that he must — address issues such as these. They run to the very core of an Assembly, because the economic circumstances of the day are fundamentally more important than many of the issues which we have the luxury of haggling about. Although he has around him experts who will all advise otherwise, it must be at the very core of what the Minister really believes. However, despite having been vested with the authority to make the decision, he is rolling over and listening to the experts rather than listening to what would have been his own advice just a short time ago.

I support the motion.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. I wish to make my position clear. As Minister of Education, I have encouraged those involved in the negotiations to reach a fair and acceptable resolution. It would be helpful if the Assembly were to adopt a similar approach. I have repeatedly said that I am sympathetic to the position of term-time staff.

Equality and social justice are concepts in which we in the Department of Education believe passionately. The present payment arrangement, under which some term-time staff receive no payment during the summer months, is less than satisfactory. I have also said, and I say it again now, that the only way to have the matter resolved is through proper and meaningful negotiations, and there is an established negotiation forum for that purpose.

If the matter were simple it would have been resolved a long time ago. The reality is much more complex. For a start, the problem is not of the Education Department’s making. There have been no changes to the contracts of the term-time staff, but what has changed is that they are now ineligible for certain social security benefits during the summer vacation. This has come about through changes in social security benefit regulations and is, therefore, a problem which the Education Department has inherited.

The second point I want to make is that the education and library boards are engaged in a wide-reaching process of reviewing the terms and conditions of staff in what is known as single-table bargaining. The purpose of that is to remove the outmoded distinction between the so-called white-collar and blue-collar workers, to evaluate and set a fair rate for the job and to achieve a greater harmonisation of terms and conditions of employment.

Ms McWilliams asked a very pertinent question: why is there variation across the boards? I have also been asking this question. I know that people were employed at different times and under different schemes: one example is the initiative to put a classroom assistant in every primary 1 class, which my Department introduced some years ago. That does not explain the variations. I share the view expressed during this debate that the position needs to be rationalised. The need for such harmonisation is all too apparent when we look at just one of the groups of term-time workers, the classroom assistants. There are considerable variations — between boards and even within the same board — in the contracts under which they are engaged and the number of weeks per year for which they are employed. That is unsatisfactory, and I have encouraged the employing authorities to find some means to rationalise the position as soon as possible.

I do not intend to suggest or dictate how the present difficulty should be resolved. There is a negotiating mechanism for doing this, and those negotiations are ongoing. For this reason, I believe that the terms of this motion are inappropriate. However, I readily support the proposition — and I believe that the Education Committee would support it — that we need an innovative and flexible approach by all parties to the negotiations, namely management and unions.

I have said nothing so far about money. That is because the first priority is to get a settlement which is fair and reasonable in all circumstances. However, whatever settlement is reached will have financial implications, so I would like to speak briefly about this. The second part of this motion calls for funds to be made available from the education budget. I readily accept this. Whatever settlement is reached will have to be paid for from the education budget. The employing authorities realise that, and that is why everyone involved should act responsibly because the outcome could have significant implications for the resources available for other parts of the education service.

Assembly Members will also wish to bear in mind that, as part of the process of setting a fair rate of pay, formal job evaluations are being undertaken, not just for these term-time workers but for other groups of staff employed by the education and library boards. The outcome of the job evaluations will be backdated, and that will again be a cost that has to be met within the overall funds available for education.

Some attention has been paid to the extra money which the Executive Committee have recommended should go into the education programme next year, especially the extra £20 million which is to go to schools. The Executive Committee made that allocation as a first step towards easing the current pressures on school budgets. My officials will shortly be discussing with the Education Committee exactly how that money should be distributed among schools. It is schools’ money, and the objective is to ensure that every penny of it goes into the hands of schools as an addition to their local management of schools allocations.

It is not, unfortunately, free money that can be used for other purposes. Where will the money come from? At this point it is impossible to say, because we do not yet know what the costs will be, and in what financial year or years they will fall. We will not know that until a settlement is reached, but we can be sure of one thing — the education budget is already inadequate to meet the many pressures which we face.

We have to leave it to the negotiating parties to find an agreed outcome. They, in turn, have to take full account of the financial implications of any settlement. When the sums are known, we will consider, in conjunction with the education and library boards, how best the cost can be borne in order to minimise the impact on key services.

Sammy Wilson mentioned the figure of £2 million as the possible cost. That would relate to a particular outcome, namely retainer fees based at certain rates. The fact is that we do not know the cost, and we will not know until there is an agreed outcome. However, we recognise and accept that individual schools may need help to meet whatever costs there are. This will have to come from elsewhere in the education budget. We cannot say from where yet, but I can assure the Assembly that we will seek to help individual schools in order to minimise any disruption to children’s education.

I welcome the Assembly’s interest in this important matter. I share its wish to see the present difficulties resolved as soon as humanly possible, and I call on both sides to the negotiations to show flexibility in this important matter.

I know that since this motion was tabled, the members of the Education Committee have probed this complex issue further. As Mr Danny Kennedy has explained, they now understand more fully the views of both sides on what would, or would not, be a suitable and workable outcome. In the light of that, Members of the House will need to consider very carefully whether this motion will help or hinder. We are all clear that we should not do anything at this very important juncture to make the process of negotiations more difficult than they already are. Go raibh maith agat.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

The House has been almost unanimous on this issue, with the only dissenting voices coming from IRA/Sinn Féin. I will deal with some of the points raised. First, the Chairman of the Education Committee had hoped to put forward an amendment, and even though it is not on the Order Paper, it has been referred to by Members, specifically those from Sinn Féin.

When the Education Committee discussed this, it was clear that Sinn Féin was opposed even to the amendment — I would be happy for the Chairperson to confirm this. I believe the exact wording of the amendment was that we would seek a "flexible and equitable" arrangement. The part of the amendment which Sinn Féin and the Minister of Education objected to was the fact that any arrangements put in place to deal with the financial hardship of term-time-only workers would have to funded by the Department of Education. That was the bugbear in it, so it is not factually correct to say that the amendment would have been more appropriate as a cover for them today.

Secondly, reference was made to a presentation delivered to the Education Committee. The record will show that I was there, and that I put questions to those who made the presentation. Thirdly, I asked for clarification of the Minister’s stance on this matter. Although he started by saying that he wished to make his position clear, I am still no clearer on whether the Minister will give the education and library boards funding for any new arrangements. He talked about looking for innovative and flexible approaches, and then added that the methods of funding will be considered with the education and library boards and the joint negotiating committee. The motion does not state that, and the joint negotiating committee made this quite clear to us. Unless there is a commitment to providing extra money for the boards to distribute to school budgets, it will be impossible to reach any agreement, because some schools have up to 25 term-time-only workers. If the financial burden of any negotiated settlement were placed upon such schools, it would be impossible for them to maintain the number of term-time workers or the level of services they provide.

A clear position has been presented to the Assembly. In spite of what we were told in the Committee, which is not for public consumption, the only matter on the table today is the request by term-time workers for a retainer fee. The approximate cost of the 50% retainer fee is £2 million, and this motion indicates that we support that claim by the unions and wish it to be financed. That is a clear-cut decision for the Assembly, and I ask the Assembly to make it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly supports the call for retainer payment to be made for term-time-only workers and commends the proposal of the Education Committee for the provision of funds from the education budget to pay the salary cost incurred.

Motion made

That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker]

Special Education Needs (Ballymena)

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I appreciate the House’s taking the time to consider the special education needs in part of my constituency, Ballymena. Members across the House have indicated their support, and indeed Members of other parties from North Antrim have also expressed their support. Some have commitments elsewhere, and I appreciate that also.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

When the Minister of Education was appointed, he made great play of the fact that he was going to give what he described as "special emphasis for special needs in education." The Minister’s talk has been cheap in debates on the matter, since his words have not been matched by special funding for special needs schools. Although he may be regarded as a hotshot — or a first shot — elsewhere, he has certainly missed the mark on this issue.

The Minister is good at sounding off and condemning attacks on certain schools, including schools in my constituency. Condemnation is right and proper. Although he has previously attempted to point the finger at me on this issue, he has been unable to because, unlike him, I condemn all attacks. I am not selective in condemning attacks in my community. It is unfortunate that his condemnation appears to lead to reprisals, such as in Ballyronan last night after certain comments he made at the weekend.

Instead of focusing on those narrow issues, the Minister should focus on genuine investment to meet the educational needs of young people, and he should focus on the special needs of pupils in my constituency. As I have already said, he promised to give special emphasis to this, but we have yet to see it.

My constituents have given me several case studies to do with special needs provision in my constituency. Those case studies amount to nothing less than a catalogue of shame for the Minister of Education. It is shameful because he has failed to invest proportionately in the Northern Board and in the special education needs in that area. His party is fond of using the word "discrimination" in the Chamber and elsewhere. It drips off its members’ lips every day. If we removed that word from the English language — we would not have to take it out of the Irish language because the Minister does not speak Irish and neither do his Colleagues — the Members opposite would have no words left.

The Minister exercises a policy which, in financial terms, deliberately discriminates against the Northern Board area, and, therefore, deliberately discriminates against special needs education there. This in turn has an adverse impact on special needs education in Ballymena.

If the Minister were to put less energy into meaningless and selective statements about North Antrim schools and more energy into combating the special education deficit of children in need, the situation would be better. As we have heard in previous debates, the Minister is prepared to commit millions of pounds of resources to other education sectors. If those same resources were applied to special needs education, a lot of problems would be answered, not questioned.

It is clear from what I have said previously in the House, and from the line that my party has taken, that we have absolutely no confidence in this Minister. Thousands of schoolchildren in North Antrim have demonstrated publicly that they have no confidence in his ability to meet the educational needs — particularly the special educational needs — of young people in Ballymena.

The one area where we see deprivation associated with his active discrimination is in the Ballymena special education sector. Here, the most vulnerable in society have been virtually set upon by the inaction of the Minister, who exemplifies a policy of "no action" to those young people. During the summer and at the beginning of this year’s autumn term, I carried out a study of special educational needs in my constituency and the facilities and funding for them. I was particularly horrified at what I found in Ballymena, and I shall explain some of that picture today.

A brand new, state-of-the-art primary school was recently opened in Ballykeel, which is in Ballymena. It serves a large working-class area, and it is only right that that area should have such fabulous primary school facilities. I visited the school and was taken round an extensive, purpose-built moderate learning difficulties (MLD) unit. It is at the centre of the school, and in theory it permits the mainstreaming of special-needs children and the selection and targeting of help for them during their time at the school. I quite deliberately say "in theory," because the practice is far from adequate. The blame for the failure in delivering this service rests entirely with the Minister’s Department.

A North Eastern Education and Library Board (NEELB) report says

"one of the effects of the outworking of the code of practice has been to delay the throughput of children with statements at an early age."

That has prevented provision, and children already statemented are therefore being denied adequate provision because of a logjam in the statementing process. This is not only a board issue, but also a departmental one. In the same report, the board says that these factors explain why the unit in Ballykeel has not been opened and is not operating as originally envisaged by the board.

This logjam in the statementing process has a devastating impact on young people with special educational needs, on parents who want the best for their children, and on schools, which try to provide what is best for the children with very limited resources. Cash is quite clearly not being made available to them.

When I walked around the MLD unit of that fabulous primary school, I was gravely saddened to see numerous unopened boxes of equipment and books in a brand new, freshly painted building. Instead of thriving with young people with special needs, eager to learn and with the full support and active encouragement of parents and teachers, the lights were off in that unit. The facilities were not open to them, since the Minister’s Department has not, to date, provided the money for that unit to operate. I understand that some of the equipment cost as much as £60,000 to provide, yet it is not being used.

As a result of the Department’s failure to work the code of practice properly and allocate resources fairly to this needy school, there is more ministerially-driven waste of the scarce resources available to the Department while the Minister pays lip-service to special educational needs without delivering the actual provision. The ministerial attitude is one of waste, and that is disgraceful because of the devastating impact it has on the lives of vulnerable young children whose desperate special needs are not being met.

If the Department would decide what its policy on special needs provision is, then we could get somewhere with such a debate. The Minister does not have a specific policy on special education needs and is not prepared to back any particular policy with resources. That is why we have the sort of mess that I saw in Ballykeel. The Minister has to do something about that. It is no use him wearing National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) badges and paying lip-service to concepts. He has to add up the money, make the resources available and deliver the service.

According to my information from the Department and the NEELB, the Department generally supports mainstream integration of special needs pupils with statements, yet it builds separate MLD units and schools. What is the policy? Is it to have separate units or to mainstream and integrate those children? The Minister has to make up his mind.

I have met parents who are being betrayed and emotionally blackmailed by this policy of darkness — the policy in the shadowlands. The parents do not really know where the Minister wants to take their children. They appreciate the general and specific benefits derived from the concept of mainstream integration, but they know that their children have special requirements and need special assistance to meet their immediate needs and to target attention towards them.

The Department will come to this debate and argue that it cannot have a specific policy for the provision of these MLD units, because there is not the need in Ballymena. The fact is that the statistics on need are not accurate and have been jaundiced, because, as I said earlier, statementing is being delayed. If you delay statementing of young people with special needs, the provision is not provided downstream. That is exactly what has happened in Ballymena. I will read from the report again:

"The outworking"

— or the non-working —

"of the code of practice has [delayed] the throughput of children with statements at an early age."

It goes on to say

"There has been an increase in the number of statements, but at the same time there has not been an increase in the provision of places for those young people."

and

"[there has been] an increase of 64% in pupils being supported in mainstream schools."

We have the ludicrous situation where young people are supposedly not able to qualify for statementing, and yet schools are saying that they have had a 64% increase in these types of children, but that they do not have the statements. That all goes back to the outworking of the code of contract not working properly and delaying the whole delivery of the statementing process.

One family told me of an eight-month delay in the statementing process. That fails all the targets that the boards and the Department set for the statementing of children — fails them by months, not by days. When they did get the statement, it was inaccurate. They had to go back into the entire process again, which delayed things even further. If we have that mess, that catalogue of shame, operating in the Department we will have further problems downstream, as exemplified by the story about Ballykeel.

I have several constituents whose children are waiting for statements and have not yet got them. Worse than that, some are contesting what has been delivered. These are not one-off cases — there are at least six cases in one school. The more you dig into this, the more of these cases raise their heads. These parents are vulnerable. They want the best for their children and believe that if they go along with the schools they will get the best.

They then realise that the schools are not getting the provision or the resources from the Department that are necessary to provide what is best for their children. I call on the Minister tonight to stop funding failure and mediocrity, and to start rewarding and funding the men and women of tomorrow no matter what their ability is. That message has to go out loud and clear. The Minister should climb down from his perch and start sending resources to the North Eastern Education and Library Board area instead of paying lip-service to the allocation of resources.

In the Ballymena area the parent:teacher ratio is at its highest and overcrowding is at its highest. I am glad that schools have not permitted these dual problems to affect their standards. Standards and results are also very high, but they are so in spite of the policy that the Minister pursues. It is about time that these North Antrim schools got the resources that they deserve. The Minister’s policy can be characterised as one of funding failure and of ignoring success. The schools in my constituency are successful despite the robbery that characterises his Department’s policy.

The headmaster of Ballymena Academy, Mr Peter Martin, writing in the ‘Ballymena Guardian’ on 1 November, made a very interesting statement about the whole process of the allocation of funds to schools. I will read it into the record of the House, because it is appropriate. He said

"Equality of opportunity does not mean directing all pupils, irrespective of individual talents, along the same path. Provision must be such that pupils can be directed appropriately according to their aptitudes and interests in order to give them an equal opportunity to enjoy success. Whatever the solution, it is important that in seeking change what is successful in the present system is retained and the adequate resources are provided to make improvements where they are most needed."

Obviously that does not just deal specifically with special education needs. That statement deals with a number of issues that are before the Department. However, when the principles enunciated by the headmaster of Ballymena Academy are applied to the issue of special needs, we see that he has really hit the nail on the head. Mr Martin is correct in his analysis. Provision must be targeted, and nowhere can this be more clearly exemplified than in the policy addressing special educational needs in the Ballymena area. These children and their parents must have, as Mr Martin said, equal opportunities.

I am not asking for special rights — I underline that — and neither are the parents of these children, but they are demanding equal rights. I believe that the Minister is guilty of pumping money into Irish-language schools, for which demand is low, when we have an area in Northern Ireland that is failing children with real learning needs, and who crave an education, not a cultural experience. I encourage the Department to direct resources at the delivery of education and not at the delivery of a cultural experience. There is a vital difference.

There have been some notable experiences in Italy from which lessons could be learnt. Not everything is directly applicable to the situation in Northern Ireland, but there are some interesting case studies in the Italian experience. Class sizes are similar, and there is the same level of assistance, but they have special care provision for special needs kids and for low achievers.

Northern Ireland needs a system that takes a number of key points into consideration to address the individual special needs of these children. First of all, where a special education needs child is able to cope, he or she should be integrated into the mainstream.

Secondly, every teacher should be a special-needs teacher, irrespective of the class they teach, so that they can cope with the children in their class. Thirdly, where the child cannot cope with mainstreaming they will be targeted with special help in an on-site moderate learning difficulty unit, which will not preclude integration at a later stage.

Such is the case at Ballykeel Primary School. The school was designed for that eventuality and was based on that model. However, when push came to shove, the money was not available to provide the resources needed to run the facility that was built. I am not talking about some Portakabin. I am talking about a multi-million pound unit, which requires teachers to staff it, and yet the necessary resources have been denied to it.

It is unfortunate that the model as provided at Ballykeel Primary School is not being utilised for the full advantage of pupils. Why is that? The answer is simple. The Minister has robbed the North Eastern Education and Library Board of adequate resources to do the job in question.

The Minister has already been judged and found wanting in other areas. He will be judged again on how he treats children who are the most vulnerable and who have special needs. I say to him tonight: stop the discrimination; stop the policy of waste; stop the deprivation; start funding success; start facilitating special needs; and start helping those who have the greatest needs.

I am afraid that no one on this side of the House will hold their breath for the Minister to rectify this great wrong. I believe that Ballymena’s special-needs children have had their case aired, and they will call on this Assembly, through their parents and representatives, to do its duty and deliver an adequate policy that addresses their special education needs.

Gardiner Kane (DUP, North Antrim)

I support the motion proposed by my Colleague. It is clear that the Minister has failed the constituency. He has failed the weakest in the community, and he appears to have no intention of assisting special needs schoolchildren. Until the Minister clears up the confusion over his special needs policy all of Northern Ireland will suffer.

Will the Minister say if he is for integrated mainstreaming or for special, separate units? No one seems to know what he stands for because he has not given any official attention to this area. It is about time that he started working as a Minister, instead of trying to condemn the elected representatives for the area in question.

Many constituents have asked me to seek clarification on this crucial issue. How can parents work for the betterment of their children, in co-operation with schools, if the Minister actively robs the North Eastern Education and Library Board of the cash needed to put in place a policy that addresses special needs education. I support the motion.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I accept that Mr Ian Paisley Jnr has a genuine concern about children with special educational needs in the Ballymena area and, indeed, the entire North Antrim area. I commend that. It is admirable. However, I do not think it is admirable for Members to come into the House and, in effect, use the plight of children with special educational needs to pour forth bile, vitriol and hatred. I think you are a sad case, and I think you need to grow up, step out of your father’s shadow and recognise that there is more to life than coming here and using children with special educational needs for your own political end.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Please address your remarks to the Chair.

Martin McGuinness (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

It is wrong for someone to come into the House and use the issue of children with genuine special educational needs for political ends. That is what we heard. The issue is being used by the Member to launch a political attack on me and on the good and decent people in my Department who work very hard for all children with special educational needs, irrespective of which community they come from.

The Member referred to the situation in North Antrim. He is obviously annoyed that on several occasions recently I have made it clear that that is the responsibility of elected representatives for the North Antrim area, which was afflicted by school burnings throughout the summer, to speak out against it. Many of the children who go to those schools have learning difficulties — some have severe learning difficulties, others have moderate learning difficulties — and those children are also affected.

I have yet to hear any Member from Mr Paisley’s party launch a vitriolic attack in the House against people who burn down schools in the middle of the night. The Member should reflect on that and recognise that it is incumbent on all elected representatives to do everything in their power and use their influence to get such activities stopped. He referred to the burning of an Orange Hall in the Cookstown area last night. I have made a statement about that, and I repeat my view that such burnings are absolutely despicable and deplorable — just as despicable and deplorable as the burning of Bunscoil Dhál Riada in Dunloy a few days ago. The sooner that we show consistency in confronting people who believe that a cause can be served by that type of activity, the sooner we will fulfil the expectation of the electors who put us here — the expectation that we will be positive and constructive and build a new future for all our people.

In preparation for the debate, my officials made inquiries of the North Eastern Education and Library Board about special education provision in the Ballymena area and any perceived difficulties. Obviously, it would be much better if people communicated with me, the Minister of Education, about problems in their area. That is how we should do business. In fact, some of Mr Paisley’s Colleagues do communicate regularly with me about a variety of educational issues. I commend them for that; they are representing their constituents, and whenever I get correspondence from them I do my level best to treat them with the equality and respect that they deserve as representatives of their electorate.

I have been informed that on 5 October 1995 the North Eastern Board published a development proposal to establish a two-class special education unit for pupils with moderate learning difficulties at Ballykeel Primary School— the school that Ian Paisley Jnr mentioned. The intention was to have Key Stage 1 and 2 classes in the unit and include accommodation for them in the new school that was being planned. The proposal was made because of a shortage of places for primary school-age pupils with moderate learning difficulties at Dunfane Special School, which was the only provision for children with those types of learning difficulties in the area. At that time, there were 17 such pupils on the waiting list for places in Dunfane. There were no objections to the proposal, which was subsequently approved, and appropriate accommodation for the unit’s two classes was included in the plans for the new school.

The new school building was completed in November 1998, but the special education unit has not been opened. In recent years, the board has attempted to retain more primary school-age pupils with moderate learning difficulties in mainstream classes in primary schools, and that has relieved the pressure on places for that age group at Dunfane and other schools. The board has met a delegation of parents who wish their children to attend the unit in Ballykeel, although the board is not persuaded that the particular learning needs of those children would be best met in the moderate learning difficulties unit.

The board also believes that there are insufficient numbers of children with moderate learning difficulties to warrant the provision of a unit at Ballykeel. At present, the unit accommodation and teaching resources are being used by two part-time remedial teachers. It is proper that the resources not be allowed to stand idle when they can serve the needs of the school. The board is unaware of any significant dissatisfaction among the parents of those children retained in mainstream classes, and it will consider alternative placements for any children whose parents so wish.

The board has been examining the possibility of setting up a unit at Ballykeel for children with other types of learning difficulties, but as yet has been unable to identify one for which there would be sufficient demand. However, since the issue has been raised with me, I will ask my officials to write to the North Eastern Education and Library Board asking it to review its special educational needs provision in the Ballymena area — particularly its provision for children with moderate learning difficulties. I will also ask the board to report to me on what plans it has to use the unit accommodation at the school to make provision for the area.

The total funding for special educational needs is £50 million per year. Funding is allocated on the basis of total pupil numbers per board area. There is no question of discrimination against the North Eastern Education and Library Board or any other board.

There are timescales built in to the statutory statementing process to permit the fullest possible involvement of the parents and the compilation of the requisite advice from all relevant sources. It is important to point that out.

The provision of teachers for the unit at Ballykeel is a matter for the North Eastern Education and Library Board in accordance with identified need. The board is not persuaded that there is such a need. The policy on placement of children is that all children with statements should be placed in mainstream classes, provided that that best meets their needs and does not prejudice the efficient education of other children or the efficient use of resources.

The statementing process set out in the special educational needs code of practice is 18 weeks long. I cannot comment on individual cases, but if parents have a complaint about the statementing process, they have recourse to the independent Special Educational Needs Tribunal. Placements must meet the needs of children.

Some of the utterances that we heard today were shameful. They were an attack not just on me but also on the good and decent people in the Department of Education who consistently work very hard for all children, irrespective of creed. Go raibh maith agat.

Adjourned at 6.33 pm.