Northern Ireland Assembly, 28 January 2002

128 contributions from 29 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A couple of weeks ago, my Colleague, Kieran McCarthy, highlighted the paucity of Executive business. Last week, the Executive managed to give one statement during the entire week’s business. This week, they will not even manage that. Have you received any requests, under Standing Order 18, from any Ministers to make statements to the House on their failure to bring forward any significant matter of legislative business for some weeks?

Secondly, will you issue guidelines, under Standing Order 28, on the introduction of private Member’s business or private Member’s Bills, so that those Members who wish to see this place work can take over from where the Executive have apparently left off?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member raises several issues. First, I have been asked, on several occasions, if I have had requests from Ministers to make statements. Although I do not wish to give any hostage to fortune, I have never yet refused any Minister the opportunity to make a statement. On almost every occasion, I have been able to facilitate their making statements on the days that they wished. There has been no change as far as that is concerned — [Interruption].

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I shall complete this particular point of order.

Each week, the Business Committee looks at all the business that comes from the Executive, Committees, private Members or anywhere else and tries to arrange for it to be put forward in a reasonable order. In the absence of a Leader of the House, and as Chairperson of the Business Committee, I try to ensure that the Government have their business properly attended to and that Back-Benchers in Executive parties and Members of non-Executive parties have the opportunity to scrutinise the business that comes forward. The Member is familiar with that procedure. In all honesty, the Business Committee does its best to order the business properly.

As far as private Member’s Bills are concerned, there is nothing at all to obstruct any private Member from bringing forward a Bill. The only issue at stake is whether the Assembly will provide financial assistance for the drafting of Bills. That is a matter that has been attended to by the Commission and by the Procedures Committee, who are both looking at arrangements to facilitate that. However, there is no reason whatsoever for any Member’s not bringing forward a private Member’s Bill if he or she wishes. That has already been done on one occasion.

There is also no reason for a Committee’s not bringing forward a Bill. Committees can bring forward legislation in their own right, but that option has not yet been taken up.

I trust that that answers the points of order raised by the Member. Dr Paisley had a point of order.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Perhaps you can help me, Mr Speaker. The words in the question put to you were

"where the Executive have apparently left off".

I did not know that the Executive had ever started. The Agriculture Committee had one piece of legislation on dangerous dogs, which was the sole legislative contribution that the Department of Agriculture brought before the House.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not aware that there has been either laying on or laying off as far as the Executive are concerned, but the Business Committee is at liberty to order only the business that is brought to it. As Chairman of that Committee, I must say that all its members do their best to ensure that the business is well ordered. As Members will see from the No Day Named List, several matters can still be raised, although they are almost exclusively from private Members.

Assembly: Business Committee

Private Members’ Business

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That this Assembly condemns the breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland society, including attacks on postal workers, ambulance staff, bus and train personnel and elderly members of the community, and calls on the Secretary of State to allocate sufficient, specific resources to enable the PSNI and other organisations to improve the situation at the earliest opportunity.

The motion is timely, and I hope that Members will treat it in a constructive and consensual way.

I begin with an apt quotation.

"First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me — and by then there was no one left to speak out for me."

That quotation has crossed my mind several times in the past few weeks, and I hope that its relevance will become more clear. Members will have read with mounting horror and frustration the daily reports of attacks, robberies and physical assaults on people of all ages and backgrounds. Attacks have been made on the police, ambulance staff, firefighters and even teachers, who have all been carrying out their respective duties in their different ways to protect and improve our community. In the past 24 hours, there have been several such instances. Robberies have been planned and carried out against people from all walks of life, from families in the Belfast suburbs to 80- and 90-year-old pensioners in homes in the city or in isolated accommodation. Personal attacks vary from ripping a mobile phone from a schoolchild’s hand to mugging the elderly for a few pounds, often in a town centre in broad daylight, as happened on Sunday.

Hit-and-run incidents are also on the increase, and the number of families who are being forced out of their homes and from their livelihoods is escalating.

Those who took the brave and caring decision to police our community, to care for the ill and take them to hospital, to fight our fires with little thought for their personal safety, and to serve by teaching the young are now named as legitimate targets by the different organisations that wish to keep intact their reigns of terror and influence.

Why do we allow that to happen? It used to be the proud boast of those who lived on the Falls and the Shankill — and I remember it personally — that they could leave their doors unlocked, and move about freely and undisturbed. That is no longer so.

Taxi, bus and rail drivers are another group who have tried to carry on with their jobs while under almost permanent threat. Increasingly, they come under direct attack. In my days as co-ordinator of the Peace Train organisation, I saw at first hand the risks that some of those people took to ensure that we could travel in safety. The organisation was wound up some years ago in the hope that that phase had ended with the ceasefires. However, it clearly has not ended.

The frightening aspect of the rapid rise in widespread violence and intimidation is that it is not all paramilitary-based. Young people, who have not been taught any discipline or control when dealing with others, are to blame. We were concerned that, following the ceasefires, the men and women of violence would turn to activities such as drug trafficking to maintain their lifestyles and influence. I am sorry to say that that has happened.

I am convinced that it was society’s initial ignorance of how to deal with the situation and achieve relative normality that gave the lawbreakers no motivation to mend their ways. No attempt was made to encourage a more considerate and lawful lifestyle. No respect has been shown to others, and there has been no sign of the development of any self-control. We have almost ended up with a free-for-all.

The most obvious example of that is the way in which the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) has been thoroughly demoralised through being treated, by most sides, as a party political football. Is it any wonder that our policemen and women are so concerned that, because of the questionable tactics of the main parties, the majority of the public have, so far, failed to adopt the PSNI in the way that was anticipated? As a direct result of that politicking, and because of the refusal of some to encourage enrolment, it has taken much longer than it should have done for the PSNI to recruit sufficient numbers to maintain satisfactory manpower levels to deal with the many areas of conflict, not least in north Belfast.

While the Police Service looks for support and recruits, the leaders of the largest parties tend to cry crocodile tears for the men and women whom they claim to support. It is to the PSNI’s credit that it continues to work for all people, even in the face of death threats, blast bombs, spitting and personal abuse of the most vicious and filthy nature. All PSNI members may not be perfect, but those who oppose them are invariably greatly distanced from perfection themselves.

Local PSNI sections have also felt the pressure of increased burglaries and attacks, and, as is the case in my constituency, several recent murders. However, they have drawn up plans of action to meet the needs of the communities that they serve. That action, and the resources that are made available to them, must be greatly increased in the near future. I am sorry to say that we are not in the safety area that Patten envisaged.

For far too long, the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service has called for new, more up to date ambulances and equipment. In spite of some improvements, it remains under-resourced for both personnel and finance. It answers all calls, an unacceptable number of which are hoaxes, and, until a few years ago, it would have been unthinkable that its work would be hindered in any way. However, we were brought out of our complacency several weeks ago by an attack — one of many — that resulted in a brick’s being thrown through the windscreen of a speeding ambulance.

What sort of reasoning led to that act? Did the person who threw the brick not realise what could have happened? We must fully support those workers and deal severely with anyone caught displaying such false bravado. Similarly, what went through the minds of the young boys who threw a brick at the driver of a Northern Ireland Railways’ train? Luckily, although the train was moving, it was not travelling fast and the driver was able to come to a halt, before receiving medical help. What would have happened if it had been an express train? The carriages would invariably have been crowded with homeward-bound schoolchildren and workers.

Last week, my niece went to the funeral of a teaching colleague. Three weeks ago, he shouted at a pupil who was disrupting the class. The pupil threw a stone, which he just happened to have, at the teacher. It hit him on the temple. He recovered from the initial shock, but had to take leave for stress. Last week, he was buried. He left a wife and three children, one of whom suffers from Down’s syndrome, another of whom has severe hearing difficulties. What is our society coming to when such things are happening?

I cited those examples because we cannot point out often enough what is happening in our midst. If we do not come together as a society with a common purpose, the terror will not only continue, it will steadily worsen. The Assembly’s remit does not yet include justice and security. However, we have been elected to take a lead. We must stop putting political interests before society. We should stop referring to men, women or children as "Loyalist", "Republican", "Catholic" or "Protestant". We should refer to people as fellow citizens, human beings or Northern Irish people. Everyone must be on a level playing field.

We must stand squarely with the public services against the purveyors of hatred and intimidation. The problem is not only theirs — it is ours too. We have a common enemy, if only we would recognise it as such. Only when we work together to bring respect to all citizens, can we pursue our own road to peace and safety. It can be done. The peace organisations in the beleaguered communities faced the local "hoods", as we called them, with common purpose and confidence during the troubles. We marched and attended peace rallies, such as those held on Friday 18 January, and eventually we brought it home to them that people want peace, stability and hope. Those priorities come far ahead of territorial aspirations.

The Good Friday Agreement is not responsible for the law and order problems in Northern Ireland. The agreement provides the means to tackle the problem, through establishing the primacy of democracy, human rights and the law. We must deal with division and inequality as the precursor to achieving real democracy, real human rights and the full implementation of the rule of law. Those are not contradictory aims; they go hand in hand. Human rights cannot be achieved without the rule of law, and the rule of law cannot mean anything without democracy — they are interdependent. Together we must tackle the increasing level of lawlessness and the negative attitude to the rule of law, for the benefit of everyone. It is up to the state, the political processes and civil society to adopt a positive approach to upholding the law.

Because of the level of violence and the increasing influence of paramilitaries, people do not have confidence in the judicial system. Therefore, we must establish a criminal justice strategy that has sufficient resources to enable the police, Customs and Excise, and all other organs of the state to tackle the wide range of offences and the threats that are felt in our communities. Rioting, intimidation and drugs must be eradicated as a first step towards normality. The preservation of the rule of law must top everyone’s agenda. All politicians must be seen to give a very public lead at every possible opportunity. Politicians must act together, not as political parties.

Sufficient resources must be made available to all organisations that tackle those problems at the coalface, from the PSNI, the Ambulance Service and the Fire Service, to schools and community groups. That will enable the work to be done. We must all be seen to be tackling sectarianism and intimidation head-on. We must cast aside the annual idiocy of controversy over graffiti, parades and flags. Those must be forgotten once and for all, and consensus must be reached.

We must be seen to be helping victims rather than increasing the number of victims by upholding traditional medieval practices. We must strive for an overarching sense of community identity that embraces all cultures without offending any. We must engender respect for all. While we talk and disagree about issues that do not matter in the wider scheme of things, the paramilitaries flourish. Parents must assume full responsibility for the actions of their children; they must teach respect for others. Anyone who listened to the radio this morning would have heard those views being echoed by other people.

I appeal directly to the Secretary of State. There is nothing new in my speech —- he knows as much about what is happening as we do. He stated recently that the hate agenda must fail. That will happen only if we support fully the organisations that I have mentioned, which will help in turn to create a more peaceful and stable society. Rallies and the right words are great, but what we need is positive consensual action.

Dr Reid also pledges to do all he can to secure a better future for all. The Assembly asks him to do just that by providing sufficient resources to tackle the wider problem. As Members, we pledge that we shall work with all sections of society to make a better life for all, thereby reducing the motivations of those who riot, steal and attack. The message must be clear — we need immediate action and immediate resources. We are at the point when we can either overcome those problems, or we can go under completely.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I would like to make two points before I call the next Member. First, I have listened carefully to what Mrs Bell, the mover of the motion, has said. However, I draw her attention, and all Members’ attention, to the specific terms of the motion. The motion refers to the issue of resources, and the Speaker must draw that to the attention of Members, including the mover. Members must also note that the debate must not range over a wider field to the point where the specific issue in the motion is little referred to.

Secondly, the debate must finish by 2.30 pm, and many Members have already indicated that they wish to speak. Therefore, I must restrict each Member’s time to no more that eight minutes.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the motion and congratulate the Alliance Party for moving it. I hope to adapt the Prime Minister’s phrase of a few years ago that his Government aim to be tough on criminals and on the causes of criminality. We all know that there is a problem. The situation is serious, although perhaps it is not yet the case that there has been a breakdown in law and order, albeit that some localities are heading in that direction.

According to police figures, in the south Belfast district command unit in my constituency, between 1999-2000 and the following year, burglaries rose by 19%, and robberies by 36% — an increase of more than one third. The National Federation of Retail Newsagents has impressed on me, as a constituency representative, that it is under severe pressure because many of its members have been attacked and robbed, not once but repeatedly, over many months, and often threateningly and violently. General crime figures are rising, especially crimes against property, although fortunately that is not necessarily true for all categories of crime. Again, using police statistics, between 1999-2000 and the following year, offences against the person declined in the so-called urban region of Greater Belfast, south Antrim and north Down.

What is to be done, bearing in mind the Speaker’s instruction about resourcing issues? There is the wider application of CCTV, which has been installed in Belfast city centre and in some other town centres. There is evidence that CCTV has had some impact on crime, although admittedly it may also simply displace it to the suburbs and the streets not similarly covered. We must consider police numbers, which is a subject that some people have used as a political football. The total nominal strength of the police service has reduced, but not by as much as is sometimes suggested. In 1996, according to police statistics, there were 12,830 officers. That had declined to 11,459 in 2000-01, and there have been some further reductions since. Additional to that reduction, there has been a decline in the effective strength of the service due to sickness and absence. Nevertheless, taking all of that into account, the number of police officers per head of population here is still markedly greater than for any city in Great Britain. It stands at roughly one officer for every 170 people, compared with one officer for every 285 people in Greater London and one officer for every 545 people in Sheffield. I hope that Assembly Colleagues on the Northern Ireland Policing Board will address the allocation and management of police strength cost effectively.

The police service is labouring in a difficult situation. There is still an appreciable threat of terrorism, and large- scale public order problems, notably in north Belfast have drawn police strength from other areas and left openings for criminality. The civilianisation of back-up services should be encouraged — especially the administrative services in police stations — to allow more bobbies to be on the beat.

Shopkeepers, who have repeatedly suffered attacks, have impressed on me that they fear that judges and magistrates have not sufficiently recognised the seriousness of crime against property. I recognise that that is Westminster’s responsibility, and on that point I agree with Mrs Bell that devolution of power on law and order to this House would be welcome.

A rise in crime — especially violent crime — is regrettably a general phenomenon found in almost every Western society. Therefore, to blame it on the 1998 agreement seems simplistic. As recently as this morning on ‘Good Morning Ulster’, it was noted that much of the background criminality is generated by youths who are technically children. Moreover, if left to their own devices, they will tend to become the hard core criminals of the future. Sometimes, perhaps rightly, we hear much about human rights. What about responsibilities, which should always balance rights? In particular, what about the responsibility of parents? Do they know where their teenage sons are? I say "sons" deliberately because most of this crime is a male phenomenon.

Sadly, we have the ridiculous situation in which the Office of Law Reform in the Department of Finance and Personnel is leaning towards an attempt to criminalise parents who use reasonable means to chastise their children — the so-called smacking debate. However, we lack the will to discipline the youths who create so much trouble on our streets. There are broader issues of attitude, which go beyond politics, as well as the particular points about resourcing raised in the motion.

I support the motion.

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

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I too support the motion and congratulate Eileen Bell and Kieran McCarthy for bringing the problem to the Assembly’s attention. We have seen the escalation of violence in all constituencies, with almost daily attacks on our ambulance and fire crews, bus and train personnel, the elderly and children.

One of the most recent attacks in my constituency was a serious sexual assault on a young woman in the grounds of Altnagelvin Hospital. Apart from street violence, these attacks seem to be part and parcel of our daily lives. There is lawlessness about a society if the emergency services are fair game for thugs who take pleasure in throwing stones, bricks, bottles and other missiles at their vehicles. For example, there have been more than 100 attacks on the emergency services in Derry since the start of the year.

In September 2001 Derry City Council invited representatives of the fire and ambulance services to make a presentation, detailing such attacks. Both services gave a catalogued list of occasions on which emergency crews were unable to attend to 999 calls because of such incidents. In the city centre ambulance crews were attacked by a hostile crowd and prevented from giving first aid. In other incidents fire crews were stoned, and they narrowly escaped injury when bottles were thrown at the driver of the vehicle. In one incident only the driver’s skill prevented the vehicle from going out of control and causing further injuries to pedestrians. Last night a fire crew, on its way to attend to a fire, was stoned in the Shantallow area. Thankfully nobody was injured. It is only by the grace of God and the good will and good skills of the drivers that more injuries do not occur.

Also in Derry, a young woman bus driver was stopped and ordered out of the vehicle. Money was taken from her, and the bus was burned. It is little wonder that Ulsterbus has to take preventative measures and stop bus services, at least temporarily. Not so long ago, also in my city, a vigilante warned members of an ambulance crew, who were attending to injured people, that if they sent for the police, they would be attacked. That is an example of how society has broken down. There was a public rally that called for such attacks on services to stop. That helped but did not stop further violence.

Hospital attacks, which have been so vicious in last few months, even in my city, have not been included in my consideration so far. Headlines such as these continue to be the order of the day: 15 January, "Politician Slams School Attacks"; 21 January, "Brutal Hospital Fight Slammed"; 21 January again, "Emergency Crews Attacked"; 22 January, "Police Hunt Hospital Sex Attacker"; 25 January, "Translink in Bid to Stop Bus Attacks"; and on 23 January, "Escalation of Attacks on the Elderly Warning". Last night an 81-year-old woman and a 92-year-old woman were attacked in their homes.

One of the headlines that I saw recently was "Footballer’s Dad Slams Attack Thugs", which is only one incident when street violence seemed to be the order of the day. That headline referred to the unprovoked attack on a young Ballymena footballer, Kevin Duff, aged 17 years. Not only was he viciously attacked and beaten by a gang of four, but he had part of his ear bitten off. He is probably still receiving emergency treatment.

Those are all vicious attacks, which have led to the loss of morale among all public service workers, leaving ambulance men and women, fire crews, busmen, doctors and nurses afraid to go to work. In the midst of it all, we still have sectarian violence, which culminated recently in the sickening death of the young postal worker, Danny McColgan. Following that we saw the headline "300,000 UK Postal Workers Pay Silent Tribute to Danny". Indeed, we all paid tribute to Danny, but if the wave of revulsion that spread through the community that day does not continue, another innocent life will be lost.

We have had too many killings, and I do not intend to highlight many more. Suffice it to say that deliberate attacks using syringes full of blood on police officers and others, necessitating their having to have HIV tests are among the most sickening.

A County Antrim ambulance man was headbutted and had his nose broken. People felt disgusted when they saw that the young fellow who committed the assault received only a £200 fine, £150 of which was to be given to the ambulance man in compensation — a 62-year-old man who had worked all of his life. He said that if he met the fellow, he would tell him what to do with the £150.

We need a strong deterrent if we are to overcome this culture of violence. Fines are not enough. More money must be put into the police service if we are going to stop these attacks; a point that was mentioned in the motion. A custodial sentence seems to be the only answer.

Excess drink is often the excuse put forward for violence in hospitals. Drink is never a reason for violence; it is only an excuse. One reason is that the culprits want to fight. Custodial sentences must be mandatory for attacks on hospital personnel and to stop this type of violence in society.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

The motion is in two parts. The first part is condemnatory, and my party associates itself totally with that. Most Members are aware of people in Northern Ireland who have been attacked and suffered because of what has been called "this culture of violence" and the breakdown in law and order. This must be condemned roundly, and our sympathy must go to those who have been attacked.

The second part of the motion, which we can also support, deals with allocating sufficient resources to the police service. Some truth must be injected into the debate. Everyone on the anti-agreement side of the House could say "We told you so". During the referendum, we said that there would be a breakdown in law and order as a result of bringing the agreement into place, and we were ridiculed. We were told that we were engaging in scare tactics. It has come to fruition.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

By whom was it being orchestrated?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Someone has shouted "orchestrated": I cannot orchestrate IRA violence. I cannot orchestrate the 137 shootings that took place last year by the guns of the Provisional IRA and their people in this country. That Member well knows that.

We did tell you so. However, it is not good enough; because the House must now deal with the consequences. It is unfair and complete nonsense to compare the situation in Northern Ireland with Sheffield. Vast rural parts of Northern Ireland have been compared with Sheffield. The breakdown in law and order — in which people can use those rural areas as a backdrop for their crimes — cannot be compared with Sheffield. An organised task force in the police has identified another problem that does not exist in Sheffield — paramilitarism — yet it is a major feature in their identification of the problem.

Some honesty must be injected into the debate; people should not skirt around the issues by saying that they are opposed to crime, that it is terrible and then hope that the debate goes away. The debate is timely; I congratulate the Alliance Party for getting it on the agenda, but some people on the other side of the House resent the fact that we are going to see some truth and some consequences for people’s actions.

People must face the consequences of their actions. If they support a system that reduces the number of police officers and then girn about crime being on the increase and police detection rates going down, they must take the consequences of their action to support a reduction in the number of police officers. Many people cry about a culture of violence — I have heard that term used in the debate — when a system has been created in which gunmen and criminals have been let out of jail. What such people do when they get out of jail does not matter; they may become the most law-abiding of people, but it creates a society where people think that one can get away with murder — and many of them have.

Another system has been created — one in which the gunmen have been put into the Government of Northern Ireland. Some boast about it saying,"I was a commander of the Provisional IRA in Londonderry during Bloody Sunday" — then he is in Government. What type of message does that send out to young people who, it has been said, are the real culprits? Those young people might feel that if he can get away with it, so can they.

We have a system in which a party in Government refuses to call on people to give evidence to the police. We have a party in Government which refuses to tell people to give evidence so that criminals can be convicted. What sort of message does that send out to society? Then we wonder why we have a culture of crime. We have a party in Government that not only refuses to support the police but calls for them to be treated in the same way as they were treated by Republicans during 30 years of troubles. The leader of Sinn Féin said that — [Interruption].

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I do not have the time to give way — as the Member rightly knows.

We have a situation where the leader of one party in Government quite happily encourages people to go on the offensive against police officers, whether those police officers are Nationalist or Unionist, or whether they see themselves as British or Irish. We are getting to the real crux of the issue. The attacks on the police over the past 30 years have not been about whether it is a British police force, or whether the police officers are Protestant or Catholic — they have been because the attackers were anti-law and order, and for crime. [Interruption].

Some Members are getting upset. Perhaps the cap fits them too well. [Interruption]. We have another situation where another party — [Interruption].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

If Members want to make remarks they should address them through the Chair.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Another party in another place employs a terrorist killer as its chief adviser, yet we wonder why crime is on the increase. The House should face the consequences of its actions. If you create that system, you have to live with its consequences. Clearly today Members are not prepared to live with them.

Let us look at the crime picture in Northern Ireland. Many Members have said that it is frightening, and I agree. Armed robberies are on the increase. There were 450 more armed robberies in the last 12 months than in the previous 12, netting £6·5 million for the criminals. Much of that has gone into the coffers of the IRA and other organisations, and is used in criminality. Attacks on persons are on the increase. Paramilitary shootings have increased — there were 137 last year — and there have been 225 beatings by paramilitaries.

There have been attacks on the police. Some people have said that there is a problem with sickness levels in the police and that that is why we have crime. In other words, crime is the fault of police officers, because some of them are sick. Fourteen hundred and fifty officers happen to be sick because they are injured — injured by criminals. People do not want to say that, because they cannot identify this society with injuring people. But that is exactly what has happened.

Motor theft is on the increase. Over 11,000 vehicles were broken into, damaged or stolen last year. Drug crime has also increased massively. Eighty-seven thousand crimes were reported to the police last year. That is a 10% increase on the previous year, and a 15% increase on the year before that. Why? Does the Belfast Agreement not have something to do with it? Are people not prepared to face some of the consequences of their actions? They should be.

During this period there has been a sharp decrease — 18% — in the ability of the police to apprehend criminals and bring them to justice. Why is that? It is because police manpower has also decreased. It is interesting to see that the decreased levels are running at a similar level. We have had 99 killings in the last two years, and only one conviction. People must be very alarmed at that.

The second part of the motion deals with resources. There is a massive shortfall in resources, and I hope that the motion shows the Secretary of State that we want to see the £40 million deficit addressed — [Interruption].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I will. The police are currently running at a £40 million deficit, and we want to see that deficit addressed. I hope that through Members supporting the motion we will see an increase in funding for the police that will bring funding up to the level required to ensure that policing runs effectively, so that we have more people and so that the Patten Report cannot be implemented in the way that people wanted it implemented.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The motion is somewhat confusing. It calls for resources for the PSNI, but it lumps a reference to postal workers, ambulance staff and other services in with that. My party will not support the motion, because we believe that putting more resources into a police force that is not representative, that is still under partisan political control and that is not properly accountable is the wrong thing to do.

The motion is divided in a way that can be easily identified. Like Annie Courtney, I have spoken to the staff and management of the Fire Brigade and the Ambulance Service in north Belfast. Many of the incidents described are not matters for the police. They can be addressed through adequate resources in the community. At the meeting it was agreed that more communication between these services and schools, community organisations and political leaders was needed.

We have to differentiate between attacks of a sectarian nature and sporadic attacks on fire crews and ambulances. I have been told that there is not a massive rise in sporadic attacks, in spite of their having have had a high profile in recent months. Resources would be better used to highlight the work that the fire and ambulance services have been doing for the last 30 years and show that they are neutral. A community safety relations officer for these services, for instance, would help to create a better understanding. The vast majority know that these are caring people doing very dangerous jobs.

Against the background of the call for more support for the PSNI, there have been some 300 bomb and gun attacks in the last year. People in Catholic areas do not believe that the PSNI is a representative or accountable organisation. The revelations of the last few weeks about Special Branch, a force within a force, do not give people more confidence that the PSNI will be fair or impartial. Indeed, people are worried that if more resources are given to the PSNI, they will go to the very part of the organisation that will be used against Nationalists, which is Special Branch. What will that money be used for? It will certainly not be used to protect Nationalists.

People are worried that informers and Special Branch agents run the UDA, which has carried out the bulk of recent attacks. In the well-documented Finucane case, the person in charge of the attack, Tommy Lyttle, was a Special Branch agent. The person who handed over the weapons, William Stobie, was a Special Branch agent. One of the people who confessed to the murder, Ken Barrett, was a Special Branch agent. Another agent, Brian Nelson, was in charge of bringing the weapons into the country. How can people stand up and argue that more resources should be given to what is a repackaged RUC? How can that deal with the current situation? North Belfast, which I represent, has been mentioned on a number of occasions. I can tell you that whatever resources are going in there are not going to protect the Nationalist people.

What we need and what we have repeatedly argued for is proper legislation and the full implementation of the Patten Report. The British Government have admitted that they did not do that and that amending legislation is possible. We want to see that amending legislation, and we want NIO and the British Secretary of State to produce it. Let us deal with the new beginning to policing that we were promised and that was agreed in the Good Friday Agreement and the Patten Report.

I stand against the motion on the basis that it would put money into the wrong area, and while it lumps several issues together, it does not deal effectively with the matters in hand. It is all over the place. Many of the problems are not policing matters, and we do not have a proper police force for the problems that are.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it not appropriate that when a Member speaks on a motion concerned with the breakdown of law and order, he should declare an interest where it is relevant, and if individual Members have previously been involved in illegal activities, they should be declared?

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

I find it disgusting that Gerry Kelly is talking on a motion on law and order and about attacks on post office workers when his Assembly Colleague, Gerry McHugh, was convicted of the murder of a postman. That should be put clearly on the record. I want to highlight — [Interruption].

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is he talking about Assembly Member Gerry McHugh?

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

I want to highlight — [Interruption].

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want clarification on whether the Member is talking about Assembly Member Gerry McHugh’s being convicted of the murder of a postal officer.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Will you confirm what you have just said, Mr Boyd? Is this true or not?

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

I want to make it clear that the Assembly Member Gerry McHugh, a party Colleague of Gerry Kelly, was convicted of the murder of a postal worker.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

rose

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Please sit down. I call — [Interruption].

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Please sit down.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Very well, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

I want to highlight some of the crimes committed in my constituency and to demonstrate how low the perpetrators have stooped to commit them. Sadly these crimes are mirrored throughout Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I live in Newtownabbey, which is a few miles from Carnmoney cemetery. Every Sunday, in all weathers, a young person sits at the gate selling flowers to relatives and loved ones who are visiting graves. However, even cemeteries are not exempt from criminals; a car pulled up, robbed the young person and then sped off.

In the past 12 months, thugs with screwdrivers have assaulted and robbed several old-age pensioners. In the past 12 months a small retail unit in Glengormley was ram-raided, and the proprietor lost thousands of pounds worth of stock. In the past few months the shop was robbed again at knifepoint and thousands of pounds worth of stock was taken. The owner has also been visited by so-called Loyalist paramilitaries for the purposes of extortion, and they have threatened his family. His family are solid Unionists and law-abiding citizens.

Last year, a garage was robbed three times in one month and was forced to close. A contractor was working on houses in a Protestant area and was approached for the purposes of extortion by a group of men claiming to be from a Loyalist paramilitary organisation. Next day another group of men approached him claiming to be from a different so-called Loyalist paramilitary organisation.

The people who suffer are the decent law-abiding citizens of the area. Recently I spoke to a constituent who is a Protestant businessman. Paramilitaries went to his premises in Belfast and demanded £4,000. He refused to hand over the money, and, at great danger to himself and his family, he helped the police to catch the criminals in an undercover operation in which few would have had the courage to be involved. However, he had to close the business that he had set up for his son to run when he left school. The business was doing well, but it had to close for obvious reasons. The son, who is only 18, is now on income support. I wrote to the Security Minister, Jane Kennedy, and she referred the matter to the Compensation Agency. The agency could do nothing as there had been no criminal damage to the business premises. This graphically illustrates how the Government and its agencies have failed innocent victims, yet millions of pounds are allocated to prisoners.

In October 2000 an armed man robbed the Antrim Credit Union; he assaulted two female staff and escaped with £7,400. At his court case last year the police opposed bail on the grounds that he would not appear for his trial. In October 2001 he was sentenced to only three years for a violent armed robbery.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, A LeasCheann Comhairle. I ask the Member to withdraw the allegation that he has made against me.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr Boyd, you should look at some of the decisions taken by the Speaker in the Chamber. Rulings were given on 18 December 2000 and 24 April 2001 for cases where one Member is named by another and allegations are made. Guidance is also given on page 312 of ‘Erskine May’, and the Member may wish to see that. Members must seek the leave of, and submit a proposed statement to, the Speaker in relation to their intention to name a Member. Therefore, I rule that such statements are out of order unless the person named has an opportunity to make reply. A right of reply must be cleared with the Speaker beforehand.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, further to the point of order, I want the record to show that the allegation is completely untrue. It is a scurrilous allegation, which is dangerous to me and others, and I want it withdrawn.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

In October 2001, a criminal was sentenced to only three years for a violent armed robbery, despite the police opposing bail at his trial. He was given Christmas leave — [Interruption].

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, on a point of order.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have already described what the action must be by the Member naming.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, I am requiring that the Member withdraw his remarks. Unless he has proof, I want them withdrawn. It is as simple as that.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Mr Boyd, I read out what the procedure is, and you heard it too. If someone is named, that person has the right of reply, and that can be given only by reference to the Speaker, so be careful.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A LeasCheann Comhairle, on a further point of order, a serious allegation has been made about my Colleague, Gerry McHugh, which endangers his life and that of his family. A Member has made the allegation in the Chamber that he was convicted and sentenced for the murder of a postal worker. That is fundamentally and patently untrue, and he is asking that that Member withdraw it. That is a fair request.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

For the third time, I remind you, Mr Boyd of the procedure. Having been warned once you have continued. Do not continue naming Members of the House. Is that clear? Do not continue; otherwise I will have to name you.

Dara O'Hagan (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, as the Speaker of the House are you going to ask Mr Norman Boyd to withdraw his comments about Gerry McHugh?

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Will you withdraw that comment, Mr Boyd?

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

Absolutely not, Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand by my comments.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

In that case I will have to name the Member. I have made an order, and you, Mr Boyd, have not obeyed it. I name you, and you may leave the Chamber.

The Member withdrew from the Chamber

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not think that this is the correct way to proceed. I ask that you do not take the course of action that you have suggested. I do not think that procedurally this is correct. Mr McHugh or the Sinn Féin Members may wish to challenge the comments made by my Colleague, but this is neither the time nor the place for that matter to be dealt with. Mr Boyd is addressing the motion, and I do not see any reason why he should be named or expelled from the Chamber. I ask you to reconsider.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I have made my decision, and I stand by it.

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

I support the motion — with the caveat that it has left out one section of our society which has suffered a lot. In recent years there have been many statistics to prove how difficult it is for the Northern Ireland Fire Service to do its job. I imagine that it is by accident that it did not achieve some prominence in the motion, and that is regrettable.

Nevertheless, we have had interesting moments, such as the Sinn Féin assertion that the people who are named in the motion should never be protected until such times that there is a police service to their specific liking. In other words, what is happening is perfectly all right until there is a police service that they like.

If I were serving the public I would have some sense of grievance about that, especially at a time when phone calls to the Police Service of Northern Ireland from the Nationalist community are mounting because callers feel they are under threat. They are, and have been making calls to the RUC, and they have been looking for help from whatever source they can get it at a time when lawlessness is rife in this society.

Sinn Féin’s position is pathetic, almost childish. We, as Members of the Assembly, face an onerous task. We are discussing a matter, for which the responsibility rests with Westminster. We shall take on the issues of policing and justice on the day that our Assembly comes of age. Then we shall be accountable and able to face the public in the knowledge that we shall be making the decisions on how they are protected in their homes, on the streets and in the schools.

My constituency office can identify a footfall of 40% of those who seek assistance with lawlessness. Members have referred to armed robbery, and to the shameful and terrible acts in which there is undoubtedly paramilitary involvement. In the housing estates of the working-class areas of my constituency, people are suffering more acutely from the actions of young children — adolescents who are terrorising people day and night. The police are unable to do much about that. It seems like a game — the children attack the elderly, who seek assistance, but when that help eventually comes, the children run away. It is all about having a chase and watching a big burly policeman chase a 10-year-old up the street.

Perhaps we need to become more radical — does someone else need to deal with the job? When we can make legislation, should we enact legislation that will make parents responsible for the behaviour of their children? Do we need a specially designated group of people — not the police — who, on behalf of society, will pluck those children off the streets and follow through, fairly ruthlessly, the requirement that parents stop neglecting them. Undoubtedly, children are allowed to behave badly because of parental neglect, and society has a responsibility to ensure that parents accept that they are responsible and accountable for their children.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I agree entirely with Mr Ervine’s sentiments about parental responsibility. However, what sanctions should parents be allowed to use, given that a proposal is being put forward that the Northern Ireland Assembly should follow the example of the Scottish Executive and ban "reasonable chastisement" on the parents’ part, although Westminster has not done so?

David Ervine (PUP, Belfast East)

The Member is taking me up an avenue that I had not anticipated travelling. It is, however, a worthy point. Whether we like it or not, any violent action, legal or otherwise, affects the generation that experiences the violence. The state should have a non- violent approach to children. Neither parents nor any other lawful authority should have the right to beat children. I have heard it said that "A beating wouldn’t do you a button of harm — it never did me any". That is when a trustworthy person is administering the beating. What happens when someone who cannot be trusted beats his child half to death? Then the state needs to deal with the problem.

There are many role models in society for anti- authority attitudes. There are many such people in the Chamber, including myself, all the paramilitarists and all the protestors against one sort of authority or another. We need to wake up and recognise that we have effectively shown the generation causing our nightmares that it is perfectly all right to rail against authority. We are trying to inch towards a democratic and political solution, and that violent backdrop is part of the problem.

However, we must all take responsibility. Some people simply luxuriate in the fact that their constituents suffer pain and sorrow. They climb all over the issue to gain votes, and that is tragic. They indulge in point scoring and playing games, rather than offering practical solutions to a problem that is a nightmare to those on the receiving end.

I live on a housing estate that is situated close to Parliament Buildings. Three quarters of that estate is a fine and decent place in which to live. One quarter of it is like Beirut — no one wants to go there, and everyone wants to get out. It is extremely moving to hear about older people who have lived there for a long time while the shifting sands of bad behaviour have surrounded them. It is debilitating for them, and it is shameful that they should have to live in such circumstances.

We must find the resources to ensure that our police officers can respond to crime. The issue must be given serious political support. Perhaps it is time to think about the creation of a policy of zero tolerance.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I find it difficult to speak on the motion. Perhaps it would have been better had there been two separate motions, because too many issues have been listed in the motion. I have split my speech into two areas: what can be done for the elderly and what can be done for service providers.

The elderly are citizens of our community, and they deserve to be protected from further attacks. If we are to respond to the problem by providing more resources, we must identify our areas of responsibility and what the Assembly should ask of the Executive.

I represent the constituency of South Belfast, which, according to last year’s crime statistics, has the highest crime rate in Northern Ireland. However, I wish to put those figures into perspective. I have examined the crime statistics for the UK. It still seems to be the case that, although our crime figures are increasing relative to a baseline, our figures for theft, burglary, violence against the person and criminal damage are lower than those elsewhere in the UK. Let us keep that in perspective.

If the crime figures are rising, we must ask why that is the case. Different political arguments have been voiced today. Some Members have associated rising crime with events resulting from the Belfast Agreement. However, it may also be the case that societies that are in post-conflict or transitional situations are very different to those at the height of conflict. Undoubtedly, at the height of the conflict, crime in communities was heavily contained, and there was a high level of surveillance. People did not have the same permission that they currently have now that that surveillance has been lifted, whether by the police or by the paramilitaries.

There is now a higher level of mobility, because, in the past, every stolen car was a potential bomb threat. With such permission, individuals think that they have the right to indulge in crime. We may need to consider the type of measures that we put in place.

I have spoken to many police officers who tell me that they cannot walk that road alone. There is one police officer for every 153 persons in Northern Ireland; by contrast, there is one police officer for every 431 persons in England and every 443 persons in Wales. It is clear that Northern Ireland has a higher proportion of police than elsewhere, and to call for additional resources may not go down well in devolved Administration. Therefore, ways of policing our community must be examined. I want to put that issue on the table; communities should look at policing differently.

As political representatives — working with residents associations and agencies — we are capable of reorienting our thinking about policing. It is not simply about catching offenders or about prosecutions. The recidivism rates do not point to success in tackling the problems. A different approach must be taken. The way forward is contained in many of the police’s proposals on community safety and community policing.

I want to take up the debate about finding ways to tackle aggressive behaviour, especially among young people. The current ‘Children are Unbeatable’ campaign speaks of alternative ways of discipline. If we teach our children unacceptable ways of discipline they will reciprocate. If they are taught that other ways exist to deal with aggression, it is to be hoped that we shall raise children who are different and we shall create a different type of community. The forthcoming legislation will make us think differently and change our attitudes.

The Assembly can do something about service providers. The Executive have told the House that they have an interdepartmental strategy to tackle problems. Perhaps the Victims Unit should deal not only with the victims of the troubles but lend some of its expertise to dealing with the victims among personnel in the Executive’s Departments. I propose that the Executive set up a task force immediately to deal with violence against the service providers for whom they are responsible. They must state their definition of violence against those people, who are subject to intimidation, harassment and the everyday swearing and shouting that eventually leads to abuse and assaults.

There should, by now, be an accurate baseline of the number of attacks. Why should it be left to journalists to produce that? The background papers for today’s debate show the huge number of attacks. There were 410 cases in Belfast City Hospital alone. That is more than one attack for every day of the year. The Assembly should set a target that, by December 2002, it will know what the baseline is and that, by December 2005, it will have reduced that baseline by 25%. Those messages must be taken responsibly out of the Assembly and into the community. The Assembly should publish a protocol for the sharing of information among the Fire Service, ambulance staff and social care providers. Are there examples of good practice that they could lend to one another? Is Northern Ireland different to elsewhere, and, if so, why?

There is a gender perspective to crime statistics for violence against the person. The highest incidence of violence against the person is carried out by people known to the victims. The victim often lives with the offender, who may be a family member. Strangers perpetrate the lowest incidence of violence against the person. The crazy legislation — the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 — is not sophisticated enough to break down crime, which has moved on since that legislation was enacted. It is good to see that, in the new language, joyriders are now referred to as "boy racers". Let the House name the problem as it is. Let the House also recognise that the vast majority of violence towards members of the community is perpetrated by aggressive males on vulnerable females. That is something that must be tackled in Northern Ireland now.

The Assembly must also remedy the significant gaps in crime prevention. It is encouraging to note that Translink has identified good practice elsewhere in the UK. For example, cash safety boxes can deter members of the public from attacking bus drivers, but why were they not introduced before? That is one small example of the type of measures that must be introduced. All public services should be reviewing their procedures. Let the Executive establish that task force as a result of today’s debate.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

Several contributors have given detailed, anecdotal accounts of the sort of violence that is perpetrated in this society. We all accept that there has been a significant and serious rise in crime throughout Northern Ireland. However, I am disturbed by the nature of some of the contributions.

For example, Ulster Unionist Dr Birnie offered a sort of apologia for the violence, suggesting that it is not perhaps as bad as it is. He then told us that Northern Ireland is rather well served with regard to police/public ratios. That is simplistic in itself. It has already been pointed out that the nature of the topography and the dispersed communities in Northern Ireland, and the nature of the violence that emanates from sectarian and paramilitary sources are entirely different from what is experienced by other police forces throughout the United Kingdom. His comparisons and the suggestion that we are well served, given the number of police, are absolutely unfounded, and absurd to the point of being ludicrous.

Mr Ervine’s contribution suggested, in scarcely veiled terms, that male adolescent criminals should be dealt with more ruthlessly. He told us of the number of his constituents who complain to him. In many areas of Belfast, because of the breakdown in police morale, because of their lack of numbers and resources, and because they are not welcome in certain areas, the police are being ruthlessly supplanted by the sort of people who present themselves at Mr Ervine’s constituency office.

We all know the tales of people who come to the UDA and the UVF or their political representatives, or to the IRA to talk about anti-social behaviour. That is dealt with in a much more ruthless way than any police force could administer. People who behave in an anti- social manner are taken out, warned and then brutally beaten. If they persist, they are shot in the ankles or the elbows. Those are fundamental joints, and such injuries destroy a person’s capacity to make any useful employment contribution to the community in the future.

There is a suggestion that the police should not be doing that job; that other groups, unspecified by Mr Ervine, should take on community policing. No doubt such groups would espouse methods that would be condemned in any civilised society. No doubt they would be effective. Their methods were effective in Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Gulags, where thugs administered what passed for justice.

Mr Gerry Kelly is a man not unversed in very serious violence. In a speech that varied between the unintelligible and the incomprehensible, he produced the usual Republican rant. It was the usual old record that the problem is all down to a police force that even in its revised form of the Police Service of Northern Ireland — the RUC having been denigrated, its numbers and morale decimated — is not delivering and ought not to be supported, resourced or funded. Everyone knows that Republicans, and Sinn Féin in particular, have turned wound licking into an art form. They continue to demonstrate their capacity in this form of complaint.

One can understand Monica McWilliams’s attitude towards domestic male on female violence. However, much of that is the result of drugs and drink, broken- down relationships, common-law arrangements and having children in the one household with different fathers who are knocked about by drunken males.

I have a great deal of sympathy for what she says, but much of that stems from an unstable political society, rendered more unstable by the effects — contrary to what Dr Birnie said — of the Belfast Agreement.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

No, I will not give way. Where we have a police force whose morale has been destroyed, whose sacrifice and service to the public at large have been demeaned, there is a breakdown in morale. The police say: "Why should I go into the lion’s den, when I am likely to be attacked on all sides by people now declared to be good and whose only claim to be currently good is that they were once positively and recognisably utterly vile?" However, people speak in a debate like this as if they were a combination of Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King and the local probation officer, and tell us what we all should be doing. They, of course, speak from great knowledge. Many of them were active in the deeds in the past that they currently condemn.

As far as resources are concerned, of course the police need more. Resources will not be the answer to the National Health Service problems in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, although they will contribute to the answer. They will not be a total answer because reform is a necessity. There is a necessity for acceptance that the basis — and the most fundamental requirement — of any civilised society is the restoration of order. That has been abandoned in Northern Ireland in pursuit of the fruits of the Belfast Agreement. The Belfast Agreement was not a political settlement for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. It was conflict resolution between the British Government and violent Republicanism. That was the reason why paramilitaries on both sides were allowed to do what they were doing and why they continue to do. They had to be kept on board for political reasons, and we are now reaping the whirlwind that the Belfast Agreement and its terms sowed in this community. Until we look fundamentally at the terms of that agreement and what it has produced, we can throw all the resources we like at the problem, but we shall not solve it.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I largely support the motion as it stands, although I admit that the way in which it is phrased makes that somewhat difficult. Although there is no denying that there has been an extremely serious increase in crime in the past five years in Northern Ireland, in a sense I agree with my party Colleague that to characterise that as an entire breakdown in law and order is perhaps to exaggerate to a degree.

Concerning the contributions made by Ian Paisley Jnr and Robert McCartney, it would be absurd to suggest that the entire problem comes from the Belfast Agreement. Before the Belfast Agreement, Northern Ireland was a lovely place. No one’s house was burgled, no one suffered any violence, and there was no crime. It is all the fault of the Belfast Agreement, and the weather has also got worse since 1998. Everything that goes wrong in this society is the fault of the Belfast Agreement. If we had not signed the Belfast Agreement, this would never have happened. That is absurd.

Peter Weir (Independent, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

No, not at this point. Try me again. This society endured serious conflict for 30 years. We have moved on from that situation. At any point of resolution of the political situation, it was inevitable that some of those involved in paramilitarism would move towards ordinary crime. Anyone who thinks that any possibility of a resolution of the political problem would not have led to an increase in crime is kidding himself. One followed the other inevitably.

Several paramilitary groups, such as the IRA, the UDA, the UVF and others, continue to be involved in serious crime — there is no doubt about that. There is also a large increase in the involvement of non-paramilitary groups in serious, organised crime in Northern Ireland, and that fact is borne out by senior police officers.

If we are to deal with the subject of the motion, we must agree that it is not simply a matter of allocating resources. Dr Birnie and others made the point that there are more police officers in Northern Ireland than in comparative areas of the UK. For people to suggest that Northern Ireland has a rural spread and, therefore, needs more police officers is ludicrous. Try to explain that to people who live in rural areas of Scotland or England. What — [Interruption].

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

They were talking about paramilitaries.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

There is organised crime in Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Birmingham — [Interruption].

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

Members should address their remarks through the Chair.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

It is clear that all areas of the UK have problems with organised crime. It is something that afflicts societies throughout Europe and the United States.

John Gorman (UUP, North Down)

I ask the Member to address the Chair, rather than engage in arguments with other Members.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Peter Weir (Independent, North Down)

The Member indicated that he believes that crime has increased in Western Europe. Why, last week in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’, did he write that, because the situation in Northern Ireland has got so bad, he could no longer advise young people to stay here?

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

My advice was not based on an increase in crime. It related to the sense that young people have about feeling part of a society in which they are valued, and in which we do not constantly spend our days debating and arguing about petty sectarian squabbles that go back almost 900 years. Frankly, Members such as the Member who just interjected have perpetuated that squabble and continue to perpetuate it. Members such as him will drive young people away from Northern Ireland for many years to come.

Peter Weir (Independent, North Down)

I will drive you to the airport, Duncan.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

You would need to get a better car.

Dr Birnie made the point that there are a significant number of extra police officers in Northern Ireland. However, the key issue is about how those resources are deployed. One of the faults with policing here is that no attempt has been made to move towards new ideas, such as increasing civilianisation.

In 1995, when I was working for the Police Authority, civilianisation was being tested. Since then, little progress has been made. It must be developed. It is clear that available police officers must be deployed on the ground. They should not be answering phones in inquiry offices, or sitting in collator’s offices or process rooms filling in summons forms. Civilians could do those jobs at lesser cost, leaving police officers available for direct policing tasks.

It is important that the Chief Constable and the Northern Ireland Policing Board use the opportunity to persuade the Police Service of Northern Ireland to increase civilianisation and the use of resources.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

I accept the valid point that the Member has made. However, would his suggestion include a substantial reduction in the number of police officers who are on duty guarding people, who, if we have a peace process, no longer require to be guarded? An example is the former Chief Constable, Sir John Herman who, I understand, has more officers guarding him than are guarding the entire population between Holywood and Donaghadee.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

I could not comment on the exact number of police officers available there. Police officers are still used in static duties, which is concerning. Many senior officers would say that their resources are often severely depleted by the fact that they must assign officers to static tasks such as guarding sangars and looking after VIPs. That is unfortunate. However, in a more stable political society one would hope that that would no longer be necessary.

However, we do not yet live in an entirely stable political society. We are moving towards that, but it will take a long time. I suspect that I will be drawing a pension before we get there.

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

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

That is encouraging.

Robert McCartney (UKUP, North Down)

The Member may be drawing an Assembly pension.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

That is unlikely. The problems with law and order are not just matters for the police. Other parts of the criminal justice system must take follow-up action. It is important that the courts take a more proactive role. In large measure they have not been as robust as they could have been in sentencing offenders. The police are demoralised and do not want to bother chasing joyriders, because when they are taken to court the magistrates simply slap them on the wrists and tell them not to do it again and that they will see them in six months’ time. Such work is pointless for those officers — it demoralises them and renders the entire system a farce. This matter must be examined and raised at Westminster, unfortunately.

Citizens also have an extensive role to play in improving safety and security in society. It is vital that we all play our part.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member will draw his remarks to a close.

Duncan Dalton (UUP, South Antrim)

We can be the eyes of the police service, and we can use community organisations, neighbourhood watch organisations and other legal organisations to ensure that the police are given all the help that they can get.

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

My party condemns the all-too-evident increase in violent attacks in our community recently. We all know that violence achieves nothing but destruction and that it incites fear, hatred and more violence. I do not need to preach to anyone here about the impact of violence. Unfortunately, we know only too well about that.

In my constituency of South Down it seems that the level of crime and vandalism is increasing and that incidents are standard occurrences at weekends in one or several of the major towns. Almost weekly I receive reports from constituents who have experience of such crime. Young, innocent people are beaten when out for the night; shopkeepers’ premises are vandalised; elderly people are robbed and attacked in their homes; and gangs cause disruption and destruction.

On the night of Thursday 17 January, there was a punishment shooting in Rostrevor. One of my party colleagues was attacked on Friday night — the issue was well publicised. On Sunday, the premises of another of my party colleagues were vandalised in Warrenpoint, and on Sunday night, there was an incident involving hooded men and a gun in Ardglass. These incidents are happening in South Down, which has a distinguished record of low figures for such crime. We are not used to such incidents in South Down, and I mention it as an indication of how things are developing, even in an area renowned for its peaceful stability.

I echo the call for resources to enable the PSNI to address effectively this escalating problem. It is no secret that adequate resources and commitment have not been available in recent months. It is also no secret that the level of sickness in the police force has been exceptionally high. In some areas it has caused a 50% reduction in manpower. In my constituency of South Down there is only one police car to cover the distance between the Castlewellan area and Kilkeel. How could one car effectively cover this zone, which is 30 miles wide and stretches some 15 miles either side of Newcastle?

Following the establishment of a fully accountable police service, I expect more resources to be available in areas that require them. Perhaps some thought should be given to an argument that has already been mentioned — the closure of police stations. There has been much debate about that. Surely in modern policing terms we should be looking at the role of police stations very differently. We should not look at them, as they are often viewed, as the last fortified outposts of the empire.

Modern policing demands greater policing involvement with the community and greater flexibility. This could be achieved by, for example, having police desks where people often congregate — in places such as shopping complexes. It will take time to consider the manpower consequences — for example, what it costs to put one police car out on patrol. Manpower should surely be on the streets rather than in police stations dealing with paperwork.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member agree that a great many resources could be saved if the Government stopped wasting money? For example, £4 million is wasted on recruitment procedures that involve £12,500 being spent on each recruit. Does he accept that this is a waste of money that could be better used in his constituency or mine?

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

I thank the Member for the interjection. I agree that money should be used to a good end, and money spent on recruitment is being put to a good end because it will produce an acceptable and accountable police service for the whole community. What I am talking about is looking at policing in modern terms, and much could be done by examining the areas I have just mentioned.

Many Members mentioned the breakdown of society. Members should widen their vision and see what is happening. We are moving from a hierarchical social structure into a more modern democratic one, and this has been taking place over several generations.

People talk about the good old days, but I would like to remind people of the last recorded incident of a four-year-old child dying of cirrhosis of the liver on the streets of London. In 1904, ‘The Times’ reported that the death occurred as a result of the then common practice of slipping children a sip of gin to keep them quiet. Parental problems are as prevalent now as they were in the good old days. The hierarchical social structure was essentially based on the philosophy that humans were intrinsically evil and must be punished on account of that evil. However, we have moved on since then. We are moving towards a democratic social structure, and as we readily accept the logic and rationale for a democratic system, we must develop ways to make it work and provide new thinking, ideas, support and resources. The Assembly has made its wee mark in the debate concerning the appointment of a children’s commissioner, which is about to take place. That is the kind of thinking, resources and support that we should offer to help families who are having difficulties with wayward children and in dealing with parental and responsibility issues. We must bear in mind that we are moving towards a new society.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

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

The new society structure may not fully impact on our generation, but it will impact — that is certain. Things are moving in such a way that we will not be able to prevent that impact taking place.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

This motion relates to every constituency in Northern Ireland, including my own area of Strangford. Violence, such as shootings, attempted murders, burglaries and assaults, happens almost weekly in Strangford, as is the case in other areas. The most recent attack, on a 92-year-old woman in Newtownards last night, illustrates the sick, depraved and barbaric mentality of some who are loose in society.

There has always been crime in Northern Ireland, but the crime rate in my constituency and across the Province is on the up. That has been more visible than ever in recent years. We all saw the terrible incidents in North Belfast of recent months, however criminal and paramilitary activity is not exclusive to that constituency — it is everywhere. What can we do to stop it?

Although I welcome the chance to raise the issue in the Assembly, the Alliance Party, which tabled the motion, is either extremely naive or immensely hypocritical to suggest that it is shocked and surprised by such a breakdown in law and order. For example, the police require more resources and manpower, yet Patten is reducing the number of police officers by 700 every year and is recruiting only 300 a year. One does not have to be a mathematician to see the shortcomings of that method. Although 25% to 35% of officers on duty at any given time are full-time reserve staff, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and others want the removal of the full-time reserve, which comprises 3,000 officers. I call on those parties to support the retention of those experienced police officers.

I intend to stick rigidly to the motion, but it is important that we examine the causes of the rise in lawlessness in Northern Ireland. We need to ascertain what is fuelling the anarchy, and how, as elected representatives, we can help to stop it from destroying society. I condemn unreservedly those responsible for the recent terrible murders, shootings, bombings and punishment beatings here. Those who carry out such murderous and evil attacks are not interested in democracy or morality — nor will they ever be. Rather, they enjoy the power that they wield in their communities by terrorising local people.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I ask the Member to keep the link between what she is presenting and the motion.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I am trying to paint a picture, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will bear with me. Other Members who contributed to the debate strayed considerably from the motion. My points are appropriate.

I must admit, much as it pains me, that the culprits are successful in their evil intentions. The sad reality is that people are frightened. They are afraid to inform the police about the activities of those anti-social scumbags. The parties that supported the Belfast Agreement, and those who voted for them, did so, in some cases, because they genuinely thought that it would achieve peace. Those of us who opposed the process from the beginning — and who have been proven to be accurate in our analysis — believed that the appeasement of terrorists and the pollution of democracy would end only in tears.

I do not claim that everything that goes wrong, or all that is bad in Northern Ireland, is as a result of the Belfast Agreement. However, much of what is wrong in society has been caused by the effect of the Belfast Agreement on our community. Who here today will deny that the release of terrorists from jail, the placing of their representatives in Government and the concession to all their demands is having a negative effect on our community? If violence and terror are rewarded, others will believe that that activity pays. Unfortunately, that is part of the problem.

We must not forget that the deteriorating numbers, morale and effectiveness of the police in Northern Ireland have contributed a good deal to our present position. My party opposed Patten and the planned destruction of the RUC, because those provisions were contained in the Belfast Agreement. Unfortunately, the executioner’s axe was held over the RUC for some time, until finally it fell upon the force last year.

Morale among officers is understandably low today. Can anyone blame them for that? They stood against anarchy for 30 years, to be rewarded only with destruction. That is something that many of us would find hard to cope with. The recommendations of the Patten Report also severely damaged the effectiveness of the police service — reducing numbers and running down the Reserve, and Special Branch — and have played a part in undermining policing in Northern Ireland.

The police are now seriously undermanned, resulting in the force’s being overwhelmed by the rise in crime. There simply are not enough police officers to effectively deal with every crime that is happening on our streets. They are stretched to the limit, and we must address that now. How can we, as political representatives, help to stop this criminal and paramilitary activity? We must ensure that the police have the money, the manpower and the will to go after the criminals and the terrorists who plague our community. We must secure the necessary funds from Government to help to put law and order back on the streets and reclaim our cities, towns and villages from criminal elements.

We must stop the closure of our police stations, because that is having a negative effect on ordinary people who look to local stations for help when they experience a crisis on their doorstep. We must also put our own house in order. What kind of example are we setting, when people who still hold on to their weapons are represented in Government? We must show people that democracy is still paramount in Northern Ireland. Only those who are committed to democracy, who reject violence and terrorism and who have no private armies at their beck and call can be in the Government. The sooner we realise that mistakes have been made — and then start to rectify them — the sooner that some normality can be brought about.

I support the motion, but I point out the obvious faults that lie in the proposers’ reasoning on it. The breakdown in law and order has happened for numerous reasons — rewarding terrorists, running down the effectiveness of the police force and a polluted political system have all contributed to the current situation. It is up to the people here to decide whether they will set things right or keep the status quo.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. My party will not be supporting the motion, because it has more to do with trying to promote the credibility of the RUC — the PSNI — than addressing the serious problems of the breakdown in our value system. The motion lumps together several different problems, and then fails to make the connections with solutions. The solution is not to throw more finances at the RUC. The solution is to make the Good Friday Agreement work. The motion has more to do with the politics of the Alliance Party than the serious problems that are contained in our society at the moment. If we, and everyone else, are sincere, then we should be about trying to address violent attacks, and we should be trying to understand how a society coming from conflict, and being swept along in the great social experiment called "modern living", with its consumer values, is affecting us.

All the traditional value carriers in our society have gone underground. We have chucked the baby out with the bathwater. The influence that shapes our lives and the lives of our young people is greed, as dictated by market forces. In addition, we are part of a society in which the culture of sectarianism has been reinforced by law and order and paramilitary policing.

The attacks on postal workers, teachers and others in the public sector are sectarian in nature, and the motion does not address that. We must ask ourselves whether Unionist and Loyalist politicians are confident that they are doing enough in their own communities — where these attacks are coming from — or whether they are preoccupied with attempting to blame Republicans for everything that is wrong in our society.

The attacks on our ambulances, bus and train personnel and the fire brigade — who are inexplicably not included in the motion — as well as the elderly are a different matter. The drunkenness and the violence associated with those attacks are mere extensions of a wider catharsis in our society.

There is a sense that these people have become easy targets and that respect for these highly praised services and traditions has broken down.

The answer is not to pour money into a police force that does not have the confidence of our communities. We must examine issues such as the criminal justice system, how it responds and how it did so in the past, when law and order involved the abuse of power. The law was used to discriminate against Catholic Nationalists and to support paramilitary policing. Sinn Féin trusts that the criminal justice review, to which it has made a substantial submission, will recommend profound changes to the legal system to address criminality.

Sinn Féin does not support the police force as it is currently constituted. Our position is clear on the British Government’s failure to implement the Good Friday Agreement and the Patten recommendations, which proposed the threshold for a new beginning and a police service based on a human rights ethos.

Special Branch hinders investigations of violent crime and inquiries into the deaths of almost 400 people who were murdered as a result of its collusion with paramilitary organisations. It uses criminals and hoods to further its political agenda, and that concerns us.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I advise the Member to stick to the subject of the motion.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I am doing my best, a LeasCheann Comhairle, but other Members also strayed considerably.

Special Branch knows the identities of pipe bombers, the murderers of Danny McColgan and drug dealers and their agents in the UDA who are still in business. No matter how many resources the PSNI will have, it will not have the confidence of the communities that we represent to enable it to deliver effective community policing in partnership with the people.

Marginalised communities need resources to provide jobs, education, housing, a stronger community infrastructure, community and youth services, and support for the elderly and vulnerable young people — that is a separate matter.

Those whom we represent want policing; they need it for community safety. The tragedy is that we are the most politically policed society in Europe, at a huge cost. Last year’s policing budget was £645 million, with an additional £102 million for the implementation of the Patten recommendations. The taxpayer funds that. This morning we were told that 87,000 crimes were committed last year. Our communities are patrolled by 11,000 members of the RUC, in addition to the Royal Irish Regiment — one in every four of the population. What percentage of that £645 million budget is spent on guarding retired police chiefs?

Members listed the terrible incidents that are reported daily by the media. We could all recall similar incidents. The destruction of the casualty department in Altnagelvin Hospital some weeks ago happened during a fight between the UDA and the UVF, which started in a nightclub seven miles away. The incident was recorded on CCTV. Was anyone arrested? In this instance, the silence of the PSNI is deafening, as is the silence of the Secretary of State in respect of the continued pipe bombings and arson attacks on Catholic homes. A Catholic trade unionist said on the radio this morning that his home was attacked 20 times.

It is deplorable that the Secretary of State could not attend the rally in protest against the death of Danny McColgan and in support of postal workers, the Fire Service, teachers and the Ambulance Service. It is equally reprehensible that Mr Paisley Jnr should blame everyone, except the DUP, for what has happened. That comes from the member of a party that was involved in gunrunning, which resulted in the deaths of over 400 people. It is sad reflection — [Interruption].

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mrs Nelis’s comment that my party is involved in gunrunning is totally erroneous and false. My party has never been involved in gunrunning, has nothing to do with it and will not have anything to do with it.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is not a point of order. Would the Member please clarify what she has said?

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The point was previously made in the House about the DUP’s relationship with the agent, Brian Nelson, and its connection with the guns that were brought in from South Africa. I am not going to go into that.

The motion is a lost opportunity to really address the issues of a community emerging from conflict, the problems around this and the resources needed to tackle it.

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

I will comment on some of the points I have heard so far, and, in that way I will address the substance of the motion.

Mary Nelis, in a somewhat more measured way than usual, outlined how there had been a breakdown in the value system in the North. She said that that breakdown was a product of greed and market forces, and I agree. She said that it was a creation of the culture of sectarianism within law and order and paramilitary policing. I might have some basis for agreeing with her. But never once in her contribution did she outline that if there has been a breakdown in our value systems, it has also been in the creation of paramilitary organisations, their practices and abuses over many years in Northern Ireland society.

When Mary Nelis says that the DUP blames everyone but the DUP for the problems of law and order in Northern Ireland then I say to her that Sinn Féin seems to blame everyone but Republicans for the breakdown — if there is such a breakdown — in law and order in Northern Ireland.

If people from either side of the Chamber approach law and order in a partial and selective basis, then they ill-serve the debate. They must face up to the acceptance that paramilitary organisations involved in crime today are a creation of that which went before, namely the paramilitary organisations that were involved in the use of violence in Northern Ireland to bring about threat and terror in our society. People must face up to the responsibility for that if they want to address the core of the motion.

Iris Robinson — and she is not in the Chamber — asked the SDLP to justify the running-down and ending of the full-time reserve at a time when a call might be made for additional resources for policing. That is a fair question. The answer is simple: the core function and objective of policing in our society, like every other one, is community policing. To bring that about in the lives of the citizens and the communities of the North, an accountable, unarmed, civilianised police service conforming to human rights standards is required. That is what the Patten Report offered, and to bring it about, the full-time reserve should be no more.

The ending of the full-time reserve, while it may create a shortage of police officers, will bring about greater support for the Police Service. Whatever the perceived loss might be, the lives of the citizens of the North will gain in community policing. That is why we want to see the full-time reserve run down, as the Patten Report and the implementation plan intend. At the same time, there should be an increase in the part-time reserve beyond current figures. Each community in the North, particularly where there are few or no members of the part-time reserve at present, will, in future, have members in every street, hamlet, village and town throughout Northern Ireland.

Under Patten and the implementation plan, that will see 2,500 — [Interruption].

2.00 pm

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member has mentioned the Patten Report on several occasions. Does he not agree that the problem lies with the failure to implement that report in full?

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

If that is the problem, why does the Irish Government not say so? Why does Irish America not say so? Why do the Irish Churches not say so? Why does the United States Government not say so? If that is the case, why do all those voices agree with the SDLP, with the Taoiseach and with many other spokespersons on the national life of this island, to say that the spirit and substance of Patten is now available? That is your answer. The premise of your question is wrong. Those who speak in so many ways for that which represents national life agree with the SDLP.

I concur with Duncan Shipley Dalton and other Members who look beyond the issue of current staffing levels in the Police Service. As they have outlined, the resourcing of the service is more complex than the number of officers. At present, the sickness absence rate in the Police Service is unnecessarily high. There is a disproportion between those in desk jobs and those serving on the ground. Consequently, better management of resources at hand can bring about better response times and a greater presence of police officers on the ground.

If we are to ask the Secretary of State to make more resources available, we should argue for the release of additional funds for more overtime; for anti-racketeering initiatives by the police and other agencies; and to target the godfathers of paramilitary organisations who are directing acts of violence, threat and terror in our society. These legitimate steps are required immediately to tackle the issue of law and order in the North. We ask the British Government to attend to that.

There have been many difficulties in recent days. There have been attacks on private citizens and public servants. Those attacks must be addressed immediately. If I have an issue with the motion, it is the assertion that there has been a breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland. I accept that there are strains and pressures on law and order, but I do not necessarily agree that there has been a breakdown. Both before and since the 30 years of violence, the crime figures prove that the crime rate in Northern Ireland is lower than that in any other region of this island or in Britain.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member must draw his remarks to a close.

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

That is a reflection of the strong community and family values of our society.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I am glad that this motion has come before us for discussion today. Many of us are concerned about what is happening to the police force in the Province. My party has said time and time again that the Patten Report is causing the destruction of this country. How right we are. The police have been cut back to an impossible level, and crime figures are soaring. The pro- agreement parties tell us that this is the way forward to peace, and that the police force had to be modified to fit the new and progressive country that the peace process was creating.

The word "anarchy" is what the "Yes" parties had in mind when they supported the Patten Report. Can they explain that to the 84-year-old woman who was beaten up and robbed in her home at the weekend in my constituency of Strangford? That happened because only two police officers cover the Ards Peninsula, which is such a vast area. So much for the bright new society that we were told a new improved police force would give us. How can it be delivered with fewer officers? I cannot comprehend the logic of the Member who said that the reserve police force must be run down and done away with. Do away with officers, increase crime and violence levels and that is acceptable — I do not think so. I am interested to know whether the Member would support this notional motion.

There have been some police station closures, and every day people in my constituency say that the police took over two hours to get to their houses or that they did not come at all. That is not because they do not want to come — they want to get out to do the job, but they do not have the resources, the manpower or the finances. Last week a group of men attacked a farmer on his farm outside Killyleagh at 9.45 am, in broad daylight. The incident has been treated as attempted murder, but it was a robbery. I have warned about such an incident for months. The police have received reports from rural residents in Strangford and other parts of the Province of men driving slowly past farms and houses. Some people’s sheds and vans have been broken into, but the police have not been turning up because of insufficient resources.

I asked the chief inspector in my area what was happening as people were in fear for their property and their physical well-being. I was told that many police officers had been offered packages as a result of the Patten Report and that many had taken them, which left the number of officers on the ground depleted. There are insufficient resources to deal with crimes, and the manpower is not there to help.

The next initiative that the police have been forced to adopt — and I underline "forced to adopt" — to deal with some of the crime committed is the four-tiered response categorisation. I am not sure whether Members are aware of it yet, but the new system will include a response time call schedule. In other words, a police officer will have to allocate a time to respond to a call. This may be at the convenience of the victim, or it may take longer if the police are overstretched. Again we see where problems arise for the police force.

The delay in collecting forensic evidence worries me. Forensic evidence is there for a period, but if a police officer cannot come out to investigate an incident due to insufficient resources, the forensic evidence could disappear. That, along with other things that must be implemented, is more political red tape that officers must deal with before they can get on with the job in hand.

I am fed up with the constant demands that have been heaped upon the police which mean that they are getting weighed down by political red tape. The police want to get on with protecting people, preventing crime and catching those who commit crimes. That is their job, and that is what they want to do. It is time that the Secretary of State gave the police the resources to deal with crime effectively, not just in the rural constituency of Strangford, but in other constituencies which are now targets for out-of-town criminals. They are aware that the police will be at least 20 to 30 minutes away at any one time, and it is the same in other parts of the Province.

Ambulance drivers are under attack from youths and mobs throwing stones and worse, and we have recently seen incidences of that. If there were adequate resources, the police could deal with offenders as quickly as it takes them to gather the rocks to throw. Last week there was a fracas and a free-for-all in the accident and emergency department of Altnagelvin Hospital. Postal workers’ and teachers’ lives were put under threat a few weeks ago, and there were insufficient officers for the saturation patrols that were needed to protect those who were threatened, due to the Patten Report.

Those who are moaning about the breakdown of law and order — and we have all made comments about it — must look to those in the "Yes" camp. They and they alone instigated the Patten Report and told us all how wonderful it was all going to be. They and they alone gave carte blanche to the yobs and gangsters who are holding us all to ransom. They took away the only defence we had against those people — the Royal Ulster Constabulary. By the way, their new and super- politically correct Police Service will not be on the streets until the end of June, so it will be five months before there are any new officers to relieve the problems that Patten gave us.

Some Members referred to sickness among police officers. That is because they are overstretched. They work long hours, they are under stress, and the problems that they face take a heavy toll on those who served in the RUC and now serve in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. There are also those who are direct casualties of incidents that take place. That is what is happening. Some police officers are off on long-term and short-term sick leave due to the conditions and the rundown in the service. They do not have the resources — the manpower or the finance — to do their jobs.

They are also not allowed to get experience or tips from any former members of the RUC. They are not allowed to learn by example, as they have been told that that example no longer applies. Why should they not be allowed to gain from the experience and expertise of those who served in the RUC? Can we, therefore, assume that half of our police force from June 2002 will not have the same experience, because Patten said that we must have an all bright and sparkling new police force that has no ties with the RUC? I cannot comprehend that. Where we have police with ability, experience and the wherewithal to deliver a service, let them be of use. Let them pass on their information and experience to those who come after.

I call on the Secretary of State to pour resources into members of our Police Service, who are trying their best with little support — least of all from the Secretary of State. I urge Members who are in the "Yes" agreement camp to stand up and say, "Yes, we want more resources". However, the reason that they do not have the resources they need is the Patten Commission and the Patten Report.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I shall call one more Member. However, to allow enough time to wind up before Question Time, I urge the Member to stay within eight minutes.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

My party Colleagues and I fully support the sentiments in the opening paragraph of the motion, where it refers to attacks on postal workers, ambulance staff, the Fire Service, bus and train personnel and elderly members of our community. It is increasingly worrying for elderly people, even those who are in fold and care situations, who are having difficulty with people attempting to come into what should be a secure area.

However, with regard to the remedy that the Alliance Party Members are seeking, once again my party will not be party to a sham. We have heard from Member after Member of the direct link between the surge in crime on our streets and the general lawlessness here and the glaring fact that "organised crime" permeates through every aspect of crime in the Province.

Very few of the crimes that have occurred, despite the comments of Mr Dalton and others, do not have their origins in the paramilitaries’ vice-like grip on the community. That is the case, and other Members have said that the RUC could pride itself on a record that was second to none in Europe, given its success rate with ordinary criminal activity. This success rate was an example to other police forces who sent their officers for training here. It also had to deal with the serious terrorist threat, and when the terrorist threat was at its peak, the RUC managed to deal with both types of crime.

I find it difficult to accept how genuine the mover of the motion and her party are in their call for a crackdown on crime. All the parties who signed up to the Belfast Agreement endorsed the Patten recommendations that were sewn into the agreement — including, to his shame, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. They have not only brought this into the democratic process, but they have inhibited the ability of those who were charged with enforcing law and order in Northern Ireland.

They have diminished the possibility of the forces of law and order being able to deal with the godfathers of violence. As mentioned by other Members, those godfathers are in control of certain areas, where, as a law enforcement officer told me, it will soon be impossible to get a handle on the present state of affairs. The Province is in a grave position. The problem for the Alliance Party and the others is clear. When the Belfast Agreement was being negotiated, we had a Secretary of State, Dr Mowlam, who went into the prisons. She came out and told the people of Northern Ireland that she had met two heroes of the peace process — "Johnny and Michael". She informed the press that they were Johnny Adair and Michael Stone. The press were amazed at such a declaration. The sad thing is that all of the parties who signed the agreement sat dumb and nodded like the courtiers in the story of the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes.’ Those parties bought in the idea that people could run a paramilitary organisation and still be part of the wonderful new future for Northern Ireland.

They want peace on the cheap, but if crime in our society is to be dealt with, we need to start at the fountainhead. Let us get the godfathers — the people who are polluting the community — in both the Republican movement and the so-called Loyalist paramilitary organisations. I say to Mrs Bell — through you, Madam Deputy Speaker — that until that nettle has been grasped, it is no good talking about dealing harshly with young people in our community, as Mr Ervine advocated, and as the paramilitary groups do every night.

If, while Mrs Bell asks for that and calls for extra resources to be put into policing in Northern Ireland, there is a Government that refuse to deal with terror; that put gunmen into positions in Government; and that release unreconstructed and unrepentant prisoners wholesale onto our streets, then this breakdown is what we get.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

That is all going according to plan. The plan is the Belfast Agreement. Mr Duncan Shipley Dalton and others, who were party to the agreement — [Interruption].

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

— may wish to hold up their hands and say "It is nothing to do with the agreement; we had violence before we had the agreement". That is true. The difference, however, is that the decent ordinary citizens, who wanted nothing to do with the paramilitaries and the godfathers of violence, now find those people sitting in the House.

In an effort to fool the electorate, Mr Trimble has come up with a novel idea.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Sorry, Mr Speaker, I am speaking about law and order.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member has been asked whether he will give way.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

No, I will not give way.

Mr Trimble’s latest attempt to fool the electorate and the Unionist people is to appoint a spymaster general — [Interruption].

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was told by the Speaker that I should speak to the motion. I do not think that the Member is speaking to the motion.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I was about to draw Mr Wilson’s attention to the fact that he must speak to the motion, as other Members have been advised.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I was discussing law and order, which is an issue that needs to be discussed in the Province. Mr Trimble tells us that he is going to have a spymaster general to keep an eye on the Sinn Féin Members at Westminster. If Mr Trimble wants to know the pedigree of the Member of Parliament Mr McGuinness, he has only to read ‘From Guns to Government’.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

If he wants to know what Mr Gerry Adams was doing — [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. I have reminded the Member to speak to the motion, which is about resources. I ask him to do so.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

I certainly will, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am calling — and I cannot see how it is in any way departing from the motion — for the House to recognise that it needs to be genuine in its calls for law enforcement and for the orchestrators of violence to be brought to justice. Some have suggested the establishment of another Committee to investigate violence. I heard Ms McWilliams calling for that.

In my hand I have a glossy document published by the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Taskforce. It cost several thousand pounds to produce, and it has a foreword written by the then Minister, Adam Ingram, telling us that now that the agreement was in place, it was time to get tough on organised crime and terror.

That report was published in September 2000. Where is the evidence that anything has been done about organised crime? This House must get real and recognise that in order to decommission the terrorists and criminals, it must start by removing them from the Government of Northern Ireland. Let us give credit to the men and women of the police who stood between the criminals and the ordinary, decent, law-abiding citizens.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member should draw his remarks to a close.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

It is a disgrace, and we will not be party to it.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance, Strangford)

This debate has come at an appropriate time, and I thank my Assembly Colleagues for agreeing to discuss this matter.

The lack of resources is of paramount importance. There is no doubt that there is real concern about the escalation of all types of crime in Northern Ireland. We acknowledge that policing in Northern Ireland is going through a radical change. Nevertheless, ordinary people simply wish to be protected. They have a right to expect the state to provide sufficient and efficient policing. I am greatly concerned about the Report of the Chief Constable 2000-01. Among other things, it says:

"Should appropriate additional funding not be made available, I have no doubt the required cuts would severely impact on our ability to maintain basic services over the three-year period. The Northern Ireland Office has been made aware of the consequences of these cuts".

It is my understanding that the Police Service has a budget shortfall of approximately £15 million this year. Unless it receives a drastic increase in resources soon, that figure will be magnified to outrageous proportions. In turn, that will leave our community with a poorly financed Police Service.

I make an appeal to the Northern Ireland Office, John Reid, Des Browne and Jane Kennedy to ensure that our community does not suffer unnecessarily. We do not want to see law and order going down the same road as the Health Service. Everyone is aware of what is going on in relation to law and order, and every area is affected. Almost every morning newspapers and news bulletins report incidents of sectarian attacks on the public services, schools, ambulances and the Fire Service. People even go into hospitals to commit acts of lawlessness. There are robberies and burglaries; senior citizens are being attacked and terrified in their own homes. I have not even mentioned the bigger issues of drugs, beatings and intimidation.

The community must come to its senses. We need more visible signs that policemen and policewomen are out on the beat. In this age of instant communications, extra personnel should be available almost immediately. We also need the co-operation of the whole community. The police cannot do the job on their own. People should be alert and look after their neighbours, or their neighbours’ property. If anything suspicious happens, they should alert the police. In this way, they can prevent crime.

Sometimes it appears that the increase in crime might have been expected. The paramilitary activists, who are supposed to be on ceasefire, feel that they must turn to criminal activity. There can be no excuse for that. Society must not tolerate any excuse for the lawbreaking that it is experiencing.

It would appear that, because of the lack of police personnel on the ground across Northern Ireland, criminal activity has escalated significantly. In my area, and right across Northern Ireland, there are a limited number of police officers on duty to cover huge areas. It is unacceptable that decent people must endure that. The criminals are well aware of the situation. They commit their dastardly deeds knowing that they might never be apprehended.

People elected us to the Assembly so that we would make their lives better. At the moment many people, particularly the elderly, live alone and in fear. Given that the Assembly does not have the necessary powers, it is its duty to ensure that Dr Reid, the Northern Ireland Office and the Chief Constable take what action is necessary to get the issue of law and order under control as soon as possible. Last week Dr Reid publicly asked the whole community to support the Police Service. The Alliance Party agrees with that and asks Dr Reid to ensure that sufficient funding is available for the Police Service.

I thank those Members who spoke in support of the motion. I am disappointed by the attitude of Sinn Féin. That party blames everybody but itself. It is wrong that it should play politics with law and order. Must every issue satisfy Sinn Féin before it will support the Police Service? My party apologises to Members if some services have been excluded from the motion. Mr Ervine mentioned that the Fire Service had been left out. The Alliance Party wishes to include everyone who provides a service to the community.

The Belfast Agreement and the Patten Report cannot be entirely to blame for the breakdown of law and order, as some Members have suggested. The Alliance Party is neither naive nor hypocritical. I am glad to see that Mr Boyd has admitted the error of his ways by leaving the Chamber.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

No one has mentioned the enormous resources that have been used at Drumcree and in north Belfast. I hope that those two major obstacles can be cleared soon and that the immense resources that have been ploughed into those and other such incidents will go into the financing of real policing in Northern Ireland. I ask Members to support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly condemns the breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland society, including attacks on postal workers, ambulance staff, bus and train personnel and elderly members of the community, and calls on the Secretary of State to allocate sufficient, specific resources to enable the PSNI and other organisations to improve the situation at the earliest opportunity.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

There are one and a half minutes until Question Time, and rather than suspend the House, I suggest the House takes its leisure until 2.30 pm.

Post office provision

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes proposals by Consignia to cut the number of post offices in Britain by half and calls for immediate action to protect the infrastructure of post offices in Northern Ireland, particularly those serving people in rural and disadvantaged urban areas.

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the motion before the House. Since the threat of post office closures became a matter of concern and was debated in the Assembly some time ago, little, if any, progress has been made in planning a successful future for this essential service. The Post Office has a new name, Consignia, but we have precious little else, except mounting evidence that the Post Office is fast approaching meltdown for those who reside in rural and socially disadvantaged urban areas. These are not just my views; people much closer to the Post Office, who experience the problems every day, share these views.

Opportunities to develop the Post Office as a key centre for communications and public services, including new e-government initiatives, Internet access and many other possibilities have been missed. In the meantime, the closure of post offices, rural post offices and sub-post offices is increasing as postmasters retire and replacements cannot be found. As we speak, 28% of sub-postmasters in rural areas and 35% in deprived urban areas are actively considering leaving the Post Office. A third of rural sub-postmasters who wish to leave cited loss of income as the main reason. Many sub-postmasters actively seek new business opportunities and feel frustrated by constraints and what they see as the Post Office’s lack of dynamism with regard to developing new services and marketing those already provided.

All this is happening at a time when more than 90% of customers and residents in rural and deprived urban areas still firmly believe that post offices have a key role to play in the day-to-day life of our communities. A comprehensive survey, Post Offices and Community Needs in Rural and Deprived Urban Areas, which was carried out last September, states that 61% of deprived urban customers and 69% of rural customers use their local post offices to obtain what are called "free" community information and services. Up to 41% of customers obtain informal advice from sub-postmasters, and 29% obtain Government information. We cannot afford to lose this service, because we are committed to targeting social need (TSN), and the Post Office plays a vital role in delivering information about a variety of Government services that help to create equality of standard of living, which everyone is entitled to, but which not everyone receives.

We have been told that the Government are committed to keeping rural post offices open, but there is little evidence to show that anything practical has been done to make this a certainty. The fate of the post offices in socially deprived urban areas appears to be sealed. The decision to close post offices will be taken in the full knowledge that they provide a lifeline to many people, not least the elderly and families that cannot afford to travel to town centre outlets.

In Northern Ireland there is already worrying evidence of the decline in the standard of service offered by the Post Office and Parcel Force. This has been well publicised by the Northern Ireland committee of Postwatch, the consumer watchdog, in its news release of 5 December 2001. None of those failings is attributed to the postal workers, who do a sterling job. The failings were attributed to Consignia, which needs to be encouraged to comprehensively assess the needs of its customers and deliver a service to meet those demands. Today there is further criticism from the Federation of Small Businesses of Consignia’s plan to delay some deliveries until afternoons.

I suggest that the future of our post offices is a key element in delivering a service fit for the modern age. To date, the focus has been firmly on the necessity to get Consignia into shape to be sold to the private sector. Little serious regard has been given to the essential service which it provides for the whole community, and particularly for those who live in rural communities or socially disadvantaged urban areas.

Speaking last October, a Northern Ireland spokesperson for the National Federation of SubPostmasters warned that the restructuring of the Post Office would mean survival of the fittest for some postmasters. He predicted that many post offices would close, and that already it may be too late for some of them. We accept that efforts are being made to find new business. However, many of those outlets will be gone if and when decisive action is taken. By then, the network will have become eroded to offices in centres of high population only.

Next year, post offices will lose a huge chunk of their business when social security payments are due to be made by automatic credit transfers payable through banks. That will bring its own problems for many people who live in small communities, where there is a post office but no bank. It will also create problems for people who do not have, or want, bank accounts but who believe that they are entitled to their payments with the minimum of inconvenience and outlay.

Post offices often double up as mini-markets, providing essential items such as milk, bread, coal and other necessities. There is every possibility that when a post office closes, so too will the shop, thus compounding the isolation problems.

Progress on the development of a universal bank by the Post Office is disappointing, and its efforts to promote Post Office banking services in their current form is also to be regretted. Must they wait until the writing is on the wall for the more vulnerable post offices? The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has pledged his support for the retention of post offices in rural and urban areas, but what will be the value of such a pledge when this public service is privatised, and the focus moves to maximising profits, which can be made only in areas of large population? Action is needed, but nothing is happening. My understanding is that no pilot study is taking place in Northern Ireland, where the needs of our people are quite different from those in Leicestershire and Rutland, where studies are taking place.

I would like the Assembly to take a direct interest in the future of the Post Office, and I look forward to hearing about any developments. I wish to see a task force being set up to define a strategy that meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I would encourage much closer co-operation with the postal services in the Republic, where similar dilemmas are being experienced as a direct result of pressure from the European Union to free up postal services in order to encourage competition. Greater efforts must be made to define service standards, and clearly understood procedures must be put in place to deal with proposed post office closures. People must be made aware that the Post Office continues to exploit opportunities for new commercial services and pay for the cost of introducing those services. The problem of attracting new sub-postmasters must be addressed by the introduction of new and relevant financial and delivery packages. That is what is happening in other sectors of industry and commerce where, for whatever reason, there are recruitment problems, and there is no reason why the Post Office should not do likewise.

The Post Office plays a key role in the delivery of Government and community information. If that service is lost, the socially disadvantaged, the marginalised and the elderly will suffer most. There must be a clearer definition of post offices’ public, private and community information and advisory role, and a move away from indirect subsidy through the Post Office to more direct subsidies for this essential service which, to date, has not had a financial value placed on it.

I look forward to a stimulating debate, and I hope that those who have the future of the Post Office in their hands will listen and take what is being said seriously, because it is not simply a matter of post offices closing — the future of entire communities is at stake. We, and the Government Departments for which we now have responsibility, have a part to play. It would be unfortunate if all the efforts made to regenerate rural and socially disadvantaged urban communities were harmed in such a damaging way by the closure of sub-post offices on a grand scale.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank Mr Dallat for highlighting the plight of the existing post office network. While the closure plans of Consignia are reported to apply solely to England, Scotland and Wales, there should be no doubt that similar financial pressures exist in Northern Ireland and will apply to our sub-post office network. Consignia, whose postal services cover the entire United Kingdom, is reported to have lost £281 million during the first six months of the current financial year. It is clear that there are significant financial forces afoot, which are dictating the change to our existing post office network. It is not just a matter of making a report — there are real financial pressures at work here, which are forcing, and continuing to force, the closure of many sub-post offices against communities’ wishes.

I am concerned at the vagueness of some of the recent reports and comments from Consignia spokespersons. For instance, they have said that some of the 17,500 post offices are not viable. They say that they have no intention of closing 1,000 post offices, and then add the word "soon" — maybe not this week, but what about next week?

Finally, the network is making a loss, and something has to be done to make as many of these post offices as viable as possible. What is being done? I have not heard of any concrete work being done by the Post Office itself. We have heard hints about things that are going to happen and things that they are investigating. We have heard suggestions by the Labour Government for introducing alternative means of funding, but no concrete proposals as yet.

With particular reference to Northern Ireland, the ‘News Letter’ in a report on Consignia only last week said that Consignia had said that it was "too early to say" how many urban post offices would be affected by the restructuring programme and that

"The details of the programme are still being discussed".

Clearly there are moves afoot that will affect not only the largely rural population in Northern Ireland, but also much of the urban population, and it is the deprived urban population that is likely to suffer most.

There was a sustained decline in the post office network throughout the United Kingdom during the last decade. It has been reported that approximately 200 post offices closed each year, but 384 closed during 1999. According to the Postal Service Commission’s report in December 2001, the number of sub-postmasters who are resigning has not increased substantially over the last couple of years, but there is evidence of a reduction in the number of people showing an interest in replacing those who do resign, particularly in small rural communities. So, while existing postmasters are hanging on, replacing them is not an attractive option at present. Financial pressures are largely responsible for the closures, so taking a sub-postmaster’s job is not an attractive proposition at present.

In a House of Commons Hansard report of 12 April 2000, the Prime Minister indicated another pressure:

"Half a million more people a year choose to get their pension or child benefit through their bank accounts. That will carry on, so inevitably the post offices are faced with a process of change. The question is how to deal with it. The best way is make sure that people can get their benefits in cash, if they want to do so, but that we work with the post offices to provide a new range of services for the future."

That was said nearly two years ago, and I have not heard of any new services or new financial streams to keep our post offices sustainable.

The Post Office’s largest contract is with the Benefits Agency, and that is shrinking because people are choosing to take direct payments. The contract for paying benefits is up for renewal and this, in itself, creates huge doubt within the post office network. For the record, my preference is for the Post Office to get another contract, because, as well as providing a good social security benefit delivery service, there are many other benefits for the community.

At European level there is additional pressure, with the Directive on postal liberalisation, which is making postal deliveries increasingly more competitive. The Directive is also reducing the Post Office’s ability to transfer money and support sub-post offices. There is a range of financial pressures afoot.

I welcomed the announcement last year that shops and post offices in rural villages and hamlets would get a rate rebate of 50% to 100%. That has been a positive benefit, but is it enough? It appears not. The decline is continuing, and the Assembly must assess which particular services it would find beneficial to contract to post offices. This could take the form of providing access to Government information. Their existing telecommunications network provides them with an existing infrastructure, and I urge that serious consideration be given to a proposal that would make it possible to give financial assistance to sub-post offices.

I have some criticism of the Post Office itself. Its senior management is slow to react to market forces. The power card scheme, for example, which was operated by NIE, was subsequently replaced by a keypad system. The Post Office originally tendered for the business but was not successful. No subsequent tenders were submitted, and, as a result, that aspect of business was lost to other competitors.

In addition, the Post Office has been preventing sub-post offices from introducing other systems that would enable it to retain that aspect of the business. It is unhelpful that the Post Office — having lost contracts — still insists on developing its own wonderful system, which will come too late. Unless it reacts to market forces, that aspect of the business will be lost to competitors. There are enormous pressures from a variety of sources, and senior Post Office management must become more proactive.

Another aspect that is putting off potential new sub- postmasters is the large number of robberies that have occurred at post offices. One sub-post office in my constituency was robbed three times in the past year. This activity is putting additional cost burdens on sub-post offices; it puts a community facility at risk and must be deplored. If offices eventually close, there will be a huge public outcry. Can we not be more proactive? Are there any procedures whereby additional support can be given to those sub-post offices to assist them with security and ensure that they will remain in business and that their staff will feel safe?

Post offices, which are still a reserved matter, are not being handled well. The Assembly should apply pressure on the Government in London to ensure that the issue will be addressed, because no proposals have come forward about this in almost two years. It is time for concrete proposals, so that our existing post-office network can grow confident that it will have a future and will be able to see that investment will secure, in the long term, not only its existence, but benefits for the wider community too, because people rely on access to a post office.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

The news that Consignia is to dump around 30,000 employees to address spiralling company debts has sent a shock wave through the company from top to bottom and into every sector of its current operations. It is therefore inevitable that the repercussions of such a huge number of redundancies will be felt in every constituency, borough and town throughout Northern Ireland. The loss of 30,000 jobs represents an overall figure of one in six of the current workforce, which is absolutely staggering.

I have already contacted the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Its representatives are unable to make any comment on the crisis, as they claim that it is a reserved matter and that the Northern Ireland Office has responsibility. Neither that Department nor the NIO know the extent of the impact that these job losses will have in Northern Ireland — they simply know that job losses are inevitable. If the job losses are spread equally around the United Kingdom, as many as 850 people in Northern Ireland could find themselves without work. It is therefore impossible to imagine how services are to be maintained across the Province, and to assess the impact that the job losses will have, especially on rural life.

This is not just a straightforward case of a privately owned company being priced out of the market, but this is a publicly owned company that provides a service, which is in deep financial crisis. There is an obligation on the Government to maintain the level of services. The power to act is there; only the commitment and determination are needed to shore up this essential public service.

There are currently approximately 170 Post Office branches in Northern Ireland, employing around 4,500 people. Every employee of the Post Office not only provides a postal service for the citizens of the United Kingdom but fulfils a much greater social duty, especially in rural areas. Most post offices represent an integral part of local society, and they act as a focal point for many local communities. They act as a reassurance to many elderly citizens and are somewhere for people to meet and interact. In principle, they provide access to many services other than letters and parcels. That public service is currently being allowed to fade out and disappear in many areas.

Ever since Consignia took over the running of the Post Office, the company has never looked strong, and its operating costs increased by 500% to £100 million in the first six months to September last year, while losses at Parcelforce Worldwide were in the region of £200 million for the year 2001. The shocking reality is that the Post Office has, in the past, been a profitable business. In the past 10 years the Post Office made a profit of approximately £350 million every year, except for the last two.

Several factors, including the growth in e-mail, changes in competition rules and the freeze in stamp price, have contributed to the crisis. However, the company management must share a huge degree of the blame. It is estimated that the financial investment made by sub-postmasters across the country is around £1·5 billion, yet, even with that huge personal commitment, post offices are continuing to close on a weekly basis. The wage received by sub-postmasters is, in effect, the gross profit of their business — the transactions carried out on behalf of the Post Office, minus all their overheads such as salaries, rent, rates, electricity, et cetera. Over the past number of years the finance generated through the post office has either remained static or has decreased, while the cost of living and overheads have continued to increase. That has led to a question mark being placed over the viability of many post offices, and an ever-increasing number are no longer able to survive.

There is then the question of the support being given to the creation of the universal bank by the high street banking institutions. In mainland UK, all the banks have signed up, yet here in Northern Ireland only the Ulster Bank Ltd and the Northern Bank Ltd have signed up — the First Trust Bank and the Bank of Ireland have not signed up.

Unfortunately, to date, all that the Post Office has witnessed has been a decline in business, with the loss of the Northern Ireland Electricity Powercard contract alone costing Northern Ireland sub-postmasters between 4% and 12% of their annual salaries.

If the Government genuinely value the services of the Post Office as currently provided, why do they appear to remain acquiescent to the continued closures of offices across the country? It appears that offices are being allowed to deteriorate and disappear, and many feel that it is in an effort to minimise compensation payouts.

In all of this, Tony Blair’s Government appear very reluctant to act in order to protect this valuable service. The announcement from Consignia that 17% of its workforce is to be laid off has done nothing to provoke the Government into any kind of meaningful response. It only serves to reinforce the opinion that they are more than happy to watch the postal service crumble.

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment does not have responsibility for this matter, so I have written to, and am awaiting a response from, Patricia Hewitt MP, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, on this urgent matter. I urge the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to use what influence he has to gain a satisfactory response from his Westminster counterpart.

If action is not taken promptly the situation looks predictably sure to deteriorate even further. We, as publicly elected representatives, have responsibility to those who put us here to do all in our power to maintain the levels and quality of the postal service in Northern Ireland.

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am taking a different approach to this debate. While I agree with other Members, I want to look at this matter from the Committee for Social Development’s perspective.

The National Federation of SubPostmasters wrote to the Committee on 11 September 2001 requesting a meeting to discuss the impact on local communities, both urban and rural, of the changes proposed by the Government and the Post Office. The federation identified three main areas of concern: the changes to the method of benefit payments; the network reinvention; and the treatment of the Six Counties as a region.

The Committee recognised the need to tread carefully in relation to improper interference in a commercial operation but saw merit in exploring the issue of changes to the method of benefit payments. The Committee was also mindful that the Post Office is a reserved matter, which falls within the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. However, we agreed that it would be useful to meet a delegation from the federation, and an invitation to attend a future meeting of the Committee was extended. Subsequently the federation said that it wished to consider developments in England, Scotland and Wales before appearing before the Social Development Committee. It also referred to changes in personnel in the regional offices as a further reason for postponing its appearance before the Committee. The latest indication from the federation suggests that it will not be in a position to appear before the Committee until the end of February at the earliest.

The Social Development Committee is aware that automated credit transfer will be the normal method of payment after 2003. The Department for Social Development has informed the Committee that, in keeping with a public commitment given by British Ministers, benefit recipients will be able, if they wish, to continue to collect their benefits in full, in cash, at post offices.

The network of post offices in the Six Counties provides services to rural and urban customers. The elderly, and people who rely on local services because they have poor or no access to public or private transport, make use of many of those services. According to the National Federation of SubPostmasters, about one third of our post offices provide services to rural communities. The Committee understands that the Minister for Social Development is committed to using existing methods of payments from post offices until March 2003. However, given that we are all singing from the one hymn sheet, and that we have all agreed with the context of the debate, I am disappointed that the Minister is not here to listen to the contributions of Members. He would have benefited greatly from it. Post offices, especially those in rural areas, provide invaluable services for local communities. While commercial viability cannot be ignored, neither can the fact that post offices provide an absolutely critical lifeline for rural areas where there may be no public transport or any other public services.

In the light of the Social Development Committee’s interest in ensuring the timely and accurate payment of benefits to those who are entitled to them, we look forward to hearing from the National Federation of SubPostmasters. I intend to ensure that nobody is disadvantaged, regardless of who they are or where they live. I hope that the Minister for Social Development will join me in ensuring that everything possible will be done to ensure that people have easy access and freedom of choice when cashing their benefits cheques. Go raibh míle maith agat.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the motion and congratulate John Dallat on highlighting the issue. He and other Members already mentioned some of the threats to urban and rural post offices. Principal among those is the change to benefits payments that is due in April 2003. I regret that although the issue was raised before in the Assembly, the Minister was unable to give any assurance that the system in Northern Ireland would be any different. I cannot remember which of the "hokey-cokey" DUP Ministers for Social Development was involved; in their eyes, devolution did not involve doing anything to protect post offices. It is a major concern for all of us.

The £100 million half-year loss by Consignia, the threat of cost-cutting by 15%, and Consignia’s difficulties as a result of competition rules on cross-subsidy by Royal Mail, will create continuing problems for post offices in rural and urban areas, deprived or otherwise.

It was recently announced that An Post is expected to lose W30 million this year, having lost W7 million on a rather smaller scale of operation than Consignia had last year. The whole structure of traditional post offices, both counter services and deliveries, is under threat. Although deliveries are outside the scope of the debate, it is clear from the concerns raised by the Federation of Small Businesses today that many issues need to be addressed.

The post office in Crumlin serves a thriving and growing population of over 4,000. On an official visit to the village a couple of years ago, there were perceived threats to the viability of even an office of that size. Given that an office that serves a growing community of over 4,000 is under threat of closure, there is potential for closure in many other areas. It was suggested to me then that the borough of Antrim might end up with only one post office, in Antrim town centre. That would be unacceptable.

We need a much firmer response from the Government on how to develop services, and on how to promote measures to build on the Post Office’s strengths, which Consignia, or its previous incarnation, have already highlighted over the past three to four years. On information points, I do not suggest that every sub-post office should be a full-ranging citizens’ advice bureau, but branches now have the technology and the staff with the ability to deal with public bureaucracy and to provide related services. Such a public service would have to be funded; it could not be funded through the normal commercial activity of the Post Office.

As Iris Robinson said, there are problems with the concept of the universal bank. It has not yet developed as it should have done. On a personal note, however, I can recommend the co-operation between Post Offices Ltd and the Co-Operative Bank, which provides an excellent cheque-cashing service in this Building, for those of us who prefer not to queue to use plastic cards in the basement.

The start-up capital scheme is also being developed to ensure that post offices in rural areas are retained. I am not yet sure whether that scheme is applicable to Northern Ireland, because it is administered through the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). DTI should be questioned about how it regards its responsibility for that reserved matter in a devolved region.

It is not just post offices in rural areas that will benefit from the start-up capital scheme. The role of the post office is as vital in many deprived urban areas as it is in rural areas. It provides a focus for a local community, and a centre to provide many services. Even if subsidies are being provided to assist the retention of offices in rural areas, there is a major threat to the urban network. These days, managers and decision-makers regard a distance of one or two miles as negligible, because they all drive cars.

Members all know —we have discussed them here often enough — of the inadequacies of public transport in many urban areas and the lack of car ownership among those who most need to use a post office. It is all very well saying that the average family has so many cars, but the level of car ownership is significantly lower for those who are living on benefits or retirement pensions. In my constituency of South Antrim the movement of an office in an area such as Carnmoney created major difficulties for a small number of clients. That was largely caused by the commercial difficulties of employing a new postmaster to take over the contract from a postmaster who was retiring.

There is no doubt that Consignia is being forced down a commercial road, which is very different from what we knew. However, the Government, and, at this stage, Westminster — though responsibilities may come to the Executive here — have duties to define and pay for matters of social obligation such as advice-giving and the payment of benefits.

I agree with Michelle Gildernew — there ought to be a Minister present to take note of the debate and to respond to it. The difficulty is that I am not sure which Minister should be here — perhaps several should be present. It is clearly a matter for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, given its liaison with the Department of Trade and Industry, the parent Department in London. It is also a matter for the Department for Social Development, given the importance of the benefits element of post office work. I also suggest that it is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, given that it seems to be a matter for rural- proofing. However, there is no doubt that a Minister should be present to represent the Executive and take responsibility for any possible action and negotiation on behalf of Northern Ireland with Whitehall Departments.

There seems to be some evidence that the threat to the post office network in Northern Ireland is less than it is in some parts of GB. However, when a town as significant as Llandudno has just lost its town centre post office because of this problem, it is clear that we are not talking about a threat that will easily be removed from Northern Ireland. The threat may be less in Northern Ireland than in GB, but it still exists, and the motion should be supported to highlight that.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The starting point for the debate — and something that we should never lose sight of — is the value of the service offered by post offices in rural and other areas. People have talked about the post office as the hub of the village and a meeting place for the elderly and the isolated. That makes our post offices important, and we must remember that. Rather than looking at their demise, we should ensure that the energy of the Government is put into finding ways in which their work can be developed and enhanced, as David Ford has said, to make the service better. Attempts have been made to introduce new areas of work, and people have gone into detail on that. That is highly commendable, but it must not be a paper exercise.

"The reinvention of the network", as people are describing it, is to be welcomed, but only if its aim is to ensure that the excellent work carried out by post offices is secured, enhanced and not cut back. There is a commitment to ring-fence and protect offices in rural and disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland, and I welcome that. However, as Mr Dallat’s motion says, there must be a guarantee that that is going to happen. With regard to the enhancement of the service, the pilot scheme that is being carried out in Leicester and Rutland, which gives the public access to Government services such as car taxes, dog licences and child benefit through the post office, is tremendously valuable. It is not quite a citizens’ advice bureau, but it allows people to walk into their post offices and get access to such information. We are told that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is looking at the pilot scheme with interest, but we should go for more than interest — we should have a pilot scheme in Northern Ireland to prove that this would be very valuable for our post offices. The network-banking plan will be valuable in this, and it will allow the Post Office to become the retail outlet for banks. It is a superb new form of access to be welcomed.

In the face of the financial losses we have heard reported, the question is how can we make the service better; not how can we make it less costly? We must always remember that a post office is not a business; it is a service provider, particularly for the elderly, the lonely, the isolated or just those in need of advice. How can you measure financially the value of the 20 minutes a postmaster spends with a pensioner consoling him about the death of a loved one? This is something that is hugely valuable in the work of post offices, especially those in rural areas. It cannot be counted, and it can never be discounted.

We hear grand words from the Government about support for the socially disadvantaged, the marginalised, the isolated and the elderly, about transparency, accessibility and open government. The local post office is surely the epitome of all these things. There is talk about the closure of post offices. They want to close them down if there is no longer a demand. I will take the opportunity to mention a case in my locality. For the past three and a half years, I have been banging on doors to no avail with petitions signed by hundreds of people in the locality of the Bloomfield shopping centre who want a new post office there. If someone at Consignia is listening to the debate, would they look at the possibility of opening a new post office there?

I am looking at the support being given to bring new sub-postmasters into the business. I am slightly confused, because I see that there is the new support for a sub-post office start-up capital subsidy scheme. Therefore I am thinking to myself that this is the scheme that postmasters in the North Down area should go for if they want to open a new post office. However, then I see that it is only for post offices that have been closed down and want to be reinstated. Is this the case? Conversely, is it possible that the people who are clamouring for a post office in my area could avail of this grant? My point is that perhaps it is worth looking at opening post offices in areas where there is a growing population, and recognising the value of that.

Mr Dallat mentioned talk about changing the service. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned of the danger of a change in the service to small businesses and of delaying delivery times to 3.00 pm. Small businesses need to get their post and cheques in the morning to determine operations for that day. Delaying the service until mid-afternoon will serve little valuable purpose.

Finally, Mr Beggs’s point about greater assistance for security at post offices is something that Consignia must look at. The Post Office is, without doubt, the acceptable face of bureaucracy. Every single post office that is closed is a door closing in the face of our community.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I support the motion, and I congratulate my Colleague, John Dallat, for bringing it to the Floor of the House.

Over the past year, the local and national press have highlighted the issue of post-office provision.

What is the issue, and why has it been highlighted? The Post Office has been renamed Consignia, and perhaps people were not aware that it was their local post office which was being spoken about. Consignia has announced that it is making 30,000 staff redundant, which will affect postal workers and could lead to the loss of rural post offices. Post offices have been closing down at the rate of 200 a year, and the trend is accelerating. For example, in 1999-2000, 382 post offices closed.

The Government policy of changing benefit payments from cash over the counter to bank transfer will deprive post offices of so much income that a large new wave of closures is certain, unless that income is replaced. The Social Security Agency intends that all benefits will be paid through a bank account in a conversion programme running from 2003 to 2005, known as automated credit transfers (ACT), and efficiency savings of £400 million per annum are expected. The Prime Minister has stated that everyone will have a bank account but that people who find bank accounts difficult to comprehend will still be able to withdraw cash at a post office. It is not clear how that will happen. It is clear, however, that if post offices do not generate funds from transactions, they will have to close.

There are two kinds of post office — Crown post offices run by the Post Office itself, and the 97% of post offices — the smaller sub-post offices — run under the franchise of Post Office Counters Ltd, a body which is separate from the Post Office.

The post office network is vital, serving 28 million people each week. The current plan is to establish a universal bank to provide Internet access, exploit e-commerce and take an enhanced role in providing Government services. The universal bank will, of course, only be possible if the major banks support it, which does not seem to be happening at the moment.

Independent sub-postmasters and postmistresses run the vast majority of rural post offices and are paid from £5,000 to £20,000 a year, depending on the size of the sub-post office and the population that it serves. That sum has to cover rental, wages and heat and light, and individuals may find it difficult to cope without other income.

Post offices are seen as intrinsic to local communities. Coming as I do from a small rural community in County Derry, I have first-hand knowledge of the benefits that a post office can bring. The post office in that rural community is still located in the village, and it is, and was, accessible to everyone. In the days when only well-to-do people had bank accounts, it was a lifeline for our local community. It was used to buy stamps, post parcels, buy postal orders, cash giro cheques and open Post Office accounts. It was also a place for social exchange, where the elderly could meet and gossip or just exchange pleasantries. On the other hand, banks were perceived as remote and unnecessary to people’s daily lives. Usually banks were located in cities or larger towns, and transport was required. Even in this day and age, public transport for rural communities is extremely basic.

There is growing concern about the impending loss of further jobs, as it was recently announced that Consignia had lost the contract to handle TV licensing services for the BBC. Some 1,500 jobs are to be transferred to Capita, the successful bidder, next July. Assurance from Consignia that rural post offices will be safeguarded is of little comfort, when we see that there is a recommendation to close 1,000 post offices immediately in England and Wales, with a further 5,000 to be closed over the next five years.

I want to reiterate what Mr Roy Beggs said. Robberies — especially in remote rural areas — are a growing trend. I mentioned my home village; its small post office was robbed for the first time in my lifetime about two months ago. The nearby post office in Ardmore was robbed twice recently, with the result that no one is willing to reopen it — obviously because of concerns about their personal safety.

I also have grave concerns when I see the statement from the Federation of Small Businesses about Consignia’s plans to delay the delivery of services to small businesses until 3.00 pm. That will have a devastating effect on small business, particularly those that are run from home. According to Consignia, the plan will save it £1·2 billion a year through the prioritising of postal services. I am not sure that that is the correct way to safeguard a service such as the Post Office. I support the motion, and I ask the Assembly to take the necessary action to avoid closures and disadvantage to rural and urban areas.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the motion. The Assembly debated this issue about a year or 18 months ago. We are even more concerned about the Post Office today, given that the forthcoming cuts could be more draconian than any previous cuts.

Post Office cuts are being introduced despite the problems faced by the workforce in the past year. When everything that has happened to the Post Office in recent weeks is considered, we can see the sort of thanks the staff get for putting up with death threats, letter bombs and the murder of one of their colleagues. The staff have been told that there will be cutbacks and redundancies to make savings of £1·26 billion each year.

Consignia’s annual report on the Post Office states:

"We will only grow and flourish as a business with the support and commitment of our people."

That commitment seems to go only one way; it is expected from staff, but is not returned by management. Postal workers have had to deal with people who are affected by the cutbacks, such as the elderly, the disabled and young mothers in rural communities.

According to Consignia’s report, every day 28 million people visit one of 18,000 post offices throughout the United Kingdom. Most of those people live in rural areas. A rural area is defined as a habitation of less than 10,000 people, which defines most of Northern Ireland. In my constituency of Strangford, only a handful of towns do not fall under that definition of rural area. In addition, the Strangford constituency has a proportionally larger population of pensioners. Those people will be affected greatly by the cutbacks that Consignia is trying to implement.

Consignia is trying to reduce the number of post offices by at least half. That will rip the heart out of many towns, villages and hamlets in the country. In most of the towns in the Strangford constituency, the post office is combined with the only grocery store. Post offices constitute the hub of society for those towns and villages. The pensioners can collect their pensions and buy essential goods in one shop. Consignia wants to computerise and digitalise its entire system, which will not work well for the elderly inhabitants of this country who do not want, or are apprehensive about, such a system.

In order to shut down many of the post offices, arrangements must be made for pensioners to receive their pensions. Consignia believes that everyone will be receptive to having payments made straight into their bank accounts by direct debit. Unfortunately, the focus groups have not informed Consignia that many senior citizens are suspicious of computerised systems and they do not like the thought of not being able to see their money, for which many have worked hard for over 40 years.

Consignia must have paid a fortune to a research company for their focus group results. However, those focus groups must not have told Consignia that for many elderly people pension day is a day out. Some people may not believe that, but it is true. Some elderly people are housebound, and the chance to go out to collect their pension means a great deal to them. It can be a chance to meet old friends and catch up on the gossip of the village or town. That is a lifeline for many pensioners. If it is taken away from them, they will be left stranded far from the main post offices, which could be in towns as far as 20 or 50 miles away.

For the same reasons young mothers will also be affected by the closure of rural post offices. Being isolated on a farm with young children sends some young mothers to the end of their tether. The weekly visit to the post office means that they can meet with other mothers in the same situation. The post office offers a rural network of support that is second to none. I cannot emphasise enough the support that a post office provides to everyone in a rural community.

Yesterday, ‘The Mail on Sunday’ revealed that Consignia wants to scrap the first post delivery in order to cut costs. The idea is to scrap the first post for those at residential addresses, who then must wait until three or four o’clock in the afternoon for their mail to be delivered. More than one million small businesses are run from residential addresses. They will be included among addresses that will have to wait until the afternoon for mail. Most of that mail will be important to their survival. Other Members have touched on that. We all understand the problems for small businesses.

A Member of Parliament across the water has called for "Same value, same price, wherever you live". That is what the Post Office and Consignia should be delivering. However, it will be difficult to achieve. The announcement came hot on the heels of reports last month that Consignia is going to charge us all £50 a year to have our mail delivered before 9 o’clock. Is that an attempt to cover up the adverse reaction that arose over speculation about the impending fee to have mail delivered before a certain time of the day?

The second part of the announcement in yesterday’s ‘The Mail on Sunday’ concerned two distinct mail delivery times. Does that mean that Consignia will reduce its staff to cut costs? Many believe that it is. If there are only two delivery times during the day, the same worker who did the morning route can do the same route in the afternoon, which eliminates the need for many postal workers in each area.

There were 2,000 redundancies during autumn 2001, and I believe that there are more to come. A document that Consignia has produced this year said that it is offering quality services, which represent value for money for both business customers and residential consumers. Does Consignia sound like a company that will deliver that? I think not, and residential and small business consumers will have something to say to the contrary about those new proposals.

Consignia aims to deliver 92·1% of its first-class mail the following day. However, it fails to do so. It manages to achieve 90% of its target. That may seem to be not too bad. However, Consignia handles 81 million items of post each day, so a lot of mail is not arriving by the next day. I sent a letter from my constituency office in Newtownards to Belfast that took 10 days to arrive. That delay was not due to the postal strike. I could have delivered it by hand more quickly.

Cutbacks are supposed to cut costs so that Consignia can make a profit. However, they have had an adverse effect on profits. Because there are fewer postal workers, the post arrives later and later each day. It is not the service that my constituents or I expect. Members will agree that to face more job losses when we have already had announcements from textile firms, and from Bombardier Shorts and their subcontractors in recent months is a blow that Northern Ireland cannot afford at this time. The last thing we need to hear of is job losses in an industry that has ever-increasing demands on its services. I urge Members to support the motion.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion and congratulate John Dallat for moving it. The issue has been discussed before in the Chamber and in council meetings. The threat to post offices not only affects rural areas but deprived urban areas. With regard to post office access, people can be "rural" in a large town if services are inaccessible because of a lack of transport.

The acceleration of closures is recent years is what concerns people most. The speed at which services in rural areas are disappearing puts pressure on those areas. Benefits are affected. I have always asked people not to transfer their money into banks. It is ironic that the people who will now be most vulnerable are those who avoided having bank accounts and the ensuing charges. Bank accounts tend to bring with them various extra expenses that may seem small to those with reasonable incomes, but that are quite a weight on those who receive pensions and benefits. Every transaction is costly, especially when an account is overdrawn.

That would happen to people on low incomes, rather than to people on reasonable incomes.

The issue is part of a Government policy change to move away from cash transactions to hi-tech facilities. Some 80% of Post Office income comes from benefit payments. There is a need for rural-proofing in areas such as Fermanagh and Tyrone on that, and other, issues. We want the Government Departments to do it, but there seems to be tremendous resistance. There must be rural-proofing if any sort of services are to remain. The issue has been debated on several occasions in the past few years by Fermanagh District Council, of which I am a member.

It is a powerful issue and one that is vital not only to the economics of rural areas, but to whether people want to remain, live or bring up a family in rural areas. The types of services, such as those offered by a post office, are vital in making that decision. That is as much part of the loss as the economic side of it.

We must ask how much money people will lose in making the transactions and whether public money will be saved. Will profits for banks increase? Are automated teller machines (ATM) all that accessible for those who are vulnerable? For example, old people find it difficult to use such machines, even when they are in town centres. There is a serious risk that the vulnerable may be robbed while using ATMs. That has not been considered. A weekly visit to a post office provides a much more friendly atmosphere for old people than a visit to a machine.

The cost of accessing cash in both rural areas and large towns is not always considered. People may have to spend some of their pensions on taxis or buses in order to access their cash. Taxis are the usual form of transport. They can cost a considerable amount, which represents a real cut in people’s pensions or benefits. The savings made by Consignia will have a tremendous social impact on both rural and deprived urban communities. Therefore, we do not wish to move in that direction, because those communities will be damaged considerably.

The decline in services is compounded by the fact that the provision of many other services, such as banking, is declining and, in some cases, is no longer available — in rural towns and the deprived neighbourhoods of built-up areas, for example. Banks are moving to locations where the most across-the-counter transactions are made. ATMs are put in rural areas as an excuse to remove local branches of banking. A situation could arise in the near future in which people in rural villages have no access to ATMs, banks or post offices. That would result in further travel. That is an environmental consideration for many people and for the relevant Government Department.

As I said, a cut in the number of post offices amounts to a cut in benefits and pensions. ATMs are not considered to be user-friendly. In the South, a debate arose over the Bank of Ireland’s decision to refuse across- the-counter exchanges of money. Older and more vulnerable people in the community instigated that debate.

Given the intensity of that debate, people in similar situations here will face the same difficulties. Although those difficulties may be outside their control, Assembly Ministers should consider them. The Government has pushed it to this point, and those Ministers will have a considerable say in the matter.

Consignia has had problems. It was in profit in 1999, but has made losses since then at unsustainable levels. Its core business has been neither developed nor enhanced, but attacked by the developments mentioned by previous contributors to the debate.

It has been mentioned already that Consignia should be a service provider and not a business. Management failures, staff relations and commitment to customer service have been cause for comment. Some 85% of people in rural areas live one mile from a post office; 99% less than three miles from one. That will change in the near future when those post offices are lost because they are no longer considered profitable. The problem arises when a service provider is privatised and becomes a profitable business. The original intention was that the Post Office should provide a service for all areas, wealthy or otherwise. Changes have destroyed that intention, and we do not want that.

Various management consultants have mentioned several matters. A code of practice has been requested to deal with prospective closures and any area reviews proposed by the Post Office. With regard to initiatives, the main issue is increasing pressure to form as a commercial organisation and not as a service. Opportunities and threats from technology and alternative service providers are another.

Transaction-based services, such as universal banking and ticket sales, are most likely to enhance incomes in post offices in which benefit payment transactions make up a significant proportion of turnover. That would be especially important in rural and deprived urban areas with limited commercial business opportunities.

Attracting new people to the post office is another difficulty to be faced, and that will become more difficult as time goes on.

The issue has already been discussed in the Assembly, and I want to see Ministers and Departments take all possible steps to address it. Go raibh maith agat.

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

I support the motion. I pay tribute to John Dallat, not only for this very good motion, but for introducing the previous one on the subject and for leading this campaign. He has captured the mood of the Assembly in a very nice way, and he has much support across the Chamber in respect of the value of service.

The trend since Thatcherism has been to introduce competition, business-style approaches and a business ethos into everything. There must be a ledger under which things are valued. What has happened to the sense of public service? Where has it gone? The change is apparent not just with the postal services but in many different walks of life, and in many of our Departments. It is a recurring theme; we concentrate on a line in a ledger, with no mention of public service.

Is it any wonder? If we construct our approach to how we organise our services on a business basis, a reduction in service will inevitably follow. Unprofitable businesses will be closed; that is business ethos.

We Members can be hypocritical. On the one hand, there is a considerable degree of support for the business ledger approach. On the other hand, there is weeping and gnashing of teeth about the diminution of service. Our approach must be more consistent. We must re-examine the value of public service; what it meant in its true ethos and what it meant for the people in the community for whom reliable service is a priority.

The need for post offices has been well highlighted. Coming from a rural constituency, I see it daily in my office. Many people who come to the office, with either social security or pension problems, do not have a bank account. They depend on their local post office.

Members referred to the fact that, if a local post office were to close, people who need that service must travel elsewhere to avail themselves of it. That results in an additional expense for those people. The cheapest taxi fare in my area is £3. People must pay £3 to go into town and £3 to travel home — a total cost of £6. The old-age pension is about £62. A £6 taxi fare amounts to almost 10% of that. As they do not have a local post office, those people must pay almost 10% of their pension each week to have it cashed.

Do not tell me about that other service — public transport. Where is its ledger line? Where has the public transport service gone? It does not exist in most rural areas. Therefore, the only mode of transport available is a taxi. That is what we are forcing on some old-age pensioners; that is the situation that we are creating for them.

When we heard that the Westminster Government were looking at the introduction of automation and other services for post offices, many of us thought that that was the solution and the saviour. We thought that it might actually work; post offices in rural areas might get banking services. It is a good idea, but, if it means a reduction in the number of rural post offices, it must be resisted.

Gerry McHugh mentioned the trend in rural banks. My local branch of the First Trust Bank closed some months ago. I admit that it was robbed twice, which was the reason given for its closure. However, although Northern Ireland may experience a great deal of trouble — indeed, we debated law and order issues earlier — I contest that cities in, for example, Italy can put up with some of the worst levels of bank robbery. Public service is the victim again.

Automation is the goal. However, not simply automation of any kind — online banking is the aim. Computer access is essential to the receipt of online services. Where are we going with that?

Consignia has come in for some criticism in the Chamber, some of which may be justified. In the townland of Ballyward, the post office closed down, and I know the lengths to which Consignia went to find a replacement sub-postmaster. That is one of the aspects that we have been talking about — the area really needed the service. I appreciate the efforts that Consignia made.

More importantly, we should be advocating the use of those services to our communities. If the services are not used they will not survive. In some cases, more use could have been made of the rural post office in order to keep it viable. We should highlight to our communities that they will lose those services unless they use them.

One difficulty in speaking this late in the debate is that others have already dealt with most of the main issues at length. However, I shall emphasise the social side of post offices again. Society in Northern Ireland is unique — we like to meet as a community. In a rural area, the post office, like the primary school, is a linchpin for the community. The value of the service is incalculable. We should continue to highlight that aspect of post office services. I hope that, in doing so, we can make people realise what they are losing and thus prevent the closure of rural post offices.

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

The debate has provoked a great deal of interest, and I hope, an awareness of the changes in the way that postal services are being delivered. I hope that Members’ contributions will be taken seriously and will not be ignored by Consignia or by the Government. I am delighted that members of Consignia are present to listen to the debate, and I hope that they will return to the company and report on our genuine contributions.

Roy Beggs spoke of the vagueness of Consignia’s plans and the lack of information. He is absolutely correct. He also pointed out that the closure of post offices is speeding up and that that is a cause for increasing concern. Iris Robinson reminded us that closures, if and when they happen, will affect every town and village. She also called for information. Michelle Gildernew informed us that the National Federation of SubPostmasters will appear before the Committee for Social Development, and I welcome that. She mentioned that payments can still be made at the post office, but it is a known fact that the commission earned under the new payment method will be only a fraction of that earned under the current one.

David Ford pointed out that Consignia is being forced down a particular road as a result of a European Directive that is true. Jane Morrice called for the development and enhancement of services, and the need to ring-fence the future of rural post offices. However, once the Post Office comes under private ownership, it is difficult to see how Government pledges will hold. Annie Courtney told us of the plight of some post offices that have been raided. Jim Shannon spent some time speaking about the plight of postal workers. In recent times, we know the price that they have paid for providing the service. Gerry McHugh spoke about the acceleration of closures. He said that closures created pressure on people to open bank accounts, which introduces the matter of bank charges. Those in rural areas may need to get taxis in order to collect their money.

Éamonn ONeill spoke of the need to re-examine the value of public service. I could not agree more. We all agree with his suggestion that the public use the post offices whenever possible to ensure that we get the message across that post offices, especially sub-post offices, are a valuable part of the community.

Of course, the changes that were spoken about today cannot be stopped, but we can direct the transition in a way that will enhance the Post Office, rather than destroy it. We cannot ignore what is happening, nor can we allow it to create further equality in a world that is already far from perfect. There is every reason to directly assist the development of postal services, given that it is right and proper to target social need. That is the Government’s function, which they exercise for public transport and many other essential services.

The Government must be regularly reminded that there are steps beyond which they should not sell off public services to the private sector. If they do, they have ceased to govern, and there is real concern that the closure of sub-post offices will not end the run-down of postal services. There is genuine worry that the quality of service will continue to deteriorate, which will eventually lead to differential costs of mail delivery in rural areas. Therefore, if we are to protect the needs of the people that we represent, there is a fundamental need for hands-on monitoring of postal services. We are fortunate that we have our own Assembly, and we have every right to ask questions about the basic infrastructure that affects our constituents. The Minister was criticised for not being present, but I understand that his absence was unavoidable. However, we cannot leave it at that; we must pursue our concerns through action. There must be direct interaction between Consignia and various Assembly Departments, because it is only through partnership that we can hope to save our post offices in this period of uncertainty.

I remind Members that one of the first actions carried out in the Building was to open a post office for our convenience. Let us redouble our efforts to ensure that what we know to be good for ourselves continues to be available for others.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes proposals by Consignia to cut the number of post offices in Britain by half and calls for immediate action to protect the infrastructure of post offices in Northern Ireland, particularly those serving people in rural and disadvantaged urban areas.

Adjourned at 5.23 pm.