Northern Ireland Assembly, 7 October 2002

212 contributions from 50 members. The official report.

Royal Assent: Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Act 2002

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish to inform Members that the Health and Personal Social Services Bill has received Royal Assent. The Health and Personal Social Services Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 became law on 4 October 2002.

Events of 4 October 2002 in Parliament Buildings

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is clear that several Members wish to raise points of order, which is understandable, and I shall do my best to accommodate those requests. However, I caution Members and remind them that in criminal matters the sub judice rule applies strictly from the moment a person is charged until the verdict and sentence have been announced. Members must also be aware that as regards parliamentary privilege covering what they say in the Chamber, it applies to the law of defamation and not to other matters. It will not give them protection, for example, in matters of contempt of court, and I draw that to Members’ attention.

Several Members have indicated that they wish to make points of order and I will now try to take them. I will be unable to take them in the order that Members wish, but I shall do my best to accommodate them. I noticed Mr Conor Murphy’s hand first, then Ms Lewsley’s, Dr Paisley’s and Mr Foster’s. I shall take those points of order first, then continue.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will you confirm that your Office is investigating the breach of Parliament Buildings last Friday morning by armed police who did not have a warrant? In that investigation will you address the fact that members of my party were not informed by the police or Assembly staff that our offices were being searched, sealed off and raided?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I confirm to the House that I received notice of events taking place here, and briefed the Assembly Commission, whose members were with me at the Quebec National Assembly, as soon as was possible that morning. At the end of the briefing, we agreed that an emergency meeting of the Commission would be held today, after Question Time, when a report would be made.

I also made it my business to request a meeting with the Chief Constable, and that meeting was held at 3.00 pm on Saturday. The Chief Constable has subsequently corresponded with me, and that correspondence was received this morning. I expect further meetings to take place.

Those various matters are for the Speaker and the Assembly Commission to attend to, and we are doing so with all possible speed and, I hope, with conscientiousness.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I am trying to take the points of order in sequence.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did you have any prior knowledge that the police were coming here?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

As I said earlier, we must be careful about the question of sub judice. I understand that charges have been preferred, and obviously Friday’s events may bear some relation to that. Therefore, I will seek to be as open as I can with the House, but it is also my view that when there is a cliff one drives as far away from, not as close as possible to, the edge of it. I will, therefore, be careful with regard to matters of sub judice. I trust that the Member will understand if I do not give an answer on the Floor of the House.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, when you were absent, events took place at one of the Doors of the House. Two Members of the Assembly were seen on television hastening journalists and television cameras into disobeying the order that on entering the House, their machines should be checked. The Members were then seen escorting the media representatives upstairs to their room, without their cameras being checked. That is a breach of the security of the House. Anything could have been brought in inside those cameras.

The two Members, Mr Gerry Kelly and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, then made statements, which were clearly heard. It was clear that they were justifying what they had done in advocating a breach of the security of the House. If the security of the House can be breached in that way, nobody’s safety can be guaranteed or provided for. If we do not have security of entrance to the House, then we have no protection in our offices.

The other matter I wish to raise is that the House should have the opportunity to debate the matter. Everyone is debating it — in the streets, in homes and schools, and in places that people frequent. The House should be discussing this urgent business. Mr Speaker, have you called a meeting of the Business Committee for it to advise Members when it will let us have an immediate discussion and proper, open-ended debate on the matter within, of course, the sub judice rules that you mentioned?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

On the question of a breach of security and, indeed, breach of privilege that the Member referred to — an alleged breach of security and an alleged breach of privilege — I have asked for, and have received, some initial reports, which I am pursuing. I trust that it will not be out of order to say that I have received from Dr Paisley’s Colleague, Mr Peter Robinson, a specific letter in relation to the question of breach of privilege. I have met the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges to advise him that he may expect questions of privilege to be raised, and I will forward Mr Peter Robinson’s letter to him.

There are complex matters involved. Several bodies in the Assembly may have responsibilities with regard to this matter. The Assembly Commission is one, the Committee on Standards and Privileges is another, and the Speaker’s Office is another. Those are just three examples. I take the matter that the Member raises very seriously, and it is being pursued. His Colleague has done that in writing, which is entirely proper.

I have called a meeting of the Business Committee for 1.00 pm today, and a meeting of the Assembly Commission for after Question Time this afternoon, to address the various issues. It is for the Business Committee to decide precisely how it handles the requests before it.

I have noted that there has been debate and discussion about these matters in all sorts of places and in the press. I have also noted some of the comments reported in the press to be factually completely incorrect. Some of those were in relation to the House and its staff. It is important to have an early debate, but it is also important to have an informed debate on the Floor of the House — informed by proper law and procedure and by the proper facts. I know that that is what the Member and the House in general would want. There is a balance to be found between expressing the quite proper feelings of anxiety, concern, and indeed anger, which I sense in the Chamber and the community, and ensuring that, as is right and proper, it is tempered by proper process and by the facts, insofar as we are able to discern them at this stage.

Sam Foster (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In the light of recent serious developments, particularly the implications of the potential threat to Members of the House, and being aware that the First Minister will meet the Prime Minister tomorrow, I propose that the proceedings of the Assembly —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member will resume his seat. He knows perfectly well that what he is doing is not a point of order — it is entirely out of order, and I am not prepared to accept it. I shall say no more about that.

I will say that, when I met the Chief Constable on Saturday, I received an assurance that the security of the House had not been prejudiced, or rather, the most accurate way to put it is that there was no evidence that that was the case. I trust that that is of some small assistance to Members, in view of what the Member alleged earlier.

Cedric Wilson (NIUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, some two weeks ago, I brought to your attention my concerns about security in and around Parliament Buildings at Stormont. In light of that, Mr Speaker, and as an interim step while these matters are being considered and discussed, I ask you to approach the Police Service of Northern Ireland to ensure that it has a greater presence — or, indeed, a presence per se, because police officers are not presently in evidence — in the Building. Without any slur on the work of the doorkeepers and those responsible for internal security, given the grave situation that we face, I suggest that there should be a greater police presence.

The referral of this matter to the Business Committee and the Assembly Commission creates a dilemma, because Sinn Féin is represented on those bodies. That causes me grave concerns. Can I just say —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I think that I have been reasonably flexible with regard to points of order. I am assuming that the point of order that the Member raises is in respect of whether it is in order for him to ask for some review of security.

With regard to matters of security, the Assembly Commission has responsibility, but took an early decision to devolve that responsibility to me, as Speaker. I take that very seriously. I take seriously the concerns that the Member raised with me some time ago, and the question of proper security arrangements here. That has been a matter of ongoing and regular discussion, meetings and correspondence, and substantial and energetic activity by our staff internally. I take on board the concerns that the Member raises, but it would not be proper for me to discuss security on the Floor of the House. Indeed, that would be particularly inappropriate to the Member’s point of order if he considers what he has said.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Last Friday’s events were dramatic and significant. They could not be justified unless there was significant cause for the police to enter the Building. I do not believe that the police would have acted without that just cause. It seems to be imperative that there is a debate in the Assembly at the earliest possible moment to consider those issues. I assume that in the interrupted attempt by the Ulster Unionists to make a contribution, there is a willingness on their part to have a special recognition of the impact of those events felt in the Assembly. Therefore, I trust that they will support the Democratic Unionist Party in the Business Committee today.

Moving to the —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Is there a point of order?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I wrote to you, Mr Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders, which require a Member to indicate to you an intention to raise a breach of privilege and to give some indication of the nature of that breach.

On Friday, two Members encouraged — and indeed pushed through — several members of the press and media past a security check, without their being checked in person and the proper arrangements being made. They rushed them into a lift, took them through parts of the Building that are not specified for that purpose and engaged in activity that is not allowed to any other Member.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I must ask the Member to bring it to the point of order rather than recounting the detail of the substance.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I understood that in advancing a breach of privilege, I must convince you that there is a prima facie case to be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That is true, Mr Robinson, but there is no requirement for you to do so on the Floor of the House. I have accepted your correspondence, on what I regard as a very serious matter. I have met the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, and the matter will be pursued. If there is a further point of order, I am prepared to take it.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I am content if you are saying that the Committee will consider the matter. Your earlier comments implied that you had indicated to the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges that the issue would be raised. If you are saying that you are happy to refer the matter to the Committee, I am content to leave it there. That would be the appropriate place for it to be dealt with.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am happy to confirm that I will refer it. I cannot guarantee that the Committee will discuss it; that is a matter for the Committee itself. However, I can confirm that I will refer it.

The Member raised one or two other points. He referred to a point of order that I aborted earlier. The reason that I did so is that it is not in order to simply stand up on the Floor of the House and propose a motion, which is what was being attempted. That is not in order; nor is it in order — as the Member knows because he has on occasion tried it in the past — for an emergency debate to be proposed on the Floor of the House. What is possible is for the Business Committee to meet and to address the question of whether it is agreeable to business being taken. That is the purpose of the meeting today at 1.00 pm. What the Business Committee itself decides is another matter entirely.

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

Mr Speaker, you have rightly pointed out that there are concerns inside and outside the Chamber about all the events that occurred on Friday. It is certainly serious for anyone — any organisation or any party — who plays fast and loose with the Good Friday Agreement. That extends to more than one person and to more than one party in the Chamber.

Mr Speaker, in your capacity as Speaker of the House and in your particular responsibility for security in the House, you referred to conversations that you have had and correspondence that you have received from the Chief Constable. Would it be in order for you to share further with the Assembly the content of both those conversations and any letter or correspondence you received from the Chief Constable on events that occurred in the Building on Friday? If you are not now in a position to share that with the Assembly, when will you be able to share the content of the conversations and the correspondence?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

It is in order for the Member to put the point of order, but it would not be in order for me to divulge the contents of the conversations or the correspondence at this stage, not least because the matter is sub judice — as he, being a lawyer, will know — and also because there are certain conversations on matters of security which it is inappropriate to address in any case. There will be a meeting of the Commission this afternoon; I will, again, brief the Commission as fully as I am able. I have referred to an earlier briefing, and I will keep the Commission as informed as I possibly can.

It is not unlikely that at some stage, when issues of sub judice and so on are not around, it may well be that I will have to make reference to the implications of such events in my capacity as Speaker, as Chairperson of the Assembly Commission and as having responsibility as the Member describes. I trust that he will understand that I am being as open as I possibly can, but there are certain things that it is neither right nor proper for me to speak about on the Floor of the House, particularly at this time.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will you confirm that being a Member of the House, or working in Parliament Buildings, gives no one immunity from criminal investigation, and that such persons are subject to the law within the United Kingdom?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I confirm that that is the case, and all Members would be wise to understand that. I have, by my comments at the start of these points of order, tried to draw the attention of Members to some of those points of law from which they might be vulnerable in this context. What the Member said is, of course, absolutely the case. The next Member is Mr John Kelly, and then there are a series of other Members.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Since you are the first and final arbiter of what happens in the House, were you presented with a search warrant, or was a warrant proffered to you, on the morning of this search, and if not, why not? Did any member of your staff accompany those people who searched the Sinn Féin support offices on Friday morning? Was any member of your staff present when that happened?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I understand the Member’s questions and the import of them. I am not in a position to respond, because of the sub judice rule that I have already mentioned. The Member will not have to think very hard before he finds the connection between charges that have been preferred and the question of sub judice. It is not in anyone’s interests for interference in the proper due process to be embarked upon.

In respect of the second aspect of the Member’s question, he and his Colleagues will know that we have procedures when any search is taking place, either in this context or in other more prophylactic contexts. I am assured — because I have asked — that those proper procedures were followed by our staff. I cannot say further than that.

If the Member has concerns on that, or on any other score, I would welcome his bringing those directly to my attention. I did receive a formal complaint from one of his Colleagues on behalf of his party, and that matter is being taken very seriously. I have subsequently met the Member to advise of some of the actions I have taken in regard to that.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Further to that point of order, a Cheann Comhairle. Was a search warrant —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I fear that the Member has not been listening quite so acutely to what I have said as he normally does. There are matters that I cannot speak about because they have a bearing on proceedings.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

You have rightly referred to anger in and about the Chamber, and the integrity of the Chamber is in question, as is the case with the calling of a meeting of the Business Committee and of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. There is also the issue of the First Minister seeking a meeting with the Prime Minister. In the interests of good order, can I urge you, Mr Speaker, to suspend the business of the Chamber until those negotiations and meetings have taken place?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The question of a meeting that the First Minister, in any of his capacities, may have with the Prime Minister does not have a direct bearing on proceedings here. The Member knows that it is not within the power of the Speaker to simply suspend the proceedings. Standing Orders are clear on when suspensions may take place. It is not simply a matter for the Speaker to suspend proceedings of his own volition. What the Member asks as a point of order is not in order.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

Further to the point of order, I did say "in the interests of good order". That is within your remit.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I trust that the Member is not implying any threat to good order. Such an implication would itself bring down the sanction of the Chair.

Oliver Gibson (DUP, West Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note your careful handling of the situation this afternoon. Would it not be the greatest contribution that you and the Business Committee could make that an immediate motion for the removal of the gangsters of Sinn Féin/ IRA be debated immediately?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. First, it is not possible to have an immediate debate. That is clear. The Member’s Colleagues have explored that question substantially. Secondly, if there were any question of exclusion, there are clear Standing Orders requirements for an exclusion motion. Those relate to exclusion from ministerial office, not exclusion from the House. I trust that no one will mislead Colleagues or the public whom we serve by suggesting that the legal situation is otherwise. I trust that I have answered the Member’s point as fully as I can.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I hope that you agree with me that it is shameful that certain Members of the House would try to turn alleged criminality onto the police, at a time when the police have tried to defend the interests of democracy. Will you confirm that on Friday the DUP sought from your Office and the Business Committee a debate on Friday’s raid of the Sinn Féin offices in the Building and the wider implications? Was that relayed to you while you were on business in Canada? Did any other party contact you at that time to make a similar request? If they did not, does that not make the claims of other parties in the House, saying that there would be dire consequences for the process, sound very hollow indeed?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I received a request and I am not prepared to confirm or deny in respect of any other parties, save when they raise the question for themselves. I can confirm that I was apprised of a request for a meeting of the Business Committee. However, when I asked for the specific motion or point upon which the Business Committee were to be recalled, I did not receive it. That is why there was no earlier meeting of the Business Committee, because a specific request on the point, motion or otherwise was not received. What was received was effectively a request to set aside business that had already been agreed and set down on the Order Paper. As Speaker, I was not at liberty to do such a thing; nor, indeed, would the Business Committee have been at proper liberty simply to disregard procedure. However, the Member and his Colleagues met me this morning to make a specific request, which has been acceded to. There will be a meeting at 1.00 pm.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

In the light of Friday’s events, both here and elsewhere in the Province, have you instigated any review of security vetting procedures for officials of the Assembly, and if you have not already done that, would you consider it? Should that also be extended to cover staff employed on a temporary basis by parties here? Clearly there are grave implications if the least of the allegations made is proved to be correct.

In the light of the tremendous interest that there is in the country in relation to those issues, it is clearly the desire of some Members that we should not simply proceed in the normal way.

I therefore propose that Standing Orders be suspended, particularly Standing Order 10 and such other Standing Orders as are necessary, to allow forthwith a debate in relation to the issues which have come before us, particularly as it would make no sense to proceed with business as normal.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

With regard to the Member’s first question, I do not feel at liberty to discuss all that we are doing on the security side. I try to reassure the House that we are doing all that is appropriate, but one must handle things in a proper fashion, and that is what I am trying to do. I trust that Members will, for good reason, feel reassured as to how we are handling things.

I must remind the House of what I said earlier. Simply because one finds reports in newspapers does not mean that they are the truth. There are certainly a number of reports with a bearing on recent events that I know to be completely and factually incorrect — to my certain knowledge. I trust that that in itself is of some help to Colleagues.

Mr Dodds will know that even a proposal to suspend Standing Orders is a motion which must be presented in the Order Paper — and I think that he may have done so in the past, for various reasons, in his ministerial capacity. I hear what the Member says, but the order is that it must be on foot of a motion and, therefore, it is not possible at this stage.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Is it in order that Sinn Féin — which the dogs in the streets know is inextricably linked to a violent terrorist organisation, namely the Provisional IRA — should remain in ministerial office over the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland? The demand of the public is that action be taken now to remove Sinn Féin/IRA, and surely the Assembly has a duty to act.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member makes assumptions about duty, but there is also order. The Standing Order is quite clear. The Member may table an exclusion motion if he has sufficient support. If he checks the Standing Orders and he has sufficient support, he knows very well the route to my office, because he and his Colleagues take it from time to time. The provision for the presentation, and the requirements for the passage, of any such motion are present in Standing Orders. The Member is aware of it and has experience of doing it. It is all there. It is not a question of duty or anything else. It is there, and if the Member and his Colleagues wish to pick it up and run with it, they know the Standing Orders and the procedures that are there.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not a fact that you have received such a motion, signed by Members of the House? In fact, the DUP is just waiting for the other Members, namely the Ulster Unionists, to sign the exclusion motion.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The Member knows perfectly well that what I have received is not adequate under Standing Orders in terms of the amount of support required. If he can use his good offices and undoubted charm to encourage other Members to back him, so be it, but I cannot do anything further at this stage.

William McCrea (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Mr Speaker, which Standing Order states that the number of signatures is not adequate for the exclusion motion to be tabled?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member will resume his seat. He knows perfectly well which Standing Order it is.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Mr Speaker, perhaps you could confirm to the House whether the correspondence you obtained from the police was as a direct result of a request that you made to them for information regarding the events on Friday. If that has been the case, have you made a similar request to the leadership of IRA/Sinn Féin in the House as to their behaviour in the breach of security on Friday? Is it not odd that members of Sinn Féin are so concerned about proper search warrants when they do not seem to have any difficulty when their crowd break into Castlereagh and other places?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I trust that the Member has been as careful as I cautioned. I understand that many Members feel happy to sit in a judicial position, but it is not necessarily one that is backed by law.

Nigel Dodds (DUP, Belfast North)

Judge, jury and executioner across the way.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I had a meeting with the Chief Constable, and I think that Members would have deemed it irresponsible for me not to have sought such a meeting. The Chief Constable was most constructive in the conversations that we had. He then responded to me in writing as an interim to further conversations that we intend to have, and I trust that they will be held soon. No one should jump to conclusions about any of these matters.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm whether you have had similar contact with Sinn Féin about its behaviour and about alleged breaches of security, raised by my Colleagues, on Friday?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. Is the Member suggesting to me that he regards these as equal matters? I have the greatest of respect for all Members, but, on security matters, I do not put any of them in the same position as the Chief Constable of the police, who has particular responsibilities in these matters. As far as questions of privilege, and breaches of privilege by anyone in the House, are concerned, I have already advised the Member’s Colleagues that I am addressing that matter. That, therefore, is not a new point of order. However, if he really wants me to regard the Chief Constable in the same light, and with the same responsibilities, as others that he has mentioned, I am afraid that he is mistaken — I will not.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I will take this further point, and, if it is not a point of order, the Member may have some difficulty getting a further one at another stage. Does he wish to make a point of order?

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

I wish to pursue the matter further. Have you made any contact with the leadership of IRA/Sinn Féin regarding the breach of security at this place on Friday?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have already advised the Member that I was approached by Sinn Féin and have had discussions with Sinn Féin about the matter.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, Belfast East)

About the police?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am not prepared to say what I have had discussions about, but the Member should not assume that that is a "No".

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Under Standing Orders 61 and 63, the Keeper of the House is entitled to take action against intruders not only to the Assembly precincts but to the Building. What steps did the Keeper of the House take to prevent the intruders who were invited in by Minister de Brún and Gerry Kelly — who appeared to break every rule in the book — from entering the Building? What investigations followed?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I have been generous in my acceptance of points of order. This matter has already been addressed, and there are internal inconsistencies with what the Member raises. People are not intruders if Members have invited them in.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

According to the Standing Order —

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. The way in which visitors enter the Building may be a breach of privilege or order, but the Member’s Colleagues have already clearly raised that, and I have advised on this. I am very satisfied that they raised it properly. The Member may not think that they have done it well enough, but I think that the matter has been addressed fairly fully.

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to make it clear that until the House can have a debate, and a time is announced for it, my party will not deal with the regular business of the House.

John (UUP, Strangford)

Since a staff member of Sinn Féin in the Building is now the subject of prosecution, and since Sinn Féin also has an office in the national Parliament of the United Kingdom, would it be a matter of courtesy for you to officially advise the Speaker of the House of Commons of the circumstances that arose here on Friday?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I am astonished that the Member thinks it necessary for me to give advice from this place to the Speaker of the sovereign Parliament. However, it would also be unwise for me to make any remarks about a matter that is sub judice.

John (UUP, Strangford)

There is a danger — [Interruption].

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will you confirm that the business in the House this afternoon will be as printed on the Order Paper? Will you also confirm that all the Ministers will fulfil their ministerial responsibilities and present themselves to take questions at Question Time?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member knows me well, but I suspect that he overestimates my capacities in those regards. The House will follow the Order Paper as best it can. However, the idea that I can control anything other than the order of business, such as Members themselves, is what I, in my professional role, would call a wish fantasy. I trust that Members will act with decorum, but I cannot ensure the presence of any particular Member.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Will you clarify, or reflect upon, the response that you made to my Colleague Mr Paisley Jnr about your definition of an intruder? Your definition, as recorded in the Official Report, may have implications for the work of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. Surely, anyone who enters this Building without having made proper arrangements, whether invited by Members illegally or not, is an intruder and must be so considered.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I wish the matter were so simple.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is as simple as your response.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I remain with what I said: I wish the matter were so simple. Members should not forget that we are talking about pass-holders.

Norman Boyd (NIUP, South Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it the case that, under Standing Orders, the only way of excluding IRA/Sinn Féin from ministerial office is with the support of the SDLP, and that in reality the only way of removing IRA/Sinn Féin from the Government is for all Unionists to resign from the Executive and collapse this charade of government?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

The Member has described one way of addressing the matter. However, I would like to think about whether it is the only way. There are many creative politicians here and many different ways in which things can be achieved.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. One expression of the creative nature of the politicians here was the view that David Trimble would be saved by the storm troopers who were put in here on Friday. Will you confirm that you will ask the head of the storm troopers — the direct descendants of the B-Specials — if their weapons were put through the Assembly’s scanning equipment? Will you treat them as intruders?

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

Order. I listened with care to what the Member said. I would be cautious to confirm very much, given some of the references that he made, save to say that I take seriously the concerns which underlie what he said, and they form part of our exploration of matters. As I said, an initial report will be brought to the Assembly Commission. However, it will be only an initial report because there are legal and other complexities which require further investigation.

Being patient is not a problem for me, but, in all fairness, the Minister of Agriculture has been patiently waiting to make a statement to the House.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have taken a substantial number of points of order. If this were more important than the rest, it should have been taken as one of the earlier points. It is time for us to move on. If the Member wishes to bring the matter to my attention outside the House, I invite him to do so. We have had three quarters of an hour of points of order, and he has been on his feet on a number of occasions. [Interruption].

Order. I am not prepared to take the point of order at this juncture. The Member has had a number of opportunities to raise a point of order. If this point is more important than the rest, he got the order wrong.

North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council sectoral meeting on agriculture held on 27 September 2002 in Downpatrick. I ask Members leaving the Chamber to do so as quietly as they may.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Before I make my statement, I should like to say that I very much regret that the DUP has withdrawn, since the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development will not be present to fulfil his duties to the Assembly, his Committee and the agriculture industry.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

The seventh meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its agriculture sectoral format was held at the St Patrick Centre, Downpatrick on Friday 27 September 2002. I chaired the meeting and was accompanied by Mr James Leslie, junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who has also agreed the content of this statement. The Irish Government were represented by Mr Joe Walsh TD, Minister for Agriculture and Food, and Mr Éamon Ó Cuív TD, Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

The recent restructuring of Government Departments in the South meant that the majority of items discussed at the September meeting fell within Minister Walsh’s area of responsibility. Minister Ó Cuív’s Department has specific responsibility for the item relating to cross-border rural development.

The Council considered a paper on co-operation in the field of animal health and noted that it had previously agreed to the establishment of an animal health steering group and some working groups tasked with examining specific issues. In relation to those issues, the Council noted a paper stating the principal policy differences, the possibilities of convergence and the timetable for action to achieve such convergence. The Council endorsed the paper as a further contribution to the development of an all-island animal health strategy and acknowledged that further progress on aligning policies and measures was fundamental to the development of the strategy. The Council noted the indicative timetable for convergence and also agreed that officials should seek to finalise discussions with the authorities in Great Britain before final agreement of the strategy by the North/South Ministerial Council.

The Council also considered a progress report on the work of the steering committee on cross-border rural development. In April 2002 the Council endorsed the principle of an area-based approach to cross-border rural development, and at the September meeting it was agreed that the steering committee should initiate action to invite applications from partnerships for the selection of four or five geographically defined border areas under INTERREG. The Council noted that the steering committee would have to give further consideration to an appropriate response to the recommendations arising out of the cross-border education, training and research study. The Council was pleased to note that the Rural Community Network and Irish Rural Link have been successful in their application to deliver the cross-border community development measure of Peace. The total aid being provided amounts to 970,000 euros. The aim of the measure is to provide support for the development of a cross-border strategy to address the problems of weak community infrastructure and marginalisation in border communities.

The Council then considered a paper on plant health, pesticides, diagnostics and research co-operation and noted the continued level of cross-border activity in that sector since the last meeting and new developments with the pesticides monitoring and registration review. The Council also noted the proposal to organise reciprocal familiarisation visits, workshops, training and ring tests for diagnostic purposes as a means of improving cross-border scientific and technical co-operation in plant health, including forestry.

The Council agreed that Departments, North and South, should explore the establishment of a plant health risk assessment panel and approve the identification of lead figures in each jurisdiction to initiate and develop effective cross-border action.

The Council had an initial discussion of issues relating to EU matters and areas of co-operation within each sector that could be proposed for the future North/South Ministerial Council work programme. Those discussions arose from a commitment reached at the fourth plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which was held in Armagh on 28 June 2002.

The Council then considered salary increases for chief executive officers of North/South implementation bodies, and, subject to the approval of Finance Ministers, approved salaries and salary range increases for chief executive officers based in Northern Ireland, with effect from 1 April 2002. It was proposed that this year’s annual increase for all chief executive officers based in Northern Ireland should be based on Senior Northern Ireland Civil Service pay increases.

The Council also agreed that its next meeting would take place in the South, in December 2002. The text of a communiqué for issue after the meeting was agreed upon, and a copy has been placed in the Assembly Library.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Rural Community Network and Irish Rural Link will need the finance that is available. When will applications and schemes be assessed? When will there be real development in those rural areas of high unemployment?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

With regard to the Peace II programme, the Rural Community Network, in partnership with Irish Rural Link, was successful in its application to deliver the measure. Those organisations will establish the cross-border network, which is expected to be operational in December 2002 and January 2003. Applications will be accepted then.

Eugene McMenamin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

When will the cross-border community development measure of Peace II be operational?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I have answered that question in my answer to the previous one, which was about the same issue.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister for the progress of the important meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council.

I have particular interest in the convergence and harmonisation of animal health policies, of which there are many, on both sides of the border, so that there is an all-Ireland system. The steering group on animal health was to produce an animal health policy by 31 September. Is that still on course?

What was the pay increase for chief executive officers? What are their salaries now?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

It is hoped that the steering group will finalise the all-island animal health strategy by the end of the year. The differences between North and South are outlined in the matrix. There are differences of approach in dealing with brucellosis and tuberculosis. I will take account of the consultation on the review of brucellosis and tuberculosis and of the policy in the South.

Northern Ireland differs in its approach to sheep identification. I am considering bringing forward proposals on that issue later in the year.

In the South, measures are being introduced to mirror the action taken to control Aujeszky’s disease in Northern Ireland.

Salaries for chief executive officers differ from job to job and are a matter for the Department of Finance and Personnel.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

Further to Mr McHugh’s question, how soon does the Minister expect full co-ordination of brucellosis and TB health measures, North and South, given the major problems that they create for both farming economies?

With regard to the plant health risk assessment panel, has the Minister taken any note of the grave concerns in Northern Ireland about the introduction of genetically modified organisms, given that some testing is ongoing in the South? Will she do anything to ensure that Northern Ireland can maintain its current green image and remain GM-free?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

There is no question of introducing GM organisms into Northern Ireland. The Executive have not taken a position on that. I can only give my party’s position, which is very much opposed to the introduction of GM organisms into Northern Ireland. The Executive have not yet discussed the matter, but I do not imagine that there will be much enthusiasm for it.

To answer the Member’s first question, I hope that the final common strategy will be agreed by the end of this year. The working groups have been considering all the areas involved. Did the Member ask for any other details?

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

What is the timetable for action rather than strategy?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

My policy review on brucellosis and TB is currently out to consultation. There are points of difference between here and the Republic — the capping of compensation payments, for instance. Those are quite controversial issues. When I get the result of the consultation, I will consider it carefully and discuss it with the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Assembly before making a final decision. Given that disease does not recognise the border, I want to work towards having similar, converging policies, North and South. There are implications for both sides if there are different policies.

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

In view of the current political climate, would the collapse or suspension of the institutions have implications for the work in hand in the North/South Ministerial Council, especially on the negotiations preceding the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy (CAP)?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I would be extremely concerned if the institutions were to collapse, and the agriculture industry would have particular reason for concern. The Member asked about the mid-term review of the CAP. It is no secret that Northern Ireland and — I was going to say UK, but — English interests have very different priorities. The UK Minister will have different views, and a Minister appointed through direct rule to represent Northern Ireland will, of course, take the UK Minister’s line. To put it mildly, that would not be helpful to us in the run-up to those negotiations, especially considering the dynamic that has been introduced through the North/South Ministerial Council, whose agreed priorities have been endorsed by the Assembly and in the South. Again, those priorities are not similar to those expressed by the UK Minister.

A return to direct rule would rob Northern Ireland of the important opportunity to have its own voice in negotiations and to articulate the priorities for the industry here. That is not a political point; rather it is one that indicates the practical reality that the farming community will face.

Water Quality and Planning

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

I have received notice from the Minister of the Environment that he wishes to make a statement on water quality and planning.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am putting the following remarks on the public record for at least two reasons. First, the construction industry, potential householders and other sectors need clarity and certainty. Secondly, this is a matter of genuine and general public interest to elected representatives and their constituents.

Downpatrick provided an early example of an unfolding problem, and Members may recall the debate in the Assembly. At that time we sought, and achieved, a solution to the difficulties experienced in the Downpatrick area. As I did not want that situation to be constantly repeated across Northern Ireland, thus giving rise to continued uncertainty, I implemented the following approach to address the wider issues across Northern Ireland: to analyse the problem, thus providing a context for developing a solution and, in the meantime, holding applications recommended for refusal by the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS); to consider what we should do, how we should do it and to set a clear timetable for achieving an outcome; to provide a mechanism to evaluate and review progress regularly in striving to meet that timescale; and, having agreed the way forward, to inform the House and the public fully and promptly.

Members are well aware that Northern Ireland’s sewerage infrastructure falls well below modern standards. As the environmental regulator, I have worked with Mr Peter Robinson, because the operation of the sewerage system is the responsibility of the Department for Regional Development. The Department for Regional Development also has a clear duty through its Water Service to comply with EU and domestic water-quality standards.

Members are also aware that the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service has been holding — I emphasise not refusing — some applications in some areas as a result of concerns expressed by the Environment and Heritage Service about the environmental compliance and pollution implications of further development pending urgent consideration of the way forward by both my Department and the Department for Regional Development.

I take this opportunity to do two things. First, I would like to explain why it was necessary to hold some applications. Secondly, I would like to explain the agreed way forward. I have already referred to deficiencies in the sewerage infrastructure. It has been recognised that they are not the fault of this devolved Administration; rather they reflect the decades of underinvestment before the matters became a local responsibility. As environmental regulator, I am concerned about those deficiencies. Peter Robinson and the Department for Regional Development, as operators of the system, are also concerned.

The deficiencies exist within an increasingly stringent legal and environmental framework. In particular, the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive introduces increasingly demanding standards for sewage treatment and effluent discharges to our watercourses. Domestic environmental standards are also tougher. The Assembly will recall the Public Accounts Committee report on river pollution that called on my Department, and the Environment and Heritage Service in particular, to take a much more rigorous approach to environmental regulation, not least in respect of discharges from waste water treatment works. The law is now much less tolerant of pollution than it was before, and that trend is continuing.

To illustrate the point, I will use two important indicators that are monitored by the Environment and Heritage Service in its role as environmental regulator. First, compliance of sewage treatment works with EU standards fell from 53% in 2000 to 35% in 2001. Secondly, compliance with domestic standards fell from 81% in 2000 to 57% in 2001. That compares with 95% compliance in England and Wales for at least the past five years.

It is important to note that the situation reflects the increased stringency of the regulatory standards and not an overall deterioration in the system’s performance. This forms the background against which the Environment and Heritage Service and the Planning Service operate.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that my Department has a statutory duty to promote the conservation and cleanliness of Northern Ireland’s water resources and waterways. In that context, and in the light of the significant reduction in Water Service compliance with EU and domestic standards, the Environment and Heritage Service expressed concern about the implications of further development with regard to environmental compliance and pollution risks in 56 locations across Northern Ireland. The concerns identified by the Environment and Heritage Service were sufficiently serious to raise complex and far-reaching legal, environmental, operational and resource issues. Those issues touched on the functions of the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service as well as those of the Department of the Environment’s Environment and Heritage Service and Planning Service.

Initial legal advice emphasised the need for a precautionary approach, taking account of both European and domestic law, and for careful consideration of the issues. The Planning Service therefore decided to hold — again, I emphasise "hold" and not "refuse" — planning applications for developments that the Environment and Heritage Service had recommended for refusal pending detailed examination of the issues.

That examination has proved more complex and has taken longer than we wished. It has, undoubtedly, been a source of real difficulty and concern for the construction industry as well as for actual and potential householders. I have met with representatives of the industry several times, and the Quarry Producers Association, and have apprised them of our deliberations. I have kept the Executive and the Committee for the Environment fully apprised, and I have met several delegations regarding the issue.

Needless to say, the linked issues required the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development, Peter Robinson and myself to work closely together, as well as consideration by the Executive as a whole. The essence of that work has been a location-by-location examination of the compliance problems and the work needed to resolve them together with a comparison of the projects and priorities in the Water Service capital works programme. The aim was to determine whether the necessary improvement work is programmed and over what period. I am grateful to Peter Robinson and his staff for their efforts in undertaking the work.

I am glad that that co-operation has allowed us to develop a pragmatic approach, designed to balance the need for physical development with the need to protect the environment. It is important to emphasise that balance — or compromise, if you like — is at the heart of the issues I am reporting to the Assembly today. The approach that we, as Executive Ministers, have adopted reflects an acknowledgement that an absolute constraint on development in those areas with a significant degree of non-compliance with environmental standards until such time as the deficiencies in the sewerage infrastructure can be corrected would have a crippling effect on physical development across Northern Ireland. Such an approach, despite the high level of environmental protection it would have afforded, would have carried a high price in respect of constraints in economic growth and social progress.

I shall now turn to the agreed way forward and address four aspects of the issue. First, there are the environmental considerations. The joint Environment and Heritage Service/Water Service examination of the 56 locations identified 14 areas where the environmental impact is low. Remedial works in the current Water Service capital works programme should be completed within three years at five of those locations, and within five years at a further seven locations. No remedial works are planned for the remaining two areas. However, because of the low environmental impact, the Environment and Heritage Service will not object to the granting of planning permission. The Planning Service will complete the processing of the affected applications and will issue decisions. Where the decision is to approve the application, development may normally begin immediately.

In the remaining 42 locations, where the environmental impact is medium or high, remedial works are scheduled for completion within three years at 23 locations and within five years at a further 19 locations. In those cases, the Environment and Heritage Service will alert the Planning Service to the environmental issues, but will not object to the granting of planning permission. Moreover, in those cases the Planning Service will complete the processing of affected applications, issue decisions and, if approved, work may normally begin immediately. A complete list of the 56 locations, together with an environmental comment, will be available at the following web site: www.ehsni.gov.uk.

I emphasise that, in the context of development control, the Environment and Heritage Service provides advice; it does not direct the Planning Service. The Planning Service will, as it must, determine each planning application on its merits, taking into account all relevant factors, including the Environment and Heritage Service’s advice.

The result of that approach is that those planning applications that have been held on a precautionary basis pending an examination of the issues, and future planning applications in all 56 locations, will be processed to decision. Although I appreciate that that will be welcome news to the construction industry and more generally, I also acknowledge that it means that developments will continue to connect to the public sewer in areas where the current inadequacy of the sewage collection and treatment systems is having a high or medium environmental impact, and will continue to do so for some years, pending completion of the Water Service’s capital works programme.

As environmental regulator, that situation does not rest comfortably with me, nor does it, I am sure, with Members. The Executive have adopted that pragmatic approach to protect people’s jobs and livelihoods and to ensure that the objectives for economic growth and social progress outlined in the Programme for Government are not jeopardised.

In the first instance, our approach is based on the Water Service’s commitment to deliver the capital works programme as currently planned, subject to the completion of statutory processes. In considering future funding, the Executive have not agreed any increase in the capital budget for the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service. At my request, and to inform the Executive’s discussion, the Minister for Regional Development, Mr Peter Robinson, provided a paper outlining the additional resources that the Water Service would need to provide interim solutions at some locations in advance of the main schemes, to settle the advance plans’ start dates at other locations, and to undertake by traditional procurement some schemes currently comprising a public-private partnership/private finance initiative package. The Executive noted the paper and agreed to consider the way ahead in Water Service investment as part of the infrastructure strategy to be developed between now and the final Budget in December.

To assist their consideration, the Executive agreed to commission from Peter Robinson further details of the costs that he provided and his proposals for meeting them, including his plans for re-prioritisation and restructuring.

My officials in the Environment and Heritage Service will monitor progress carefully in the capital works programme and the continuing environmental impact of development, especially in the high-and medium-impact locations. They will work closely and at senior level with Water Service officials. My aim is to avoid any serious exacerbation of pollution in those areas. I therefore caution that, in the longer term, it may not be sustainable to continue to connect developments to non-compliant sewerage systems in which remedial works remain some way off. However, I will keep the situation under continuous review, considering the balance between environmental protection and facilitating development, and will do so in an open and transparent way, fully involving the Chamber and the industry.

Peter Robinson and I have agreed that developers should also introduce proposals to meet infrastructure deficiencies, and we will encourage them to do so. It is to be hoped that my statement provides certainty and clarity for the construction industry and actual, or potential, householders who have been affected by the problem. I am mindful that continuing to hold up planning applications could have drastic implications for house supply and house prices and could potentially destabilise the housing market, which is a vital element of the Northern Ireland economy.

Therefore, we have identified the source, level and nature of the environmental and legal risks, established a clear timetable to deal with funding issues, which is a vital element of the approach that I have outlined today, established clear monitoring and review mechanisms by way of a close and clear relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development, and sought to encourage opportunities for the construction industry to assist in the solution of those problems. I commend the statement to the Assembly.

Joan Carson (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the Minister’s statement, which is much needed. The Minister has made the best of an extremely bad job in trying to make some sense of the issue.

We must comply with the stringent — the Minister’s word — European legal environmental framework, which is enshrined in the EU Urban Waste Water Directive. Our almost-obsolete sewerage systems hold effluent that goes into the river system; that concerns me. Eutrophication of our rivers and lakes is a problem, and in the Lough Erne system we have not only our own system, but the problem of pollution coming from the Republic of Ireland. I ask the Minister to consider that, because it concerns me greatly. Water is abstracted from the Lough Erne system and goes into domestic water, so I hope that the Minister will consider all those standards.

I welcome the Minister’s report, and I look forward to its being implemented as soon as possible.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I thank the Member for saying that I am making the best of a bad job. However, it is the usual saying: you cannot control the hand of cards that you are dealt; it is how you play that hand.

Mrs Carson mentioned eutrophication and pollution from the Republic of Ireland. Under the EU Urban Waste Water Directive, we are considering river basins and how water should be standardised. Part of that process involves cross-border work, because at least one of the basins is transnational between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. All those issues will be dealt with in due course. There is no quick fix to the problem of river pollution.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, which everybody welcomes. The statement and the proposed action aim to create certainty and clarity. However, I am not certain that that will have been achieved as a result of the statement, because it is so dependent on getting a clear timetable for the Department for Regional Development to deal with the funding issues. Clarity and certainty are also dependent on the creation of monitoring and review mechanisms.

Will the Minister assure the Assembly that that timetable for funding can be reached fairly quickly to provide clarity and certainty for the public?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I thank Mr Alban Maginness for saying that everybody welcomes my statement. I am beginning to worry whether people from all sides welcome it, but I take the point.

As regards certainty and clarity, we all remember the debate about development in Downpatrick. I did some interviews then, and the word "widespread" was used. The question was asked about where the next development would take place. I said that we should put a hold on development and ascertain the depth of the planning problem. I am clarifying where the 56 problems are, their depth from an environmental perspective, and when there is likely to be a capital works programme to rectify those difficulties.

Mr Maginness said that he was unsure about the clarity of the matter. There are two financial elements. There is the capital works programme to which the Department for Regional Development agreed. It was on that basis alone that I gave the chronological listing of up to three years or up to five years. Having said that, the reinvestment and reform initiative and various other programmes are necessary, and the Executive have commissioned the Minister for Regional Development to introduce further information. I cannot answer that.

I have identified the problem from a planning point of view, brought it to the public domain and made everyone aware of the implications. I have no doubt that Members often hear about constituents’ housing concerns on this. I have given the issue a space for planning development to take place, and I look to the Department for Regional Development to bring forward that additional capital programme and to discuss and agree its funding in the Executive. That will bring the certainty and the clarity that are required. We all agree that sewerage infrastructure is behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom, never mind the rest of Europe.

Mary Nelis (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement; it is better late than never. Was he aware that sewerage infrastructure was well below standard and that the Department of the Environment was required to comply with the EC Directive in January 2001? If he was aware of that, why were planning restrictions introduced a year and a half later in May 2002?

Will the Minister give clarification on the Culmore sewage treatment works, which was given planning permission in 2001? Even if that proposal proceeds now, it will take three years to complete. The Water Service’s representative stated on television some weeks ago that the money was available to proceed with the Culmore sewage treatment works. However, the Minister, Mr Robinson, contradicted that some weeks later in the Assembly. Will the Minister say when the Culmore sewage treatment works proposal will proceed and what possible restrictions developers are likely to encounter as a result of the delay? Has the Minister discussed with his counterpart in the Department for Regional Development the alternative that developers will have to resort to, in the form of modern cesspits and packaged treatment plants, which will have a far more serious environmental impact than the current discharges to water, worrying though they may be.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The Member said that my statement was "better late than never". I stress that this is an extremely complex issue because of the geographical breadth and depth of the environmental risk that the Department is taking on these sewage treatment works. I maintain that it was worth stepping back to identify the magnitude of the problem. Unless or until we quantify the problem, we will not be able to identify the proper solution.

The Member said that the sewerage infrastructure is "well below standard" and that it was supposed to comply with the European standard in January 2001. She is correct. That was the date when the European Directive raised the bar and 200 extra sewage treatment works were brought into the reckoning. That led to a lowering compliance level, and only 35% of our sewage treatment works are now in compliance. However, consider the chronology: only when the figures were brought together in March 2002 did the proportion of non-compliance become apparent. Statistics for a specific year apply only after the year has run, at which time they are analysed. It is similar with balance sheets and public accounts; the balance sheet for the year ending 2001 would not be presented until, perhaps, March, April, May or June of the following year. There is a time lapse.

In March 2002, when the magnitude of non-compliance became known, which paralleled the debate in the Assembly about Downpatrick, action kicked in to identify the problem and find a solution and a way to monitor the situation, and we had to be clear about what we were doing.

I do not plan to get into a discussion about an individual sewage treatment works, and I hope the Member understands that in relation to her third point on Culmore sewage treatment works. That is why I made sure that the information is available on the Department’s web site. People can search for Culmore waste water treatment plant. It will be categorised as having a high, medium or low environmental impact. The web site will define simply each of those categories. If anyone wishes to ask me, I will explain them. The web site states when the capital works programme is meant to be completed, because only when the programme is complete will the risk of pollution be eliminated. There is clear information on the Culmore waste water treatment plant on the web site, because it was one of the 56 hot spots.

I hasten to add that there is a small complication. It has been said that there are infrastructure problems, and there are. Effluent may be entering a river, but, depending on the speed of the flow and the volume of the water, the dilution of the sewage may take place very quickly. Therefore, there may not be pollution.

As I said, the information is on the web site, but I will help the Member. I am told, and I thank those who told me, that the plant at Culmore will take up to three years to meet the standards. However, there is no significant impact on Lough Foyle at present. The problem is the sewerage system.

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

I have granted some licence with regard to the length of questions and answers because of the relatively small number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I welcome the co-operation at ministerial level on this issue. We all realise that that was absolutely essential. The Minister spoke about having to work with the hand that he was dealt. The Minister’s flush was facing a royal flush from European Directives.

The Minister referred to compliance with EU standards. What are the compliance levels in other European countries? I share Mr Alban Maginness’s concerns about the timetable of infrastructure improvement that will be needed. I trust that, to achieve the timetable, we will not consider short-term fixes that would cause problems beyond the five-year period. Does the statement take immediate effect?

The Minister also stated that it is important to understand that his Department has a statutory duty to promote the conservation and cleanliness of Northern Ireland’s water resources and waterways. We all understand that and support his Department’s efforts to achieve its aims.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will forgive me for speaking slightly at a tangent. Will the Minister make every effort to consult with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the agriculture industry with regard to future legislation on water cleanliness, particularly in relation to the disposal and spreading of slurry? Will he ensure that a practical approach is adopted that will not further disadvantage our agriculture sector? Furthermore, will he ensure that any decisions are based on sound scientific facts and figures, and that conclusions will also follow that pattern?

I understand, as I am sure the Minister does, that, with regard to pollution, there are concerns that nitrate levels are being studied, when there is a suggestion that phosphate levels should be studied.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you mentioned the length of questions and answers. This matter has been exercising people’s minds and, therefore, I wish to exorcise it from their minds.

Mr Hussey mentioned the statistics for other European countries. I do not have those to hand, but they will be supplied to Mr Hussey when I can obtain them. I share his concern, and I have placed that fact on the record. We want to get the matter right because of those concerns.

I cannot read the writing for the next answer, so I will move on.

Regarding the statement, it is having immediate effect.

Mr Hussey mentioned a third point. It is rare for me to be on my feet without being asked a question about agriculture. I share the Member’s concern. I wish to, and do, work co-operatively with the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the farming industry. He mentioned scientific fact. Policy should be based on evidence, not emotion. That applies to many issues, not just this one. I am conscious that he mentioned nitrates, phosphates and the causes of eutrophication. I am also conscious that John Gilliland, the president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, has made this point clearly to officials and to me. I will ensure that the decisions to be taken on slurry, sewage and the causes of the problems will be based on scientific evidence.

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

I also thank the Minister for his statement and compliment him on the high priority that he attaches to environmental issues. I want to introduce the issue of flags — not the controversial kind, but blue flags, which are critical to our tourism strategy. Given the restrictions on upgrading our sewerage system, will the Minister assure us that we can retain our blue flag beaches in the interests of tourism?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am conscious of the debate about a certain sewage treatment works discharging effluent into a certain part of the coastline in Mr Dallat’s constituency. Thus, I can understand the angle from which he comes. I wish to see the blue flag dimension maintained and enhanced here. We want to see our beaches protected and preserved, and that is all that I need to say at this juncture.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also welcome the Minister’s statement. In recognising the high price of constraints on economic growth and social progress, the Minister has agreed that the risk of pollution is not a comfortable one. Will he assure the House that any planning application will be adhered to, that the environmental risks will be considered and that no short cuts will be taken by the construction industry?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I am sorry; I missed a key part. Mr Murphy asked me to ensure what?

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

Perhaps you could clarify, Mr Murphy.

Mick Murphy (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will he ensure that no short cuts are taken by the construction industry?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I missed the words "no short cuts". I also thank Mr Murphy for his commendation. I am getting worried about this approval.

Mr Murphy pointed out an environmental aspect that we all recognise exists. I will ensure that no short cuts are taken. I have made it very clear that one of the four key elements is to monitor and review. It is no good identifying a problem or trying to find a solution unless there is monitoring to ensure that that solution is answering the problem, a normal and natural business practice.

We have also established a close relationship between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, akin to what happens in Britain where the environmental regulator and the Department work together. I am, or I represent, the environmental regulator, and I assure Mr Murphy that no short cuts will be tolerated in this context. We all recognise the difficulties, and we are all trying to move forward, mindful of the poor level of infrastructure we have for sewage works in Northern Ireland.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

In the Ministers press release this morning, he stated that this is a problem that he and his Department inherited due to underinvestment in former years. I note that he said that many planning applications are on hold. Is that because the sewage treatment works are not up to scratch and cannot cope? When will all the plants in rural areas be able to cope and be brought up to an acceptable standard?

Farmers in the Lough Neagh area have had difficulty getting onto their land due to the wet weather during the past year. Will steps be taken to lower the water level?

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

The sewage treatment works are performing as they have been. The proportion of non-compliance has been increased by the EU Directive raising the standard and the fact that some sewage treatment works were brought into the reckoning during our assessment. Some may not be up to standard. Sewage discharge can lead to pollution, depending on whether it dilutes quickly in the river.

However, there is a problem, and we have tried to identify it and to find a way forward. We have tried to make the problem and the solution known in the public domain. That will require careful monitoring. It is also an integral part of the process. The situation will be monitored, and those sewage treatment works that are not up to standard will be brought up to standard fairly quickly — the number of years is estimated. We wait to see what further capital provision comes through the various strategic investment initiatives that are planned over the coming weeks with the Department for Regional Development. I have given the lead from a planning point of view, and I look to the Department for Regional Development to play its part.

The water level in Lough Neagh is a matter for the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. I am conscious of the other aspect of pollution referred to by Mr Hussey.

Annie Courtney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

The construction industry, planners and developers have been waiting for this news for a long time. I also welcome the Minister’s response to Mr Hussey that it would take effect immediately. That will be good news for those who may be in the process of laying off workers, and it is good news for the construction industry as a whole.

Dermot Nesbitt (UUP, South Down)

I thank Mrs Courtney for her comments.

Employment Bill: Consideration Stage

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

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. There are five groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn, as indicated in my grouping list. I remind Members intending to speak that, during the debates on the five groups of amendments, they should address all the amendments in each particular group on which they wish to comment. Once the initial debate on each group is completed, any subsequent amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the question on each will be put without further debate. The questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate — amendment No 1, with which it will be convenient to debate amendment No 2.

Clause 4 (Statutory adoption pay)

Question proposed,

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

I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 21, line 32, after "Act" insert

"(except section 167 ZP(1) to (3))".

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: In clause 8, page 24, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert —

"(a) after sub-paragraph (f) (issues relating to entitlement to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay) there shall be inserted —

‘(fa) subject to and in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Department for Employment and Learning with the concurrence of the Board, to decide any issue arising as to, or in connection with, entitlement to statutory paternity pay or statutory adoption pay;’". — [Ms Hanna.]

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

Amendments No 1 and No 2 cover clause 4 and clause 8 respectively. I have tabled the amendments in order to clarify the Bill’s powers to make Regulations. Clause 4 inserts provisions on statutory adoption pay into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992. It provides my Department with the power to make Regulations on statutory adoption pay. However, statutory adoption pay may have effects on social security benefits such as incapacity benefit. Therefore, the Department for Social Development also needs powers to make Regulations in that area. Amendment No 1 confers that necessary power on the Department for Social Development.

Clause 8 inserts provisions about decisions and appeals on statutory paternity and adoption pay into the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. The Department for Social Development normally makes Regulations under that Order. However, it is right that the power to make Regulations about entitlement to statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay should be vested in my Department, which has the policy responsibility for those matters. Amendment No 2 confers that power on my Department. The amendments ensure that the Regulation-making powers in question are conferred on the appropriate Department. The amendments are purely technical in nature, and I seek the Assembly’s approval of them.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Both amendments are of a technical nature. They are necessary to provide enabling powers to the Department for Employment and Learning and the Department for Social Development. I urge the House to support them.

Amendment No 1 agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Decisions and appeals)

Amendment No 2 made

"(a) after sub-paragraph (f) (issues relating to entitlement to statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay) there shall be inserted —

‘(fa) subject to and in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph by the Department for Employment and Learning with the concurrence of the Board, to decide any issue arising as to, or in connection with, entitlement to statutory paternity pay or statutory adoption pay;’". — [Ms Hanna.]

Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 (Flexible working)

Question proposed,

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

Members should note that amendments No 3, No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 are interdependent. If amendment No 3 is not made, I shall not call the remaining amendments.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I beg to move amendment No 3: In page 28, line 14, after "child" insert "or disabled dependant".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 4: In page 28, line 24, after "child" insert "or disabled dependant". — [Ms McWilliams.]

No 5: In page 28, line 27, after "Article" insert

"which is made in respect of a child". — [Ms McWilliams.]

No 6: In page 28, line 29, leave out the words from "or" to the end. — [Ms McWilliams.]

No 7: In page 28, line 39, leave out from beginning to "child" in the second place it occurs and insert

"In this Article any reference to a disabled dependant is to a dependant". — [Ms McWilliams.]

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

Amendments No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 are consequential to amendment No 3. The lead amendment arises from our concern about parents with disabled children, and the eligibility of those disabled dependants beyond the age of 18 years.

The Employment Bill does not make it clear if the right to flexible working will be extended to parents with disabled children who are 18 years or older. There are 7,000 children under the age of 18 with disabilities in Northern Ireland. The statistics for those over 18 years were queried, but there may be approximately 14,000 adults with some kind of disability between the ages of 18 and 44. However, how many of their parents are working and would benefit from access to flexible working? In practice, some but not all might benefit from that. As the Bill stands, the parents of disabled children who depend on them beyond the age of 18 are not entitled to the provisions of the Bill.

Parents of disabled dependants have great needs, and extensive research has been carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has done admirable work over the years, on the role of carers. However, the research to which I refer is a study of parents with disabled children who are now adults. The study is called ‘Juggling Work and Care: the experiences of working carers of older adults’. As part of the study, the foundation interviewed 40 families who have tried to combine employment with caring for disabled adult children. They point out the difficulties that such parents have in sustaining secure but flexible work and how, as a consequence, many such families are trapped into poverty. Some had to give up work and were then dependent on benefits, but they do not want to be on benefits; they prefer to be out working to avoid feeling isolated and vulnerable, but they cannot reconcile the two. Now, for the first time, we have a Bill that is concerned with parental rights on flexible working, but it denies those rights to one of the most needy groups of all — the parents of disabled children who are over 18 years of age.

There was a widespread assumption about the mothers of disabled dependants being available for work at any time, if they were in work. As a consequence, that group was often afraid of being labelled "in need" and therefore needy. They did not want that to continue. They wanted to be able to speak about their special needs as parents of disabled dependants. When they were out of work they suffered excessive personal and financial hardship. If this Government can do anything about linking up pieces of legislation and preventing poverty — particularly the poverty of those with disabled children or disabled dependants — let them do it in the Employment Bill.

The foundation’s study concluded that if the Government were to give employees a right to ask for flexible working arrangements, it would greatly help the parents of disabled dependants, since employees would have a legal right to have that request considered seriously by employers.

The Committee for Employment and Learning asked an official if there was any forthcoming legislation to take on board the role of carers. I am talking about the parents of disabled dependants, not other carers, although I hope that some day the Assembly will have legislation to deal with carers’ responsibilities and rights in work. The official said that as far as he was aware no such legislation was being considered, so this amendment must be incorporated into the Employment Bill. If it is not, it will be lost.

The Committee for Employment and Learning took evidence from Ms McSorley from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, who said:

"The Commission certainly feels that the right should be made available in relation to disabled children while they remain dependent."

Likewise, Prof Barry Fitzpatrick of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland said:

"The reconciliation of working and family life makes for better workers. If people are not given this sort of leave it will affect how they work. A sensible leave system covering the purposes for which people want time off is better than them taking leave regardless of the rules."

I have no doubt that that was the purpose of the legislation in the first place, and, therefore, it addresses the needs of parents whose children are under the age of six and parents who have disabled children up to the age of 18. Those disabled children will remain, to all intents and purposes, children, as in the word "dependants" of their parents, beyond the age of 18. Ann Hope, from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, rightly said:

"The key issue should be the needs of the child and the parents and not an artificial age barrier."

Why is age 18 the cut-off point for disabled dependants? A departmental official responded to the Committee’s inquiry. He stated:

"I do not recall whether the Department used statistics or whether it simply came to a conclusion following the consultation and suggestions made in that about the age of disabled and non-disabled children whose parents should be entitled to flexible working hours."

Consensus emerged that the appropriate age was six for non-disabled children and 18 for disabled children. The next words are extremely important. He said:

"The decision was probably not made in a scientific way."

Given all the scientific and empirical evidence about the needs of parents who have disabled children over the age of 18 but with the same needs as children under the age of six, I urge the Minister to become more scientific and extend them that right in this legislation. What will happen to parents whose children have reached the age of 18 by the time that the Bill is passed? Given that it is going to be prospective, they may have exactly the same needs as they previously had. We must address those needs.

The Bill implicitly states that if the contractual rights were there before they reached the age of 18, they may still have those rights after the age of 18. What happens to those who can be regarded, to all intents and purposes, as dependants — who are entitled to disability living allowance, which is the eligibility criteria — but who will be denied that right?

Given that the evidence was rather unscientific, it may lead to cases of indirect discrimination. Equality legislation under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 proves that people with or without dependants are not discriminated against in that category. The Equality Commission tells us that there is currently much confusion about the role of carers, particularly women who have caring responsibilities. If we do not include this amendment, we will add to that confusion. For example, if I were working and had a child who was under 18, and someone were working with me whose child had just turned 18 and had become incapacitated as the result of an unfortunate sporting accident, those two parents would have entirely different rights, yet that person’s needs might be greater than mine.

With that mind, I am concerned that the Bill is unclear about what will happen to the group who are under the age of 18, after they become 18. However, it is equally important that Members should address the needs of those in poverty, particularly given that it is a priority in the Programme for Government, allow them the opportunity to work, give them flexible working rights and the same rights as those who have dependants under the age of 18.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

I thank Prof McWilliams for raising this issue, which was discussed at length in several Committee meetings. It is sufficiently important to merit being raised again today.

The Bill, as it stands, states that the right of parents to request flexible working should be limited to cases where the child is aged under six or, if the child is disabled, 18. In a desire to be as helpful as possible to parents of disabled children, the Committee considered the possibility of removing the age limit of 18. However, the majority of Committee members determined against that course of action. The Committee identified two main problems, which seem to be attached also to the amendments.

First, the use of the term "disabled dependant" in amendment No 4 will widen the measure to include all dependants, not simply offspring. That is an important distinction that will widen the provision, no matter what the original intention of the amendment was. If that amendment is accepted, it will significantly change the nature of the Bill.

Secondly, there is a concern about the compliance and budgetary cost of the measure. When taking evidence, the Committee detected a certain lack of precision on the part of the Department about how many parents of disabled children would benefit from the provisions as they stand. That, in turn, makes it difficult to estimate how a wider casting of the net might increase eligibility and cost. That said, on page 74 of the Committee’s report there are figures provided by Assembly Library and Research Services which include the number of people claiming disability living allowance plus attendance allowance, and which show that up to 211,000 people could be affected if we went for a form of words such as "disabled dependant".

If the Assembly is to go down that road, it will constitute a major policy change. It can be argued that that change should be considered, whatever its merits. It does have some merit, but such a change should be considered in its own right, rather than being introduced through amendments to the Bill.

Although I am bound to restate the view of the majority of Committee members on the subject, I appreciate that the amendments raise important policy issues. The position of carers other than parents must be considered, and I urge the Minister to do so, because it is part of the general theme of tackling the so-called work/life balance.

The Bill is concerned with granting the right to request flexible working. In the case of parents of disabled children, that right exists until the child reaches the age of 18. However, as Ms McWilliams pointed out, if flexible working is granted, there is a question about whether that right continues after the child reaches the age of 18. As I understand it, it would continue. However, given that that is a sufficiently important issue, it would be useful if the Minister would clarify the position of such cases.

In other words, once flexible working has been granted to a parent, does that continue once the disabled child has passed the age of 18? In previous discussions, a majority of the Committee came down against this group of amendments, although I concede that there was another view.

However, I should certainly like to hear the Minister’s views this afternoon regarding some of the issues raised by Ms McWilliams, particularly on two points. First, what does the Department propose regarding equitable treatment of carers in the round — other than simply those who care for children? Secondly, what happens once the right to flexible working has been granted but the child is no longer under the age limit specified in the Bill?

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the amendments. The issue was discussed at length on several occasions, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning has said, and we took a vote on it. Although the Chairperson kept talking about the majority of the Committee, that majority was of only one. Committee members were, by and large, very sympathetic to the view that a person who has a disabled child under 18 years of age and who is entitled to flexible working arrangements should be able to continue those hours after the child has turned 18.

We all know families with children who are over the age of 18 but who are still very much dependent on their parents. Those families have many problems to deal with. People come to me about matters as simple as lowered kerbs in the town centre so that they can get about adequately in a wheelchair. They come to me about the benefits system and the disabled living allowance for their children. They come to me about transport and educational arrangements. Often an entire family is disabled by the circumstances in which it finds itself with a disabled child.

If we are to do something good to benefit the wider community, we must be more imaginative and creative in bringing about legislation that will make a real difference to people’s lives. Extending the flexible working arrangements to families who have children over the age of 18 who are still dependent would make a huge difference.

The Committee has discussed the issue at length. I agree with much of what Monica McWilliams said on the issue and support her amendments. It is critically important that we try, in the limited time that we have left in this Assembly — and it might be even more limited today than it was last week — to pass legislation that will improve people’s lives. These amendments, if carried, will do that, and I support them. Go raibh míle maith agat.

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

I understand that, in proposing these amendments, the Member intends to give the parents of disabled children the statutory right to continue with flexible working arrangements when their child passes the age of 18. Secondly, she would like the right to flexible working for the parents of disabled children who are over 18 years of age when the parents request flexible working arrangements.

I fully support the Member’s sentiments. Indeed, I have worked for many years with the parents of disabled children. I share their concerns. After all, just because a disabled child turns 18 years of age does not mean that it is no longer dependent on its parents. Parents of disabled children still require the right to flexible working arrangements when their children become adults.

The Employment Bill confers on parents of disabled children the right to request flexible working arrangements, not just until children reach six years of age, but throughout the childhood of a disabled person. Although the request for flexible working hours must be made before a child with a disability reaches the age of 18, the flexible working arrangement does not end at that point.

I want to clarify what would happen in practice with regard to flexible working arrangements under the provisions of the Bill. When the parents of a child under the age of six, or of a disabled child under the age of 18, request flexible working arrangements, the employer and employee will enter into dialogue to explore how the request can be accommodated without there being a detrimental effect on the employer’s business. I am confident that the request can be facilitated in most cases and that a mutually suitable arrangement will be reflected in the permanent employment contract between employer and employee.

The permanent contract would continue indefinitely until an event occurs, such as the employee leaving, the employer ceasing to operate, a new contract being established or a contract being varied. A contract can only be varied, or a new contract entered into, after due consultation involving both parties. The contract would continue indefinitely. Therefore, a situation would arise in which employees who are parents of disabled persons over the age of 18 would continue with that flexible working arrangement.

I cannot agree with Ms McWilliams’s amendment. It would confer the right to request flexible working arrangements beyond the targeted beneficiaries of the Bill. I sincerely appreciate the fact that parents of disabled children over the age of 18 when the application is made for flexible working arrangements will miss out: that goes beyond the targeted beneficiaries of the Bill. However, the Department will review the legislation and if it is working successfully for employer and employee, the Department may extend its scope. I hope that the Member will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Monica McWilliams (NIWC, Belfast South)

I am pleased that it was clarified that much debate took place in the Committee and that the majority was only one. Had the Committee considered the issue at greater length, certain members might have been won over by some of the arguments. It is good to have the Minister’s clarification that the contractual arrangement could be varied for those who have the right and are beyond the age of 18.

However, I was taken by the Minister’s own words when she said that a disabled person’s dependency does not necessarily end at the age of 18. I am heartened that the Minister, having worked with the parents of disabled adults, understands their needs. I believe, therefore, that it is possible for the Assembly to work on the amendment. I am not referring to the wider interpretation that covers all carers of dependants. I agree that that may require further legislation. I am referring to the working parents of a disabled dependent child or adult who is beyond the age of 18. The Assembly must legislate for that group. Therefore, the amendment must stand. If it is passed, the Assembly can agree upon the legal wording that will accommodate that group.

Given the current political situation, it would not serve us well to leave it out of the legislation and to have to tell interested groups that we may return to it one day. The time is now, and it is a good time to include the amendment in the legislation.

Question put,

The Assembly divided:

Ayes

Eileen Bell, Seamus Close, David Ervine, David Ford, Michelle Gildernew, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Kieran McCarthy, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.

Noes

Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Esmond Birnie, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Joan Carson, Robert Coulter, Annie Courtney, Michael Coyle, John Dallat, Ivan Davis, Mark Durkan, Reg Empey, Seán Farren, Tommy Gallagher, John Gorman, Tom Hamilton, Carmel Hanna, Joe Hendron, Derek Hussey, Danny Kennedy, Lord Kilclooney, James Leslie, Patricia Lewsley, David McClarty, Alasdair McDonnell, Alan McFarland, Michael McGimpsey, Eddie McGrady, Eugene McMenamin, Éamonn ONeill, Ken Robinson, Bríd Rodgers, George Savage, David Trimble.

Question accordingly negatived.

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

As amendment No 3 has fallen, consequential amendments No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 shall not be called.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2

Question proposed,

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

I beg to move amendment No 9: In page 37, line 32, at end insert —

"The Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order1992 (NI 5)

In Article 84A(1) (claims and proceedings to which Agency arbitration scheme applies)—

(a) after ‘tribunal’ insert ‘under, or’;

(b) after ‘contravention of’ insert—

‘(za) Article 112G(1) or 112H(1)(b) of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (flexible working);’ and

(c) in sub-paragraph (a) for ‘the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996’ substitute ‘that Order’."

The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:

No 11: in page 39, line 7, at end insert —

"The Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (NI 18)

. In Article 20(1) (claims and proceedings to which provisions as to conciliation apply)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (c)—

(i) at the beginning insert ‘under, or’;

(ii) after head (vii) insert—

‘(viia) Article 112G(1) or 112H(1)(b) (flexible working);’ and

(b) in sub-paragraph (e) at the beginning insert ‘under, or’." — [Ms Hanna.]

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

Amendments No 9 and No 11 have the effect of enabling the Labour Relations Agency both to conciliate in disputes about flexible working and to extend its binding arbitration scheme to such disputes. A key principle behind the flexible working provisions is that of promoting dialogue. It is important to encourage employers and employees to find solutions that suit both. Conciliation and arbitration can help to achieve that. It is in everyone’s interests to ensure that disputes be settled to the satisfaction of the parties without recourse to the tribunal system. The flexible working provisions lend themselves well to conciliation and arbitration, which are well suited to resolving straightforward cases. Essentially, the issues to be resolved are factual rather than legal. The Labour Relations Agency has much expertise in the areas of conciliation and arbitration. The resource should be made available when disputes arise over flexible working. To that end, I have tabled the two technical amendments.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The Committee supports the principle of this group of amendments, whereby individuals can choose to use the Labour Relations Agency instead of industrial tribunals. I therefore urge support for them.

Amendment No 9 agreed to.

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

I beg to move amendment No 10: In page 39, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert

"in sub-paragraph (e) after ‘134’ insert ‘, 135C’."

This amendment will have the effect of exempting members of the armed forces from the Bill’s flexible working provisions.

As drafted, those provisions apply to all employees, and that, by and large, is how it should be. However, if national interest requires it, members of the armed forces are placed in the unusual position of being deployed at little or no notice. Those unique working conditions make it impractical to apply flexible working arrangements to service personnel.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence requested that I accept their proposed amendments, and for the reasons given, I decided to agree. The Ministry of Defence intends to explore how it can, nevertheless, comply with the spirit of the legislation, subject to overriding operational requirements.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

The Committee considered the proposed amendment and sought clarification from the Minister, whereby it was pointed out that the exemption would not apply to emergency services such as the Ambulance Service or the Fire Service. The Committee supports the amendment in principle.

Amendment No 10 agreed to.

Amendment No 11 made:

"The Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (NI 18)

. In Article 20(1) (claims and proceedings to which provisions as to conciliation apply)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (c)—

(i) at the beginning insert ‘under, or’;

(ii) after head (vii) insert—

‘(viia) Article 112G(1) or 112H(1)(b) (flexible working);’ and

(b) in sub-paragraph (e) at the beginning insert ‘under, or’." — [Ms Hanna.]

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

I beg to move amendment No 12: In page 39, line 7, at end insert —

"The Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (NI 9)

In Article 24 (1) (power to confer rights on individuals) at the end add—

‘(g) the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2002.’."

Amendment No 12 will enable my Department to extend the rights conferred by the Employment Bill to additional classes of workers. The Committee for Employment and Learning has expressed concern that the Bill’s provisions do not cover the relatively small group of workers not classed as employees. The right that the Bill confers applies to employees for several practical reasons, which have been accepted by the Committee.

I am sympathetic to the Committee’s interest in the rights and benefits afforded to workers. My Department recently issued two related consultation documents on employment status and working conditions for temporary and agency workers. I look forward to hearing views that may arise from the public consultations on individual employment rights, including those introduced by the Bill. The Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 gives the Department the power to extend the rights contained in some existing employment legislation. Some of the rights introduced by the Employment Bill will be covered by that power because they are inserted in existing legislation. Other rights are, however, only contained in the Bill, and to ensure that they can be extended, I tabled amendment No 12.

Esmond Birnie (UUP, Belfast South)

Amendment No 12 is especially significant in the context of the two consultation exercises that the Minister mentioned. As she rightly said, the Committee urges that this opportunity be used to consider whether "workers" could in some cases be given rights equal to those that apply to people who are defined as "employees". The Committee supports the amendment in principle.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Amendment No 12 agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Long title agreed to.

John (Speaker, Belfast East)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill: Consideration Stage

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments and will note that there is only one amendment for debate. That will be debated when we reached clause 5. The questions on whether clauses of a Bill stand part will be taken at appropriate points in the debate. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

No amendments have been tabled to clauses 1 to 4. Therefore, I propose by leave of the Assembly to group those clauses for the question on whether they stand part.

Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 (Compensation for existing businesses)

Question proposed,

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Before I move the amendment, I want to say that it is very regrettable that the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development Committee has absented himself from the House and is not here to respond to my amendment. I am moving the amendment in response to the Committee’s views, which I have taken seriously.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Will the Minister give way?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

It is regrettable that the Chairperson is putting his own party political stunts ahead of his duties to the Committee, the Assembly and to —

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make a comment against the Chairperson when she is not fully aware of the circumstances of his absence?

The Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee is meeting the Security Minister on important matters, including that of the Claudy bomb allegations.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Berry, for giving us details of the whereabouts of the Committee Chairperson. Minister, please continue.

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I beg to move the following amendment: In page 3, line 35, at end insert —

"(4) The scheme shall provide that payments shall not be made under the scheme in respect of a business which was first carried on after a date specified in the scheme".

The amendment relates to clause 5, which deals with compensation for existing businesses. Clause 5, subsection (3), provides that the Department may make a scheme to provide for compensation for those affected by the ban on fur farming and sets out what such a scheme shall include. In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development thought that it would be desirable if the Bill were to make express provision so that a compensation scheme would specify a deadline after which no payments would be made. I have accepted the Committee’s view on that and propose that the Bill be amended by the provision of a new subsection (4) to clause 5.

The amendment does not affect the substance of the Bill. It is a clarification of the terms to be included in any scheme that the Department may make.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr Savage.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given the reason why the Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development was unable to attend, will the Minister withdraw her remarks?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Member gave the reasons why the Chairperson was not available in the Chamber. The point of order you raise is not a point of order. There is no Standing Order referring to that. I call Mr Savage.

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Did the Minister not refer to the Chairperson carrying out stunts, and she knows perfectly well that that is not the case? Would she now have the good grace to withdraw the scurrilous remarks she made?

Brid Rodgers (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

In my view the reason is academic; as Chairperson of the Committee, he should be here to respond to the amendment.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

I move to — [Interruption].

Maurice Morrow (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the Chairperson was carrying out "stunts". She can twist and turn all she wants, but we are simply asking her to withdraw those remarks. He is not participating in stunts; he is at another meeting.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. That is not a point of order. It refers to remarks that were made. We will look at Hansard and come to a conclusion on that.

George Savage (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister and her Department for tabling the amendment. It is what Committee members wanted.

Gerry McHugh (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the amendment. Every member of the Committee agreed that it was necessary for animal welfare, and to ensure that no one could start a business anywhere in the North to get compensation after the Bill was enacted.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Long title agreed to.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Company Directors Disqualification Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

No amendments to the Bill have been tabled. The Further Consideration Stage of the Company Directors Disqualification Bill is, therefore, concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Children (Leaving Care) Bill: Final Stage

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Molaim go ritear an Bille Páistí (ag Fágáil Cúraim) anois. I beg to move

That the Children (Leaving Care) Bill (NIA 5/01) do now pass.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Children (Leaving Care) Bill (NIA 5/01) do now pass.

Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

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

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 22 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill (NIA 22/01).

The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety is examining the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill. It is a significant piece of legislation and runs to over 50 clauses. The Committee warmly welcomes the Bill, which contains important provisions to enhance the protection of children and vulnerable adults. The Bill breaks new ground, and it is important that the Committee be able to devote sufficient time to scrutiny of its provisions, and to discussion of the impact it will have on organisations working with children.

Related issues include whistle-blowing and the making of disqualification orders for persons deemed to be a risk to children. In order to be satisfied that the Bill can fully deliver on its intent and provide safeguards for vulnerable young adults, the Committee asks that the Committee Stage of the Bill be extended to Friday 22 November 2002.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 22 November 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill (NIA 22/01).

Agriculture (Amendment) Bill: First Stage

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I beg leave to lay before the Assembly a Bill (NIA 10/02) to include horses within the definition of agricultural animals; and for connected purposes.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does that include donkeys or just horses?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

That is not a point of order: that is information, which you had the opportunity, I assume, of seeking from the Member.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

The Bill will be put on the list of pending business until a date for its Second Stage has been determined.

Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002: Prayer of Annulment

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to move

That the Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 283/2002) be annulled.

Members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety had differing views on the motion: some were for and against it; some were for and against the Regulations. My Colleague, Iris Robinson, Committee members from the Ulster Unionist Party and I have made our concerns clear. The Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 were brought before the Committee in July, just before recess, and several members raised concerns at its motive, particularly at this time.

Concerns were raised about the equivalent experience and qualifications required, article 39 of the European Community Treaty, and the need to maintain the morale of firefighters. Concerns were raised by the Fire Brigades Union about the poor consultation on the Regulations put before the Committee. Some Committee members, including myself, asked if this was a political move by the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.

The Regulations provide for equivalent "experience" and "qualifications". Members are aware of the many tragic incidents that have taken place in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years and more. One thing that has held Northern Ireland together is the experience and dedication of our firefighters across the board — regardless of religion. We had, and still have, conscientious, eager and professional firefighters.

There are questions about the definition of equivalent "experience" and "qualifications": there is no clear definition in the Regulations. The legal teams of the world will tell us that it is not important to include a clear definition. However, the Fire Brigades Union, my Colleagues and I believe that this is important.

The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is throwing the responsibility for determining equivalent experience and qualifications to the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland selection panel. The Fire Authority has expressed several concerns about that — and I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will have noticed those in the press recently. The responsibility should not be left to the Fire Authority: there should be a clear definition of the equivalent experience and qualifications required in the Regulations.

Members may ask what the equivalent experience and qualifications are. We were told that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate would be able to provide guidance, but that will not be the case. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate will not be able to provide guidance to the panel as stated by the Department in its letter to the members of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The Fire Authority for Northern Ireland has been advised of this, and I would like that clarified today.

No other profession in the country would permit outside entry at its highest level. It is like asking a road engineer to become head of brain surgery at the Royal Victoria Hospital: it is complete nonsense. Northern Ireland must have someone who is able for the job. In Northern Ireland there are men and women from each side of the community who would be capable of doing the job.

Article 39 of the European Community Treaty brings in the issue of the Good Friday Agreement. The post of Chief Fire Officer was previously designated as a public service post, so why is that not the case now? It is a public service post in other brigades in the United Kingdom, including London. Departmental officials told the Committee that the situation in Northern Ireland had changed since the Good Friday Agreement, and that therefore this exception was no longer justified. That is a joke, because we have seen how the Belfast Agreement has delivered anarchy, not just over the past couple of days in the Building but throughout the community. Article 39 must remain for security reasons.

Over the six years since the signing of the agreement, the level of violence has increased dramatically. There are more bomb attacks than ever, blast bombs have been fired at firefighters, there are daily attacks on firefighters, there is regular terrorist targeting and training, there was the incident in Colombia with FARC, and there are many other issues.

The Chief Fire Officer must remain in close contact with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in talks on many sensitive security matters. It is a delicate post. It is a crime to throw away the article and open the gate to anyone outside the UK. A person from Northern Ireland would be best for the post, given the security problems and the trouble on the streets.

It is ironic that the Regulation has not been introduced anywhere else in the UK. Departmental officials told the Committee that other Departments in the UK are examining this, but that is all they are doing. This is a political move by the Sinn Féin/IRA Minister.

Firefighters’ morale is low as a result of attacks on them across the country. Career development and progression is greatly promoted in the Fire Service in Northern Ireland. Many male and female firefighters have worked through the ranks to senior positions, hoping that some day they will gain further promotion, but, if the Regulation is enacted, it will send out a message from the Department that no firefighters in Northern Ireland are capable of doing the job.

People have said that it does not stop anyone in Northern Ireland from applying for the position, but the fact that the Minister is trying to move the Regulation to open up the position of Chief Fire Officer to anyone outside the UK is a clear political sign. It is also a sign that she thinks no one in Northern Ireland is capable of filling the position.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

Does the Member appreciate that it is important to employ someone who is capable of interacting directly with the Chief Constable in this role? The Member has already identified that, but the Minister does not interact with the Chief Constable except for guldering at his officers on the steps of Stormont. It would be useful to have someone who could interact appropriately with the Chief Fire Officer, especially in the event of a strike. Vehicles have been set aside for the police to do the job if that happens. It is, therefore, essential to have the right people interacting with the police at the right time.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I wholeheartedly agree. The way the Minister shouted at members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland on Friday was a disgrace. The Health Minister’s attitude was despicable, and she showed her true colours in the way she acted against the forces of the law.

I agree wholeheartedly that the Chief Fire Officer of Northern Ireland must be able to deal directly with the Chief Constable. It is clear that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety does not take the opportunity to do that. Given the current possibility of a strike, we need someone who can interact closely with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding. Therefore, I fully understand Mr Paisley Jnr’s remarks.

Concern was raised by the Fire Brigades Union. When the issue came to the Committee’s attention, I spoke to representatives of the union, and I was astonished to learn that they knew nothing about the Regulation. Members might ask why the union needed to know about the Regulation. The bottom line is that the Fire Brigades Union, which represents 95% of all firefighters in Northern Ireland, has the right to know about any changes. The decent thing to do would be to let them know that the senior post of Chief Fire Officer was open for appointment.

When the Regulation and the Department’s two amendments appeared, I asked the officials whether the Fire Brigades Union had been consulted; it had not. It was consulted after the Regulation was drafted in the middle of July. However, its representatives first found out about the Regulation when I approached them. I find it grossly insulting that the Minister and her Department did not consult the union sooner rather than later.

We must ask whether the Regulation is a political move. I have no doubt that the smokescreen of the Minister, her Department and others will be to say that they have received legal advice, and that retaining the existing qualifications required for Chief Fire Officer could have legal implications. The Committee received weak legal advice. The advice, which was consistent with that given to the Department, was that

"the retention of the existing qualification requirements for the Chief fire officer probably cannot be justified, particularly in light of a relaxation of nationality requirements for public service posts".

This does not make it clear that retaining the existing qualifications would be illegal. The word "probably" cannot be justified. As far as I am concerned, the legal argument is flawed; it is a smokescreen raised by the Department and the Minister. The Minister’s ultimate goal is political. This is a political move against the UK Fire Service, but she is going through the back door. Other members of the Committee and I do not buy it.

The Department keeps telling us that it is examining it, and that other Departments are examining it. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom has this taken place; only in Northern Ireland. We must zoom in to see the real problem, which is that we have a Sinn Féin/IRA Minister in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety who is prepared to promote such issues for purely political reasons. She is prepared to forget about the morale of the firefighters and everything else in order to push this Regulation through for political reasons.

There are people in Northern Ireland and in the Northern Ireland Fire Service who are capable of filling that senior position, no matter what religion they are. We have had people capable of this position in the past, and if it were opened up again, we would have capable candidates today.

I am concerned that disciplinary action was taken against the two acting Chief Fire Officers.

Is it a move to discredit the two gentlemen already in post? I should like the Department to clarify that today, for it stinks right through the whole system. There could be political moves on the part of the Minister to push this through.

I trust that the whole House will back us, and our motion, today. I also hope that it has listened clearly to the Fire Brigades Union, which represents 95% of firefighters in Northern Ireland. If we say that we are ignoring their views and do not agree with them, their morale will be very much affected.

Many men and women have enjoyed career development and progression through the Northern Ireland Fire Service. Are they to be told that they might not have the opportunity because the Minister intends to open the floodgates and let anyone across the world apply for the position? In the Northern Ireland Fire Service we have men and women capable of taking on that position.

Today the Department must throw away the Regulations and forget about the flaws and the legalities of the whole thing; that is a smokescreen. The Minister and her Department must look to the Northern Ireland Fire Service for the position of Chief Fire Officer. We have the men and women who are capable of it.

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

Like Mr Berry, I have nothing but the most profound respect for all the firefighters in Northern Ireland. Having been on the front line in West Belfast all down the years, I have seen their courage and their actions.

I should like to take this opportunity to explain the Committee’s support for this Statutory Rule. As Mr Berry explained, the Committee’s decision was not unanimous; it was carried by a majority of six to two. Nonetheless, I am confident that the decision was well-informed, balanced and took full account of the issues raised.

The Committee’s duty was to scrutinise the Statutory Rule and establish whether it was sound regarding its intent. The Committee has delegated responsibility for its technical scrutiny to the Examiner of Statutory Rules, whose report I shall return to later. The aim of this Statutory Rule is to widen the pool of qualified potential applicants for the post of Chief Fire Officer for Northern Ireland beyond the United Kingdom in order to attract the strongest possible field of candidates. That is based — in my view, quite rightly — on the promotion of equality and is consistent with the freedom of movement of workers across the European Community. As the substantive post of Chief Fire Officer has been vacant for some time, it is important that this legislation be progressed as soon as possible.

In the light of concerns raised by the Fire Brigades Union, the Health Committee spent a considerable time considering the proposed legislation. It took evidence from departmental officials and representatives from the Fire Brigades Union. The union representatives voiced concern that the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland had not consulted it on the proposal.

Although the Department says that consultation took place, it appears that that was only when the proposal for the Statutory Rule had reached an advanced stage. That is regrettable and is not consistent with open and transparent government. I trust that lessons will be learnt. Had the Fire Brigades Union been consulted from the outset, the Department might have had more success in convincing its leadership of the merits of the proposed change and allayed fears about any possible dilution of qualification standards in respect of the post of Chief Fire Officer.

Turning to the Statutory Rule, I wish to deal first with the legal implications of retaining the existing qualification requirements for Chief Fire Officer. The Health Committee sought the advice of the Assembly’s legal services regarding the Regulation’s aims. The advice, which was consistent with that given to the Department, was that

"the retention of the existing qualification requirements for Chief Fire Officer probably cannot be justified, particularly in light of a relaxation of nationality requirements for public service posts."

The current Regulations could be seen as discriminating against those who are not UK nationals by unnecessarily reserving posts to that group.

The Treaty on European Union 1997 provides for the free movement of workers without discrimination on the grounds of nationality. While Governments may classify certain public services as exempt from the freedom of movement legislation due to their "state sensitive" nature, I understand that the Department does not consider such an exclusion to be justified with respect to the post of Chief Fire Officer. That took account of the fact that few of the equivalent posts in Great Britain have such an exemption. It also took account of the situation in Northern Ireland following the Good Friday Agreement. I am not aware of any counter legal arguments having been made in support of the existing arrangements. The Minister may wish to confirm that I have interpreted the Department’s views correctly on both of those matters.

In its evidence to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Fire Brigades Union underlined the importance of ensuring that the Chief Fire Officer has the ability and necessary training to do the job properly and effectively. Clearly, the Chief Fire Officer must command the respect of the entire firefighting force if there is not to be a serious loss of morale among members. To that end, I want to address the concerns raised by the Fire Brigades Union with regard to the proposed legislative changes.

The union voiced concern that the proposals would, in effect, introduce a two-tier system and undermine the existing arrangements whereby senior officers aspiring to the highest positions of command must have completed the highly respected brigade command course. As a consequence of those concerns, the Committee wrote to the Department to seek clarification on what was meant by extending eligibility for the post to potential candidates who "possess equivalent qualifications" to a person who had completed the brigade command course. The Department took account of the concerns raised, and it amended the draft Statutory Rule to include the requirement for non-UK nationals to have "experience" and "qualifications" that are equivalent to those that are already in place in the Northern Ireland Fire Service. The Department has advised that judgements on the equivalence of qualifications and experience would rest with the Fire Authority on the advice of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Fire Services.

Committee members had concerns that the word "equivalent", for the purposes of experience and qualifications, was not defined. I understand that the Department’s legal services have confirmed that it would not be advisable to prescribe in law the equivalence of qualifications and experience in respect of the requirements for the post, as that would result in the need for future sporadic amendments to the legislation. The Committee has no reason to doubt the integrity of the Fire Authority, relying on the professionalism and expertise of Her Majesty’s Inspector of Fire Services, to rigorously apply the new arrangements fairly. I believe that that will ensure that there is no dilution of the high standards that are currently required for the post of Chief Fire Officer.

I disagree with the argument made by some that the proposed legislation is, in some way, a slight on the capabilities of local senior fire officers. The high calibre of Northern Ireland’s fire officers is beyond dispute. Their selfless bravery and professionalism, which I referred to earlier, particularly in protecting lives and property during the 30 years of the troubles, is unquestionable. While the legislation serves to widen the pool of potential quality candidates, it does not in any way preclude any candidates from Northern Ireland or Great Britain from applying for, or being successful in, the competition. Of course, any unsuccessful candidate would have the facility to appeal to the Equality Commission if they felt that they had been unfairly treated. I am confident of the ability of local senior officers to demonstrate their qualification for the job in any such competition.

In his technical scrutiny of the Regulations, the Examiner of Statutory Rules made three comments. First, there was a breach of the 21-day rule, and the Department was remiss in not following established practice in laying Regulations. Secondly, it would have been more logical to insert regulation 4(1)(a) after regulation 4(2), and, thirdly, it would have been better to have expressly stated in the Regulations that it was for the Fire Authority to decide what experience and qualifications were equivalent to those set out in regulation 4(1)(a).

The Committee will consider the Examiner of Statutory Rules’ report at its next meeting. However, the examiner has confirmed that his comments are relatively minor points that do not invalidate the Regulations. He has brought his comments to the Department’s attention and has suggested that it may wish to bring forward an amendment in due course to tidy up the Regulations. The Committee will make its views known to the Minister on how this Statutory Rule has been handled. Although there are lessons to be learned for the future, they do not invalidate the rationale of the Regulations.

On behalf of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, I urge Members to support this progressive piece of legislation. It is consistent with the principle of freedom of movement for workers within the European Community and aims to ensure that the Northern Ireland Fire Service has the best possible pool of potential quality applicants for the post of Chief Fire Officer.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In proposing the motion, Assembly Member Berry talked about politicisation and mentioned the Minister and Sinn Féin/IRA, yet the entire thrust of his address was to politicise the Fire Service in this part of Ireland. The motion is not about the competence of the Fire Service. As other Members have said, no one has in any way attempted to criticise, diminish or belittle the Fire Service; neither is the amendment an attempt to prevent internal promotions within the North of Ireland Fire Service.

The amendment does not propose that no one from within the North of Ireland Fire Service can become Chief Fire Officer. It is about equality of opportunity. As Joe Hendron said, it is about casting the net wider so that those from America, Germany, France, Italy or the other part of Ireland can apply for that job. All the amendment does is extend that notion of equality. It does not in any way disbar, disallow or prevent promotion from within the North of Ireland Fire Service.

Earlier today we were discussing leaked information, yet Mr Berry has been leaking information from the Health Service to the Fire Brigade unbeknownst to any member of the Health Committee. Consistently — [Interruption].

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is cheap that the Member is talking about leaked documents, given what happened on Friday. Let him provide the evidence. He made an allegation, and I want him to withdraw it.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member said it in his speech. Apart from anything else — [Interruption].

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I said that I had raised this issue with the Fire Brigades Union in July — not in September or October, but in July. It was legitimate of me to raise the issue. It was during consultation. As a Health Committee member, I asked members of the Fire Brigades Union whether they were aware of the Regulations, which they were not. Where is the crime in that? Does the Member not want the Fire Brigades Union to be consulted?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Thank you for that clarification. I assume that the matter has been clarified for Mr Kelly.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Clarification will wait for another day. We can only go on what we hear and what we are told.

We have spoken to firemen about what they are about. We have explained to the Fire Brigades Union the content, impact and import of the amendment. The entire objective of the motion seems to be to prohibit and confine; to create a closed shop in the North of Ireland Fire Service where no one outside the North of Ireland Fire Service ought to be promoted to Chief Fire Officer. That cannot be right — there is no openness, transparency or accountability in any sense of the word.

In opposing the motion, the Department is clear in its use of words. The amendment allows a person to apply if he or she

"has acquired experience and qualification equivalent"

to the original requirements. That fits in with what the Fire Service has said. There may be merit in ensuring that the Regulations to ensure such equivalence are comprehensive and robust. However, there is nothing in the wording of the amendment that could be objected to by anyone concerned with equality of opportunity and ensuring that the best person for the job gets the job, irrespective of where he comes from. I oppose the motion.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I support Mr Berry’s prayer of annulment. I agree with him, even if only in this matter. Can Members listen to what I have to say before they comment? We have recently spoken in the House about attacks on firemen and women by mindless thugs on our streets. Most of us have supported the firefighters’ battle to achieve a new wage structure to replace the existing 25-year-old one. The firefighters regard the proposed appointment and promotion Regulations as yet another attack on them. Those Regulations are not being considered for the other 57 of the 58 fire brigades in the United Kingdom. The existing Regulations are currently protected by the Treaty of Rome. However, it is argued that they must be altered here to achieve equality in accordance with the so-called needs of Northern Ireland. Such a change is not necessary at this stage and would also be extremely dangerous because it would open up senior positions to people in the European community who might not necessarily have the practical experience and who may have some communication shortcomings. In the heat of an emergency, a split-second delay could prove fatal. I hope that people understand my practical concerns.

In one area of the Republic, under Regulations similar to those proposed, a chief fire officer who had absolutely no background in or experience of actual firefighting was recently appointed. Add possible communication problems to that and there could be trouble.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Does the Member agree that the appointment of a chief fire officer in the other part of Ireland was conducted in conformity with the Regulations that apply there and that the Regulations that apply here would prohibit someone who did not have the equivalent qualification — in other words, the training that is required in the Fire Brigade in Britain or elsewhere?

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

I am not exactly sure what the Member means. I am sure that the person who was recruited in the South was recruited under the South’s Regulations. This is a matter of United Kingdom Regulations and the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade, which is still part of the United Kingdom, whether we like it or not. Firefighters in Northern Ireland regard the proposal as an insult because they think they are being treated differently from other firefighters in the UK. They fear that it would de-professionalise their service and open it up to non-experienced personnel, thus placing them at even greater risk than they already are.

As I said, I am making practical comments at this stage. No one in this Chamber can be in any doubt that I and my party have always supported the equality legislation.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

Our support is not selective. We support equality legislation. However, because something is, in general, desirable and right, it does not mean that every application of it has been desirable or right. We have complained about the process of the equality legislation — there have been many delays. All of a sudden, however, this idea turns up. It should be considered, but only on a UK-wide basis. At this stage no change should be made that would be to the detriment of any firefighter.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

What changes should be made?

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Eileen Bell (Alliance, North Down)

The proposed change is not for good, practical reasons. Such changes should only be made when the equality legislation for the whole of the UK is examined. That should be the case until Northern Ireland is put into the South. I support the motion.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Given the number of Members who wish to speak in the debate and the time that we have made available, I ask the remaining Members to limit their contributions to five minutes.

Iris Robinson (DUP, Strangford)

I support the prayer of annulment motion brought by my Colleague on the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Mr Berry. The position of Chief Fire Officer in Northern Ireland is a crucial post and, as some Members intimated earlier, the person in post must interact with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding.

Morale among our firefighters is very low, following their high-profile campaign for better pay and a greater recognition of their role in society. Meanwhile, frequent mindless attacks on them continue across the Province. Firefighters take their lead from their superiors, so it is important that those who represent them, the face of firefighters, have their utmost respect and support. As the Fire Brigades Union representatives informed the Committee, firefighters may live or die on vital command and control decisions taken by senior officers.

I oppose discrimination, wherever it is found and from whatever source it emanates. The person most suitable — the best-trained, the most qualified and the one most likely to do the job best — should always get the job. That is why I so deplore the discrimination that exists in policing. Young men and women can fail to become police officers, even though they know that they were better candidates than others who were chosen. That often means rejection from a career that the unsuccessful applicant has always had an ambition to pursue, perhaps even following in the footsteps of other family members.

I do not want to see discrimination in the Fire Service. I want the Chief Fire Officer to be the best person for the job. For that to be the case, he or she will require an intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland. As a result of our tragic history, heading an organisation such as the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade requires a familiarity with the Province’s geography and the cultural issues whose significance remains throughout our society. It is not as if we have a limited pool of potential candidates from whom to choose. Under current legislation, our Chief Fire Officer could be appointed from officers throughout the 59 UK fire brigades who have completed the brigade command course at Fire Service college. Does it not seem peculiar that the Sinn Féin Minister now wishes to change the legislation to allow for applications from outside the United Kingdom? It has been claimed that to maintain the current legislation would be unlawful. However, other legal advice rubbishes that supposition.

Why are the other 58 fire brigades in Great Britain not seeking amendments to their legislation? Is it any wonder that firefighters’ leaders fear that it is not about ability or equality of opportunity, but purely a political decision by a Minister pursuing an all-Ireland agenda.

The Fire Brigades Union also fears that political factors were behind the recent controversies surrounding the Fire Authority. Is it just coincidence that the only two Northern Ireland Fire Brigade officers who are in a position to apply for the Chief Fire Officer post have recently been made subject to disciplinary investigations?

In the Irish Republic, a two-tier entry system means that senior officers can possess little experience in command and control issues for large-scale incidents such as bomb scenes. For example, the chief fire officer in Wexford graduated in civil engineering in 1998 and worked as a building control officer for a consultancy firm until she was appointed assistant chief fire officer for Mayo.

Firefighters in Northern Ireland support the integrated personal development system promoted in the UK Fire Service, and, especially now, when pay and conditions are under discussion, it would be ridiculous for firefighters to do anything that might weaken their links with colleagues in Great Britain. As such, the appointment of a chief officer from outside the UK would run counter to the integrated personal development system. Firefighters wish to pursue that pathway of career progression and development, not to introduce a two-tier system. I support the motion.

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

I am quite sure that the prayer of annulment was not inspired in heaven; it is more likely that it was enunciated in less hallowed places, among people who have a vested interest in ensuring the retention of restrictive work practices. Why else would anyone want to limit the potential pool of applicants for the post of Chief Fire Officer? I cannot think of another reason.

I am sure that Mr Berry will reassure the House that his intervention has not been influenced by anyone in the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade who may be a potential applicant to the vacant post. I raise that issue, not as an allegation of impropriety, but to enable Mr Berry to go on the record with a crystal clear assurance that he has had no contact with anyone who may benefit from the annulment of the Regulations, which enable — [Interruption].

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Member for giving way. I can say honestly in the House that no one, including the acting Chief Fire Officers, has consulted me about the issue. I have had discussions about the positions with the Fire Brigades Union but, I stress, never with an acting Chief Fire Officer.

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

I raised the issue to give Mr Berry the opportunity to go on record and state that he has not been influenced in any way and because I know that, in the past, he has tabled leading questions relating to the Fire Service, which I felt at the time were inspired by personal contact. However, I have no proof.

There are serious issues relating to the future development and reform of the Fire Service, and, although there has been a tendency to put all the blame on the beleaguered Fire Authority, there are real concerns about the ability of some people in the Fire Brigade’s management team. I say that because many of the recommendations made by the Public Accounts Committee have not been implemented and, in some cases, have been obstructed.

In such circumstances, I suggest that a new broom is needed to clean out everything that is wrong in the Fire Service. However, in saying that, I do not take away from the sterling work of firefighters in the past 30 years. I do not want anyone to confuse the two issues.

To reimpose restrictive practices would not be in the interest of genuine reform, but would be construed as either politically motivated to prevent applications from the Republic or a clumsy attempt to enhance the prospects of existing personnel. Of course, such practice is contrary to the ethos of the EU, of which we are a member.

I shall conclude, because I know that you are anxious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that speeches be short. Do we potentially tell a firefighter or a fire chief who served in New York on 11 September and who wanted to apply for a job in the North that they are unqualified? I should think not. Mr Berry, in his single transferable speech, told the House that his little prayer was not inspired by the angels but by other factors. However, those factors have nothing to do with improving the Fire Service and more to do with retaining the closed shop.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the motion that my Colleague Mr Berry moved and that was ably spoken to by another Colleague, Mrs Robinson.

I must put on record my concern about the Minister’s decision to consider this matter. In common with many others, I have no doubt that that decision is purely politically motivated. Members have said that they wish to ensure that there is equal opportunity of employment. That is true; however, if we follow the procedures and changes that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has proposed, that equality will not follow. For example, an officer in the Irish Army who transfers into the Irish Fire Service, and who may be insufficiently qualified to hold that position, can then apply for a position in the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade. That is wrong; in order to obtain a post in Northern Ireland people here must be qualified, have abilities, have passed exams and have done all that is necessary. For someone down there to get in through the back door is unfair and must be opposed.

The issue has been discussed in many councils, and my own, Ards Borough Council, has put on record its opposition to the proposed changes. Many other councils have done likewise, and, as a result, the momentum against the proposals has grown across the Province.

The Minister’s proposals discriminate directly against those in Northern Ireland who wish to become Chief Fire Officer. As long as that continues, she and her Department stand condemned over fair play and fair employment. It is only fair that the same rules apply to everyone who must go through our selection procedure.

The changes also attack the firefighters’ morale. My Colleagues have mentioned that attack on their morale. It is clear that many firefighters feel let down and undermined and that the proposed change in legislation tramples on their motivation and role.

If this were happening in any other sphere of employment, cries about fair play, fair employment and discrimination would be heard from unions and elected representatives. Yet that is what we face in this instance. It is ridiculous that the Minister will be allowed to make changes and manipulate employment guidelines to suit a political agenda. Let us look at the issue and give the job to the best candidate. Let us ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to apply for that job, and let us not allow the Minister and her Department to ride roughshod over the feelings of Members, those in the Fire Brigades Union and all those who wish to apply for the job but who are unable to do so.

I support my Colleague’s motion, and I ask Members to support him. We cannot allow manipulation to occur for political motivations in the Chamber. It is political engineering, which is unacceptable and cannot be supported.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis an Uasal Berry as an rún seo a thabhairt os comhair an Tionóil. Tá sé tábhachtach go dtabharfaí faoi na ceisteanna a ardaíonn an rún seo agus go dtuigeann Comhaltaí an fáth ar leagadh síos an Rialachán leasaithe agus na himpleachtaí a ghabhann leis ó thaobh comhionannais agus dlí de.

I dtús báire, bhí an leasú seo riachtanach lena chinntiú go mbeidh gach ceapachán feasta cothrom agus cóir faoi reachtaíocht an Aontais Eorpaigh. Cinnteoidh an leasú fosta go mbeimid in ann na hiarratasóirí is fearr a fháil do phost an Phríomhoifigh Dóiteáin tríd an phost a oscailt don réimse is leithne iarratasóirí san Eoraip agus níos faide ó bhaile. Tríd sin a dhéanamh, cinntíonn an leasú fosta go gcoimeádfar an t-ardchaighdeán taithí agus cáilíochtaí atá riachtanach don phost.

D’fhéach an dréachtleasú a chuir mé faoi chomhairliúchán i mí Iúil leis sin a bhaint amach trí éileamh ar iarratasóirí cáilíochtaí a bheith acu atá inchurtha leo sin atá riachtanach don phost faoi láthair. Mar fhreagra ar na hábhair imní a léirigh Ceardchumann na mBriogáidí Dóiteáin, áfach, éilíonn an leasú go mbeadh taithí fosta ag iarratasóirí ar dhóiteáin a smachtú sular féidir glacadh leo i gcomhair agallaimh.

I thank Mr Berry for bringing the motion to the Assembly. It is important that the issues raised be addressed and that Members understand why the amending Regulations were laid, along with its implications for equality and legality. Regardless of the fact that I hold a different opinion, it is important to have the opportunity to debate the matter.

First, the Regulations is necessary to ensure that any appointment made is fair and equitable under EU legislation. The Regulations will also ensure that we can attract the best possible candidates for the position of Chief Fire Officer by opening up the post to a wide range of applicants in Europe and further afield. The Regulations will also ensure that the high standard of experience and qualifications required for the post are maintained. The draft Regulations, which I circulated for consultation in July, sought to achieve that by calling for candidates to have qualifications equivalent to those currently required.

In response to concerns expressed by the Fire Brigades Union, however, the Regulations now before the Assembly also requires candidates to have equivalent firefighting experience before they can be accepted for interview. Therefore the Regulations include a new clause that allows candidates from anywhere in the world, with equivalent qualifications and experience, to apply.

It is important to note the nature of equivalence. The word "equivalent" means equal in value; having the same meaning or result; tantamount to or corresponding. Any applicant who does not have the necessary experience and qualifications will not be called to interview. Critics of the clause continue to claim that it will, somehow, dilute the stringent standards that exist. How can that be the case, if candidates are expected to have the same qualifications and fire service experience? To suggest that an engineer or a building inspector without these qualifications and senior level firefighting experience could be appointed as a result of the legislation is simply nonsense. They would not even be interviewed.

The example of the appointment of a female Chief Fire Officer in Wexford is quoted again and again and was mentioned in the House today. It is used so often to argue against the Regulations that it must call into question the critics’ other arguments against the Regulations. Is it concern over standards that motivates them, or is it fear that a woman could apply, and be accepted for, such a post?

It is important for Members to understand that the Regulations does not affect, in any way, applications from serving members in brigades in GB or here, provided they have the appropriate qualifications and experience. All it does is extend the field to other suitable candidates in exactly the same way as the field is extended for all the other important jobs Members may see advertised in newspapers.

Apart from the sensible and practical reasons for endorsing the Regulations, there are also compelling reasons to do with equality. Under European legislation, Governments are required to facilitate the free movement of workers in the European Union. That means that the existing legislation discriminates against qualified candidates from the rest of Europe and elsewhere. Such indirect discrimination leaves the appointment process open to legal challenge. I have been advised that any such challenges would be successful. It has been mistakenly reported that the post of Chief Fire Officer is automatically exempted from the requirement to be open to other EU citizens. This is not the case. Such an exemption cannot be justified here. It is worth noting that it does not apply to the post of Chief Constable of the PSNI. The Chief Fire Officer’s post, under article 39(4) of the EEC Treaty, was previously designated as a public service post, which meant that non-UK nationals were prevented from applying for it. On the basis of legal advice, the Department no longer considers that the post justifies a public service exemption.

Few fire brigades in GB attract this exemption, and the situation here, following the Good Friday Agreement, does not justify the exemption. Unless it was held that there were good reasons for not allowing European nationals from outside GB and here to apply for public posts, this public service exemption, which blocks such nationals from applying, could be judged by the courts to amount to discrimination.

In answer to Paul Berry’s argument that the person holding this post will need to interact with the Chief Constable of the PSNI, I must point out that the exemption does not apply to the Chief Constable.

The views of members of the Fire Brigades Union were sought and received during consultation, and the original proposed Regulations were amended to specify that equivalent qualifications and experience would be required, consistent with some of the concerns that they raised. During the consultation, the Committee found out about certain matters before the Fire Brigades Union, because it consistently sought and received early sight of departmental proposals.

With regard to the proposed Regulations, the Department wrote to the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety on 1 July. That was followed by formal consultation on 5 July, with a range of organisations including the Fire Brigades Union, the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Authority and district councils. The Fire Brigades Union responded to the consultation letter of 5 July on 20 August. Following receipt of the response, the proposals were amended in line with some of the concerns that it expressed.

Questions have been raised about the morale of firefighters here, and the suggestion has been made that that could be affected by the proposed Regulations. It is a nonsense to suggest that someone from elsewhere, without relevant firefighting experience, would be eligible for the post. To suggest that the Regulations allows amateurs to apply is, by definition, an insult to existing firefighters. Equivalent qualifications and experience are required. Morale could be damaged to a far greater extent by the suggestion that people here would be able to compete only if no one else were allowed onto the field.

The Regulations in no way reflect on the suitability of potential candidates for this post — here or elsewhere. There have been made because of practical, legal and equality issues. Under these Regulations, qualified officers in the Fire Brigade remain eligible to apply, as can suitably qualified officers from fire brigades in Great Britain.

We decided not to wait until such changes had been made elsewhere, because we all recognise the importance of this post being filled substantively, as a matter of urgency. The post is about to be advertised, and therefore we cannot wait for changes to be made elsewhere before we act. Were we to do so, our legal advice is that we would be open to legal challenge.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Will the Minister draw her remarks to a close?

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

There are a couple of technical issues that Dr Hendron raised with regard to the Regulations.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Those must be dealt with speedily as you have only a few seconds.

Bairbre de Brún (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Given that I have run out of time, I will write to Dr Hendron about those matters.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I have listened with intent to several Members who spoke during the debate. I listened to the Chairperson of the Health Committee, Joe Hendron, who said that it is important that we widen the pool. As far as I am concerned, our pool is wide enough at present. We have capable men and women in Northern Ireland. Dr Hendron’s Colleague John Dallat can shake his head at me, but I believe that we have the men and women in Northern Ireland who are able to carry out the position of Chief Fire Officer, even if Dr Hendron disagrees.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Chairperson of the Health Committee that the post must be filled. I call on the Department to get its finger out, get rid of these Regulations and appoint a Chief Fire Officer to Northern Ireland, given the circumstances that we have.

John Kelly (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I do not give way to Members of Sinn Féin/IRA. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

The Democratic Unionist Party is fit enough to deal with those people.

We have heard much about the legal implications. Let us consider the wording. The legal advisers returned to the Department and said that the word "probably" cannot be justified. If that is the legal advice, that person should get the sack. That is not clear guidance for us as a Committee.

We have also heard people say that this annulment will discriminate against people across the world, in places such as Germany. Anyone who says that we are going to discriminate is a hypocrite. These Regulations are discriminating against the Northern Ireland firefighters who have gone through the ranks — people who have developed their career and progressed through the Fire Service for 30 years. If the Regulations were to go ahead, those people would be clearly discriminated against. The Minister’s attempt to have those enacted is once again a political move.

We then had the words of John Kelly — what a courageous man. He said that he would question the motives behind the motion. He said that the motion’s object was political. Who is political today? The Minister of Health and Mr red-faced John Kelly. He went on to talk about leaked documents. Sinn Féin/IRA’s spokespersons are the last people who should be talking about leaked documents in the Assembly today, given the circumstances of Friday past.

We move on to the issue of equivalency, qualifications and the firefighters’ morale. That is being basically laughed off. Forget about the morale of the firefighters, even though the Fire Brigades Union has consulted with us all and made it known that it is against these Regulations because they basically say to the men and women of the Northern Ireland Fire Service, no matter what their religion, that there is no one capable within its ranks.

I thank Eileen Bell and Iris Robinson. Iris Robinson said that the Chief Fire Officer must be aware of the geography and culture of Northern Ireland. We are aware that the Minister of Health will not be in close consultation with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding (GOC) for her own political reasons. Over the past 30 years, we have been aware of Sinn Féin/IRA’s view of the police. It has been in close contact with the police, because it has pointed the gun at them and has murdered many police officers across the streets of Northern Ireland. It is clear that it is not going to consult closely with them.

But we need a Chief Fire Officer who is prepared, capable and aware of the geography of Northern Ireland. While the Minister will not consult with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, especially after all her screaming in the corridors of this Building on Friday, we need a man or woman capable of taking on this position.

Derek Hussey (UUP, West Tyrone)

I am sure that Mr Berry would agree with me that those people from all over the world who are interested in serving the community of Northern Ireland are welcome to come along and join the Northern Ireland Fire Service and work their way up to a position where they can apply for the post.

Paul Berry (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I agree wholeheartedly with my Colleague Mr Hussey.

The only part of the Minister’s comments worth listening to was her disgraceful comment that we are trying to discriminate against women. While the Minister for Health, who is a woman, has done a bad job in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, that does not mean that any other woman who applies to be the Chief Fire Officer would fail. It is clear that the Minister of Health has failed in her Department, and I trust that she will also fail today. I trust that the annulment will be accepted.

The consultation in relation to this has been disgraceful, as shown by the concerns of the Fire Brigades Union. It will affect the morale of the Northern Ireland firefighters. This is a clear political move by the Minister, Sinn Féin/ IRA and her Colleagues to get this through. [Interruption].

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes

Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, Tom Hamilton, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, David Trimble, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Sammy Wilson.

Noes

Alex Attwood, Michael Coyle, John Dallat, Bairbre de Brún, Sean Farren, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, Gerry Kelly, John Kelly, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Mick Murphy, Dara O’Hagan, Eamonn ONeill, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That the Fire Services (Appointments and Promotion) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 (SR 283/2002) be annulled.

Point of Order – Personal Statement

Ian Paisley (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a previous debate a savage attack was launched on me and on what I was doing when the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development was speaking. I make no apology in the House to anybody when I am representing those who have been bereaved, shot and maimed by the IRA. I was with the Minister of State with responsibility for security, on her invitation; she brought the meeting forward so that I might make an issue of those who have suffered so tragically in recent days in the constituency that I represent. To be told that that is a stunt is an insult to the memory of the people who have suffered.

Jane Morrice (NIWC, North Down)

Order. I am aware that the Member was interested in making a personal statement, but I advise him that he must seek permission from the Speaker to do so. That personal statement may or may not be made following the Speaker’s decision tomorrow morning.