Northern Ireland Assembly, 9 February 2009

321 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I would like to raise a point of order with regard to the debate on the Consultative Group on the Past on Monday 2 February, primarily in relation to the remarks that Nelson McCausland made about my party colleague Gerry Adams, which I believe were wrong, inflammatory and, certainly, unparliamentary. Did the a Cheann Comhairle have an opportunity to review the Hansard report?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. That issue has already been raised with me, and I will deal with it this morning. First, I say to the whole House that that is an issue to which I did not expect to return so soon. However, these matters must be faced up to, and dealt with.

I have warned all Members, on many occasions, to take care about what they say about other Members in the Chamber. Although they may be covered legally in some circumstances against action, they are not covered by parliamentary procedure. If Members make direct allegations of criminal behaviour against other Members, when there have been no convictions, I will rule such allegations as unparliamentary. I say to the whole House that Members who sit in another House will know that. Erskine May, on page 440, is absolutely clear on the subject of direct allegations against other Members.

That being so, I reflected on what was said by Mr McCausland during the debate on the Consultative Group on the Past on 2 February 2009, and I took counsel on the matter. I believe that direct and unsubstantiated allegations of criminal behaviour were made about another Member. I am afraid that that was not the first time that the Member made such an allegation. I regard the remarks as unparliamentary and, therefore, ask and call on Mr McCausland to withdraw them.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Mr Speaker, I do not intend to withdraw the comments, because they were true.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I was quoting from a book that was published by the IRA, and which I now intend to place in the Assembly Library so that everyone can — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I would ask the Member to take his seat. I advise the Member that, as he has not withdrawn the remarks, I now order him, under Standing Order 65, to withdraw immediately from the Chamber and its precincts during the remainder of today’s sitting.

The Member withdrew from the Chamber.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask Members to take their seats. Does the point of order relate to that particular ruling?

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

It certainly does.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will certainly not take points of order on that issue. If Members want to discuss it with me, I am happy to do so after the debate. However, I will not take any points of order on the ruling that I have made today.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Can I raise a point of order on a separate issue?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

First, let me finish. I want to say to the whole House — and I have said it over and over again — that it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to do what I have done today. Once again, I refer Members to parliamentary procedures elsewhere, whether they are in Westminster, Scotland or Wales. Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Once again, I say to Members who are also Members of another House that they would know that.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

On a further point of order, Mr Speaker. I must draw to your attention to the unparliamentary characteristics of certain Members’ reactions when their colleague was put out of the Chamber —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask the Member to take his seat. I have already ruled that I will take no further points of order on that issue from any side of the House this morning. I have made that absolutely clear.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is your point of order about the same issue?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

No, Mr Speaker. It relates to a general ruling. Can you provide the House with serious and considered guidance about the use of sources and how Members should quote from such sources? If, for example, a Member is referred to in a published work that is accepted and is not challenged in the courts, are Members at liberty to quote from that manuscript? Can you take advice and guidance — perhaps from another place — about how sources are used and quoted from in this House? Many Members would find it helpful to know the limitations within which they are entitled to operate and, indeed, how they should use those sources?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am extremely happy to come back to the Member directly, or to the whole House on the issues that he has raised. However, I say to all sides of the House, we all get information from various books and papers; the main issue for the House is how we use that information. It is not a matter of going to the Library and reading certain material, but of how one uses that material. I am certainly happy to speak to the whole House or to the Member directly in order to explain the procedure on the use of such material in the House.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have noted what you have said about Members obtaining information and the question of how it might be used. Does your ruling not gag Members and prevent them from using certain information or quoting from particular sources? Can you clarify that it is permissible for Members to use such information and that your ruling is simply about to how they use it?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I am extremely happy to examine guidance on behalf of all Members on how they might use material in the House.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask the Members to take their seats. I have already ruled. We have almost ventured into the subject on which I have already made a ruling. If Members can demonstrate that their points of order relate to totally separate issues, I am happy to take them. Sometimes, points of order grow legs in the House. We end up discussing matters on which I have already made rulings.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Mr Speaker, if you are saying that you are going to look at guidance, are you saying that there is no guidance at present? If ther is no guidance, how could you make the ruling that you have?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let me make it absolutely clear that there is clear guidance. Listening to the Member, one would almost believe that we make it up as we go along. We certainly do not. The Member is also a Member of another House and knows exactly what the parliamentary guidance is there. It is absolutely clear.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

On a different point of order, Mr Speaker. In the House last Monday, the leader of Sinn Féin, in his comment to you, made reference to remarks that I made in the House. He said that, in my remartks — and I quote from the Hansard report — I made reference to ‘Mein Kampf’.

That is absolutely untrue, and I ask you, Mr Speaker, to tell the House what action you have taken on the matter. On the basis of the action that you have already taken in the House today, I ask that the Member is asked to withdraw his remarks.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member came to see me, and we spoke about the matter. I have also spoken to Mr Adams on the matter. Neither I, my Clerks nor the Hansard report recorded any remark of that nature having been made, and I wrote to Mr Adams this morning to indicate that absolutely clearly. We have looked at the Hansard report, examined the issues and taken counsel. As far as I am concerned, as the Speaker, no such remarks were made by Mr Storey.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, the Member also made reference to my absence on the occasion of his remarks. When the opportunity arises, and when the Member is present in the House today, will you, as the Speaker, ask the Member to withdraw the statement that was not accurate?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let us move on. I have already — [Interruption.]

Order. I have already written to the Member this morning. Let us see how the Member reacts to these issues. [Interruption.]

Order. Mr Storey also knows that he came into my office to see me. We spoke privately on the issue, and I told him exactly what I was going to do. Let us be absolutely clear.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On a different point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised a matter with you in relation to a statement made by Ms Ruane, the Minister of Education, last week; I also followed that up in writing, and I asked what action has been taken on that issue? It would be grossly unfortunate for democracy and the House if a Member is thrown out for telling the truth, yet a Minister can get away with telling blatant untruths.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member is referring to the accuracy of a ministerial statement. As the Speaker, I have no intention of getting involved in whether a ministerial statement is accurate or not; that is not my job. I am very happy to talk to the Member about this issue outside the Chamber. Indeed, I am extremely happy to talk to any Member from any side of the House about an issue that he or she feels strongly about. I operate an open-door policy at my office — come in and talk to me.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be useful for the House, and its Members, if some directive were to be provided. I listened carefully to you saying that you have written to Mr Adams. Did Mr McCausland receive the same facility? Was a letter sent to him?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let me make it clear, there was nothing unparliamentary in what Mr Adams said. There are two totally separate issues here. [Interruption.]

Order. I repeat that I am happy to talk to any Member — about any of the issues that have been raised this morning — outside the Chamber. Now, I am going to move on.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is it a separate point of order, Lord Morrow?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It is a separate point of order.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

OK; let us hear it.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As Chief Whip of the DUP, I want to state that we do feel that we are being victimised.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

On a separate point of order, go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

I asked for a ruling on remarks that Basil McCrea made about Caitríona Ruane during a debate last week. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I have written to Basil McCrea about that; we have been busy writing this week. [Interruption.]

Order. I have spoken to Mr McCrea about that matter. Nothing that Mr McCrea said was unparliamentary; it is simply the cut and thrust of debate. I will call Mr Attwood, and then I am going to move on.

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

On a separate point of order, Mr Speaker. You have just said that you are not going to get involved in matters concerning the accuracy, or otherwise, of a ministerial statement made to the House. You are not going to get involved.

I ask you to review Erskine May, which makes it clear that if any Member — not least a Minister — deliberately misrepresents in the Chamber, the Speaker is obliged to bring that matter to the Minister’s attention. Indeed, the precedent in another place is that a Minister who deliberately misleads should resign. I ask you to review your ruling that you will not get involved in issues that relate to the accuracy of a ministerial statement. That is not sustainable.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As the Member knows, there are a number of avenues that Members can take if they feel that a ministerial statement is, for whatever reason, inaccurate. If the Speaker gets involved in deciding the accuracy of ministerial statements, it could become a minefield. The Member can talk to me privately if he wants.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Further to that point of order —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Is it on the same subject?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

It is on the same subject. In light of your ruling, will you clarify whether a Minister can say absolutely anything and not be held to account, whereas a Member who tells the truth risks being thrown out of the Chamber?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

That point almost borders on the first subject. [Interruption.]

Order. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Speaker is not responsible for how ministerial statements arrive in the House or their authenticity. I am willing to accommodate ministerial statements because I recognise that they allow Back-Benchers to hold Ministers and the Executive to account. As I keep repeating, there are a number of avenues that Members can go down if they feel that a ministerial statement is, in whatever way, inaccurate. I am happy to talk to any Member about the roads down which they can go.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order —

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask both Members to take their seats. I have opened the House up this morning to points of order. The only reason I have done so is because Members have said that their points of order are different, and nothing to do with the subject on which I have ruled. However, when I allow points of order, they almost border on the ruling that I have made. I am happy to take Members’ genuine points of order on separate subjects.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

On a point of order —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will take John O’Dowd first, then Ian Paisley Jnr.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My point of order relates to the broad thrust of the debate. Are Members crossing into questioning the rulings of the Speaker? The Speaker’s role is difficult enough, and there is a mechanism to correct situations where Members feel victimised. We have spent the past 15 minutes questioning the ruling of the Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

As I have said in the past — and I will repeat it again — I make rulings, and Members make points of order to challenge that ruling. I want to make it absolutely clear that I will not allow that. Members are indicating that they want to make points of order on separate issues, but it ends up being almost the same point of order.

Mr Paisley Jnr, I take it that this is a separate point of order.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

You are in the Chair to protect Members’ rights, which are absolutely crucial to the good running of this place and to its support in the community. I want clarification on your ruling. You said that it is not unparliamentary to refer to someone as a Nazi or as a supporter of ‘Mein Kampf’. Is it the case that Members can use that term and describe each other as Nazis, but, ludicrously, cannot refer to situations in our own country? I want clarification about the use of the term “Nazi” in the House.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members must be careful with the language that they use in the House. How they use that language is the issue for all sides of the House. I will take no further points of order on any issue.

If any Member wants to speak to me about these issues outside the Chamber, I am very happy to do so.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I inform Members that the Financial Assistance Bill has received Royal Assent. The Financial Assistance Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 became law on 4 February 2009.

Private Members’ Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and published in the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech.

I must inform Members that a valid petition of concern was presented on Wednesday 4 February in relation to the motion. The valid petition of concern relates only to the motion and not to the amendment.

I inform Members that the vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis.

David Simpson (DUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly notes the impact of global economic conditions; notes the benefit of the border to the Northern Ireland economy at this difficult time; notes the relatively positive relationship with the Republic of Ireland; and calls on the Executive to consider whether the North/South Ministerial Council is of any value to the people of Northern Ireland.

Before speaking on the subject, having read the amendment tabled by the Alliance Party, the DUP will support that amendment.

The Democratic Unionist Party believes in sensible North/South co-operation between this part of the United Kingdom and our nearest neighbour in the Irish Republic. There are times when working together can be of mutual benefit to the people of both countries. For the DUP, North/South co-operation has to be based on recognition by the Irish Republic of the sovereignty and independence of Northern Ireland as a region of the United Kingdom.

The Belfast Agreement-style North/South co-operation that was delivered was never acceptable to the DUP, because it was characterised by free-standing institutions that were not accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the DUP worked tirelessly through political negotiations to bring all North/South co-operation under the control of the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That process culminated at St Andrews, where we ensured that accountability was introduced in respect of decisions made by North/South bodies. By that, the DUP prevented a repetition of the situation that prevailed in the past, whereby North/South bodies could act in defiance of the wishes of the Assembly. That represented a major step forward.

In tabling the motion for consideration, we are motivated through a desire to save the taxpayers of Northern Ireland expenditure, which could be redirected into front line services such as schools, hospitals, roads, and much-needed economic infrastructure. People are looking to us in these difficult times to provide value for money and efficient government. My party believes in streamlined, cost-effective government. Although others might still wish to defend expensive, useless talking shops, such as the Civic Forum, through tabling petitions of concern, we are trying to cut back on red tape and the waste of taxpayers’ money.

I welcome the support given by the UUP recently in the Chamber to our cause for reducing the number of Departments, and for the scrapping of the Civic Forum. The DUP has a radical reforming agenda. We want to reduce the number of Government Departments from the present figure of 11 to a more practical six. We want to erase the Belfast Agreement’s legacy of expensive and cumbersome Government. We support reducing the number of MLAs. It is our desire to save money and to ensure that people get the best possible service for the lowest possible cost. The North/South implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd, which comes under the control of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC), had an overall budget of over £130 million, of which almost £40 million is from the Northern Ireland Executive.

The purpose of the motion is to ask whether that expenditure represents good value for money. That is a serious and genuine question, which is not motivated by any party political consideration.

I am disappointed by the knee-jerk reaction of the nationalist parties in submitting a petition of concern. I will refer to that in a moment. That being the case, people, particularly nationalist politicians, should question whether the formalised structures devised in 1998 by the UUP, SDLP and Sinn Féin are an appropriate mechanism for achieving their objectives.

Businesslike co-operation between Ministers on both sides of the border is a far better approach than having occasional meetings, in which agendas have to be padded out simply to spare blushes and enable Ministers to say that a meeting has taken place. The motion seeks to address that situation. It is aimed at achieving greater efficiency, greater cost-effectiveness and greater benefit for Northern Ireland in these straitened economic times.

The motion need not have spooked the nationalist/republican Benches in the way that it so evidently did. We are entitled to ask why those Members have been so spooked by the motion. After all, all sides of the House should be able to support the motion.

The motion considers four aspects. It notes the impact of global economic conditions — what do the SDLP and Sinn Féin find so intimidating and terrifying about that? Have they not noticed what is happening? Have they not been watching the events of recent months? The motion also notes the economic benefits of the border during these difficult times. Why should that spook Sinn Féin and the SDLP? It does not seem to have spooked traders in Newry and Londonderry in the same way that it has spooked their political representatives.

The motion notes the relatively positive relationship with the Irish Republic. Where is the problem with that? Why should Sinn Féin and the SDLP be so alarmed by a unionist saying such things? Have they forgotten — or do they want the rest of us to forget — that according to the Southern Government, the constitutional issue is settled? Even Gerry Adams has given up all talk of Irish unity occurring any time soon.

The motion also calls on the Executive to consider whether the North/South Ministerial Council is of any value to the people of Northern Ireland. Why would that cause such panic in the SDLP and Sinn Féin ranks? Why would they be so spooked at that suggestion? Have they no confidence that the North/South arrangements and structures can sell themselves? Are the benefits not so obvious that they can speak for themselves?

John Hume, the former leader of the SDLP, used to lecture us on how one cannot eat a flag. It is sad to see that under his successor, and in defence of his “Durkanomics”, the SDLP is trying to convince us that we can eat structures, bureaucracy and quangos. There are some Members who appear to be opposed to change, who are stuck in the past, and who want to impose second best on our community. That is not the way of the DUP.

Séan Neeson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after ‘Executive’ and insert

“to institute a review of the North/South Ministerial Council aimed at ensuring it provides better value for the people of Northern Ireland.”

The Alliance Party supports fully the review of the number of Departments and the number of MLAs. The Alliance Party wants to see an efficient, effective and accountable Government in Northern Ireland and an efficient, effective and accountable North/South Ministerial Council.

In its response to the Programme for Government, the Alliance Party noted three core themes on which the Executive should focus. The first theme was segregation and exclusion in Northern Ireland; the second was rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy; and the third was delivering public services in Northern Ireland in a more sustainable way.

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

Certainly, in respect of the first and second themes, and possibly the third, Northern Ireland is distinct from the rest of the UK and Ireland. It is fair to point out that segregation along sectarian lines typifies Northern Ireland in way that is not true elsewhere, even if there are parallels in other parts of the UK and Ireland.

It is also fair to point out that Northern Ireland’s economy is public-sector dependent in a way that goes far beyond that which exists in any other UK region, even in the north-east of England and Wales, which have lower GDP per capita. In fact, there are as many people employed in the public service in Northern Ireland as there are in the Republic of Ireland, despite the latter having well over double the population.

Even in the area of sustainable public services, which includes housing, pollution, and transport, Northern Ireland has a legacy of poor performance that must be overcome. In all those areas, therefore, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have genuinely different fundamental problems that will require different solutions. Why, then, does the Alliance Party not simply support the motion as it stands? I suggest three main reasons for our proposing the amendment.

First, through positive engagement, Northern Ireland can learn much and, indeed, teach a lot to the Republic of Ireland. That engagement should largely be private- and voluntary-sector-led, but it is important that it proceeds at Government level, too. In many areas — such as segregation and its links to racism, social exclusion during economic growth and decline, and a new immigrant workforce — we have similar issues.

Secondly, our economies are intertwined in a way that unionist politicians choose to underestimate, but which business leaders appreciate fully. I recognise and acknowledge, therefore, the points that Mr Simpson made in his statement about co-operation. Our economies are not intertwined simply because we share a land border, but because we share common banks, common key industries in many sectors, and many other common interests.

Thirdly, more often than not, sustainability requires a cross-border approach — to agriculture, to tourism, to the environment, and on many other issues, such as the recent development of the single electricity market. None of those is restricted to the island of Ireland, but they illustrate how the North/South Ministerial Council can play a part in developing linkages that are in all our interests.

Therefore, we reject the underlying point of the motion, that the North/South Ministerial Council’s very existence should be questioned. We reject that not because the NSMC is part of the Agreement — like anything our institutions must evolve and develop — rather, we reject it because the North/South Ministerial Council has the potential to improve relations further, not simply to the level that is outlined in the motion. During the recent banking crisis, a major cross-border element was involved.

Implicitly, we accept that the North/South Ministerial Council has not reached its full potential. I wonder whether a person on the street could point to any concrete achievements of the Council. Our reaction to that is not to question its existence; rather, it is to ask what can be done to make it function more effectively and demonstrate its value.

In recent times, we have seen changes in the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and that has brought about the membership of unionist parties. Change can be brought about, and it is important that a review is carried out.

Improving cross-border linkages is in all our political, economic and environmental interests. There is no evidence that abolishing the North/South Ministerial Council will achieve anything. However, there is plenty of evidence that the value of its work can be greatly enhanced, and we should consider how that could be done.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In immediate follow-up to Sean’s point, he need have no fear whatsoever: the North/South Ministerial Council is not going away.

I begin by congratulating — Comhgháirdeas — the excellent North/South co-operation that we witnessed on Saturday at Croke Park, when Ireland came together to beat France in an international rugby match, which was an important sporting occasion. If we had two separate teams, we would not have packed a punch that would have beaten les Français. Brian O’Driscoll needed Paddy Wallace on Saturday.

Last week, it was the Civic Forum. This week, it is North/South co-operation. The DUP is guilty of picking sham fights that have more to do with the electoral battle ahead with Jim Allister. This is all about Jim Allister and the Traditional Unionist Voice (TUV). The North/South Ministerial Council is not up for grabs — it is not contestable.

Any attack on — or undermining of — North/South co-operation or the North/South Ministerial Council is a complete waste of time in relation to this Assembly’s business. The North/South Ministerial Council is legislatively based; it is in the Good Friday Agreement, and it is in the St Andrews Agreement, of which the DUP is very fond. A bit of political honesty is called for — this has more to do with electoral competition in the forthcoming European elections in June 2009 than it has with anything else. I presume that we can expect plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. We can expect far more behaviour of a similar character in the months ahead. That is why we submitted a petition of concern.

Members must remember that the Assembly is not a free-standing political institution; it is interdependent with the North/South Ministerial Council. My message to the DUP is that it should never forget that fact.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the Member establish whether it was Sinn Féin or the SDLP that submitted the petition of concern?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Member can check that for himself; copies are available to Members in the Business Office.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To save the Member time; the SDLP submitted the petition of concern. [Laughter.]

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

It takes two parties to sign a petition of concern. The SDLP does not have sufficient political strength to submit a petition of concern on its own.

The review for which the Alliance Party amendment calls is already in place, and the results will be published before the end of this year. It is not about benefiting the Six Counties; it is about benefiting the whole island of Ireland.

Earlier this morning, I had occasion to meet primary school children, teachers, staff and parents from Strabane. One lady, who lives in Lifford, said that if she fell sick at a weekend or during an evening, she would like to be able to access the GP out-of-hours arrangement one mile away in the town of Strabane, rather than having to go to Letterkenny, which is approximately 15 miles away. At the moment, there is a lady with a lot of schoolchildren in Room 342 who wants that point to be heard today in the Chamber.

Everybody knows that the border impacts negatively on social and economic life. At a recent meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, progress on the A5 was, thankfully, reported.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

In the interests of North/South co-operation, does the Member support the painting red of postboxes in Donegal?

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that due to the fact that I gave way, I will be given additional time in which to speak.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Member will have one extra minute in which to speak.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I will deal with Mr Poots’s intervention issue in due course. Who painted the postboxes red in the first place?

The North/South Ministerial Council reflected on the progress being made on the A5 north-west gateway to Aughnacloy and the A8 Belfast-to-Larne road projects. In addition, it reflected on the intensified co-operation on child protection, including the cross-border awareness campaign; the official opening of the new Waterways Ireland headquarters in Enniskillen; further progress on the developing situation at the all-Ireland Middletown Centre for Autism; and work on removing financial obstacles to cross-border mobility.

Therefore, good work is taking place within the North/South Ministerial Council, and I can assure Mr Simpson that it would pass with flying colours any test based on value for money or the effective and efficient use of public resources. What we really need is more extensive and more expansive North/South co-operation and integration. It is ridiculous for a small island, with fewer than six million people, to have plans to locate several acute hospitals back to back, without reference to each other. That is my speech — onwards with North/South co-operation.

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

In 1994, I was involved in a study that highlighted approximately 80 entities, such as councils, that were involved in cross-border activities. In 1996, in the Forum for Political Dialogue, we discovered that that figure had nearly doubled to 150 entities, which was clear evidence that the number of bodies involved in cross-border activities was rapidly multiplying under direct rule. However, the Belfast Agreement stopped all that, and brought cross-border co-operation under control by creating six bodies, covering six areas of co-operation.

I do not think that anyone has a problem with closer co-operation with neighbouring states — that makes lots of sense. The Ulster Unionist Party believes that that matter was sorted out in 1998, and each NSMC meeting since then has required agreement between a unionist Minister and a nationalist Minister. Since 1998, those Ministers have reported back to the Assembly, and I am not aware of a single instance in which there was a problem or a default in respect of those meetings.

Therefore, this debate is another DUP stunt. However, that party must be careful not to re-open negotiations, because given its history at St Andrews, that is a highly dangerous approach to take.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member said that there have been no problems with North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Will he explain why Ulster Unionist Party Ministers failed to turn up during the previous mandate?

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I shall move on to my second point. Let us examine the DUP’s negotiating skills at St Andrews. It managed to remove the unionist veto, which would have prevented Martin McGuinness from becoming the deputy First Minister; it agreed to the setting up of an all-Ireland civic forum; and it agreed to examine further areas of co-operation.

Furthermore, under the ministerial code amendments that the DUP managed to negotiate at St Andrews, Ministers have since been forced to go to North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Until then, unionists were able to interfere with wayward nationalist Ministers. Members will know that during the first Assembly mandate, David Trimble called a halt to all North/South activity because people were messing around here.

I am afraid that all that was lost at St Andrews, so why has the DUP tabled the motion? Is it an attempt to claw back the mistakes that it made at St Andrews?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member cited the supposedly robust and macho stance taken by his former — or, perhaps, it is his current — leader, Lord Trimble. Will he remind Members about how the court case went concerning that robust and macho attempt at stopping North/South Ministerial Council meetings?

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

I think that it is fair to say that we managed to halt wayward nationalist activity and North/South Ministerial Council meetings for some time.

Given the negotiating skills that the DUP displayed at St Andrews, it would be dangerous for them to start to renegotiate the value of the North/South Ministerial Council now. The Alliance Party’s amendment calls for a review of the Council, but that is already being carried out by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister with a DUP staff member and a Sinn Féin staff member. I wonder how independent that will be. Although the Ulster Unionist Party supports the Alliance Party’s idea that there is a need for a review, which is ongoing, we believe that it should be independent and carried out by people from outside the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports efficiencies. It is quite in order to review institutions, but there is little point in having a stunt debate today, particularly since the motion is subject to a petition of concern.

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

Mr Simpson asserted that nationalism need not have been spooked by the motion. I assure Mr Simpson that the SDLP is not spooked. We have looked at the hard evidence that has been gathered over not only the past number of days and weeks, but stretching back over months and years. We have concluded that elements in the DUP want to take the new order of politics on this island and recreate it in the image of the old politics that they knew and loved.

I say to Mr Simpson, through the Deputy Speaker: the North/South Ministerial Council and the architecture that is part of the Good Friday Agreement on a North/South basis are not negotiable. I note that Barry McElduff, on behalf of Sinn Féin, has adopted the SDLP analysis of the evidence. The evidence is clear in not only today’s motion, it was clear in the recent debates on the Civic Forum and the number of Departments. The motive behind those debates was to take bites out of the architecture of the Good Friday Agreement for political reasons. Sinn Féin is wrong to say that the DUP’s moving of the motion is purely tactical in advance of its battle with the TUV. There are elements of that, but this runs deeper. This is a strategic move, because it declares the intentions and ambitions of elements in the DUP to take the new order — for which some struggled and negotiated painfully, and which has been advantageous for the people of this island — and return to the past.

I know that the DUP was not present at the negotiations surrounding the Good Friday Agreement, but it must understand that the architecture of the Good Friday Agreement arose from an analysis that if political and sustainable stability was to be achieved on this island and between these islands, one needed to deal with three sets of relationships: the relationship within the North; between the North and the South; and between the islands of Britain and Ireland. That is the core concept and value of the Good Friday Agreement. Out of that comes the political balance and arrangements that were in the Good Friday Agreement and which continued in the St Andrews Agreement.

If one begins to unpick that balance of relationships and institutions, and that architecture, one begins to unpick the buy-in that so many people on this island committed to with regard to the Good Friday Agreement and the referenda that were held in the North and South.

Therefore, the DUP must understand that if those balances were the essence of political agreement in 1998, and that that architecture gave expression to the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, all-Ireland arrangements are essential for nationalists who want to share the life of the rest of the island. Those balances are essential for unionism, too, in order that unionism has an agreed relationship with the rest of the people of this island. However, if one begins to pick and choose, and have an à la carte approach, one must understand that that is beginning to unpick requirements that are essential for longer-term stability and prosperity on this island.

This morning, and on other occasions prior to the debate, the DUP created a smokescreen as to the motivation behind the debate. As one of its Members said, they do not want to have structures in place for the sake of having structures in place, and that the DUP wanted to do away with unnecessary bureaucracy.

Why is the North/South Ministerial Council being picked on? On 21 October, the DUP leader, as First Minister, came to the Chamber and said the following about the bureaucracy of the British-Irish Council:

“The Council considered progress on the strategic review of the British-Irish Council. It noted the proposal for the remit of the standing secretariat to be expanded to provide for an enhanced role in managing the work of the British-Irish Council and supporting the agreed work programmes”. — [Official Report, Vol 34, No 4, p160, col 1].

We agree with Peter Robinson; in order to maximise the benefits of the British-Irish Council, there is a need for bureaucracy. Why, then, does the DUP not agree with its own leader? There is also a need for bureaucracy when it comes to the North/South Ministerial Council, in order to maximise the benefits for all the people on this island.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I support the motion and the amendment. As a constituency worker, I know that there are few things worse than living with bad neighbours, and I know the strain that that can put on families in both homes. I urge Members to read the motion and the amendment because they state quite clearly, in economic terms, why things must change. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are similar in many ways. We have gone through years of hostility and horrific atrocities, although Northern Ireland has borne the brunt of that. However, we have moved on to a new stage and have become a new kind of neighbour, as it were.

It makes sense to have a good relationship with your neighbours, rather than a bad one, if that is at all possible. The past few years have shown that it is possible for the people of the Province to have a working relationship with the people of the Republic. I do not wish to trivialise the problems of the Province and the Republic in any sense but, if I may, I will use the illustration of a neighbourhood dispute.

Where there is a neighbourhood dispute, community police will often intercede, arrange meetings between the two parties and come to arrangements that are beneficial to all. Once community relations are better and the community is running smoothly, the police no longer need to facilitate the meetings and can use their time more effectively in other areas. The parallels, as I hope that I have illustrated, are obvious.

In my reasoned opinion, we have a good neighbourly relationship at present. Structures have been set up that allow us to make the best of the border and benefit each independent nation, and those structures are carrying on without the plenary meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council. That calls into question the need for those meetings and the money that is spent facilitating those meetings, during which things are discussed that are already in motion and are working for the benefit of all involved. The costs are far too much.

The people of the Province — as well as the people of the Republic — would, if consulted, prefer that the moneys spent on running sessions on things that are now running naturally and effectively should be spent on things that are needed now, during the credit crunch. Things that will make a practical difference to the lives of the people — for example, more social housing, heating for the elderly, more free dinners for children at schools, better health services and better roads.

It must be remember that the North/South implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd, which comes under the control of the North/South Ministerial Council, had an overall budget of £130·67 million last year, of which just short of £40 million came from the Northern Ireland Executive. To me, that does not seem to be good value for money. That £40 million could make a vast difference in improving such things as social housing, which every Member in the Chamber would like to see happening, and dealing with issues that are much more important than supporting another talking shop.

In this difficult economic time, the people of the Republic believe that that money should be spent in a more practical fashion. The North/South Ministerial Council is not accountable to the people of the Province. That, in itself, is a landmine, when it is added to the fact that structures are in place already that make it easy to co-operate on mutually beneficial matters. The Council’s remit has been met, its work has been completed and it is now redundant.

I was disappointed to learn that a petition of concern had been presented in reference to the motion. That has been mentioned in the Chamber already this morning. It must be due to the fact that some Assembly Members in the Chamber have misread or misunderstood the motion. We are not saying that there should be no co-operation with the Republic — we need co-operation for business matters. We are saying that that co-operation must be considered and should not come in the form, and with the expense, of the Council, as it does at present.

My fellow Assembly Members all want more money for front line services in their constituencies. Matters such as the Council have outlived their practical usefulness and can make room for other things that are necessary.

Therefore, I ask every Member in the Chamber to understand that the DUP is saying that as long as everyone benefits from good neighbourly relations, they should continue. However, we need not continue to pay out unnecessary money in a way that is neither cost-effective nor time-effective.

Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member made some great points during his contribution, and he made the case for all of us that a united Ireland is the best option. Will he join the rest of us and call for that as soon as possible?

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

A united Ireland would never be beneficial to citizens of the United Kingdom or to the future well-being of the majority of people in the Province. I cannot, therefore, agree with the Member, but he knew that before asking the question.

I would be surprised if any Member votes against the motion based on a belief that the money could not be better spent. The reason for the motion is the desire to reduce the amount of red tape and the costs, but not the practical benefits, of neighbourly co-operation. More money should be invested in front line services; that is what everyone who voted for us wants in the current hard times. I support the motion and the amendment.

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am concerned that the motion serves no other purpose than to divide the House. The proposers may not be comfortable with North/South partnership, which is fair enough, but the DUP signed up to it. As a republican, I was not happy about taking my seat in the House, but I did so in the context of the Good Friday Agreement. The motion reflects that the DUP, as Barry McElduff said, is moving into election mode. The party has become obsessed with Jim Allister and is positioning itself for the European elections; nothing more.

The people in the street whom we represent are concerned about paying bills and mortgages, and with feeding and clothing their children, and so forth. They do not want resources to be wasted by bringing a motion to the Floor of the House where it has no likelihood of success, as its proposers knew from the outset.

I echo the sentiments of Martin Luther King whose view of the world in 1967 applies equally to Ireland and the world in a new century:

“We have inherited a large house, a great ‘world house’ in which we have to live together — black and white, Easterner and Westerner, Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Moslem and Hindu — a family unduly separated in ideas, culture and interest, who, because we can never again live apart, must learn somehow to live with each other in peace.

The Good Friday Agreement is internationally recognised and presents the potential architecture for the development of all-Ireland governance. Its premise is the need for the formal promotion of North/South relations, thereby creating the dynamic for building an inclusive Ireland. The creation of the North/South Ministerial Council and implementation bodies was an important aspect of the Good Friday Agreement for nationalists and republicans. People in the North and South endorsed the agreement. The logic is underpinned by strand two of the agreement, and it can be undone only by the people. If unionists want to sabre-rattle, so be it, and if they want to beat their chests and attack anything Irish, that is their prerogative. However, they do not reflect the view of their community, which has moved on without them.

Strand two of the agreement also makes an integral provision for the development of an all-Ireland inter-parliamentary forum. It is widely recognised by policymakers, businesses, local authorities and NGOs that the creation of a balanced development of policy on an all-Ireland basis is the way forward. The development of the all-Ireland economy, spatial integration, social networking and human rights harmonisation is already under way, but it must be built upon.

Sinn Féin wants the number of North/South implementation bodies to increase with, for example, the creation of an all-Ireland energy body to work on how the island can address climate change — indeed, such direction is needed because the Minister of the Environment continues to bury his head in the sand as far as climate change is concerned. The energy body’s remit would include the determination of an all-Ireland energy strategy and the overseeing of its development. As such, it must be given powers to compel the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) and its equivalent in the South to adopt policies that are grounded in all-island thinking.

The need to move away from dependence on external oil supplies and embrace domestic and alternative energy forms is needed.

There is also a need to promote the development of alternative energy sources such as biomass, wind, wave and solar power. It is said that our unique coastline and weather conditions have the potential to meet the needs of the entire EU energy demand over the next generation through the utilisation of wind power and the electricity interconnector to Europe.

We need an all-Ireland implementation body for rural development: disparities between regions across Ireland are severe, and they are likely to intensify in the absence of an all-Ireland policy that seeks to protect the Irish agriculture and fishing industries. Sinn Féin proposes a new implementation body that will address the core area of developing rural and social infrastructure. The body would provide resources for aquaculture; fishing and fish processing; marine-based facilities, inshore fishing and sea angling. It would progress greater equality —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Willie Clarke (Sinn Féin, South Down)

— between the regions of Ireland. It would co-ordinate resources and build a social infrastructure, which is necessary for the development of agriculture in Ireland. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I will begin by noting that in 2009 there is a much more positive relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That, in my view, is as much to do with personal relationships, the passage of time and the acceptance of realities on the part of many, than it is to do with fabricated structures and institutions.

My party accepts that cross-border co-operation is not only a good thing on certain occasions but is absolutely necessary in certain areas, particularly where there is mutual benefit. Sometimes co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is as essential as co-operation across borders and across the world. I can think of several recent examples where cross-border co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has had a positive impact: for example, in some of the animal health issues; the dioxin scare; the agreements between the police and the guards and the financial services sector agreement that was reached back in June 2008 between the then Finance Ministers, and now the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Prime Minister of the South. Those are all good areas of co-operation.

However, the common characteristic of those three areas is that none of them lies within the remit of the North/South Ministerial Council, proving the point that positive — even essential — co-operation can take place between our two states on an ad hoc basis where necessary and without the need for artificial institutions to be created.

Given some of the previous comments, there is an opportunity to review some of the more recent North/South Ministerial Council behaviour and some of the activities that went on in the North/South axis as opposed to the east-west axis.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Hold on a second. We all remember the hideous imbalance there was between activities on the North/South axis compared to the east-west basis. There were all sorts of disparities: there were 65 meetings of the NSMC during the period of devolution compared to around 10 meetings of the British-Irish Council. Given that the DUP is now in the lead position, I am glad to see that there is more activity on the British-Irish Council: it meets more often — in fact, it has met when the North/South Ministerial Council has not met; there are more work streams goings on, and there is more positive work happening on the east-west axis in comparison with what happened in the past, when Mr Basil McCrea’s party was in charge.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way — as he always very kindly does. Is he advocating a deregulated system for cross-border co-operation, and does he welcome the idea that Caitríona Ruane can somehow saunter across the border unescorted?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member knows that she does saunter across the border every day to take her kids to the local grammar school in Newry. The point that my party makes — and I presume that it is one that the Member’s party agrees with — is that there is no need for artificial institutions or structures to advance cross-border co-operation where it is of mutual benefit and is of particular benefit to Northern Ireland, especially when there are savings to be made to the public purse in these difficult times.

The difficult times that we have experienced highlight not only why we do not need a North/South Ministerial Council, but the economic benefit to Northern Ireland of the border. It was not so long ago that Members on the opposite Benches, and their colleagues outside, were fawning over the Celtic tiger. Unionists’ worry would not have been the North/South Ministerial Council — that would have been the least of our worries — rather, it would have been an all-Ireland economy and total economic integration with the South.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Bear with me for a second. In recent months, not only have we witnessed a retail phenomenon, whereby people from the South are coming across the border to shop — and being chastised by their Finance Minister for being unpatriotic for doing so — but, in the last month alone, unemployment figures there have risen by some 36,000. That is close to the total unemployment figure for Northern Ireland. Moreover, economic growth in the South is to fall by 4% over the next year, leading to an unemployment total of 400,000. We can see the economic benefit for Northern Ireland of having the border and of being part of the fifth-largest economy in the world, while enjoying the safety net of the welfare state.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Member join me in calling for a single-issue meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council to examine current economic challenges, including the downturn in the construction industry? The Council would be a useful vehicle through which to address those issues, for the benefit of everyone on the island.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Neither I nor my colleagues would have any objection to holding meetings with Ministers in the South to talk about economic issues. Of course, Ministers from the South will now be travelling to Northern Ireland to try to shelter under our umbrella.

In conclusion, accusations have been made that the DUP is pushing an agenda, but let us consider the points raised by the Members opposite. They are absolute zealots when it comes to the North/South Ministerial Council. Even if there is a better, more cost-effective and adult way of securing cross-border co-operation — similar to the way in which states across the world co-operate across borders — those Members will not blink or move away from that structure at all.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Member’s time is up.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

We want to have a mature, normal relationship with our neighbours in the South; not the sort of artificial one that we have had in the past.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

It was interesting to listen to Mr McElduff — he always provides thought-provoking comments. He mentioned the Ireland rugby team’s win at the weekend, and the great success of that sporting organisation. It is just a pity that some other sporting organisations in our society are not so inclusive. I am thinking, in particular, of the Member’s beloved GAA.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. That is not the subject under debate. Mr Elliott, please address the motion.

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I was about to mention the North/South element of the GAA, which is clearly focused on the nationalist/republican community.

It is interesting to note that North/South co-operation and agreements are nothing new in this society. Before I was born, there was the Erne Drainage and Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1950. As I understand it, that was the first piece of legislation that went through the Northern Ireland Parliament and the Irish Parliament under exactly the same terms. That provided not only for the hydroelectric power scheme in Ballyshannon in the Republic, but also for much better land management in respect of the Upper Lough Erne system in Northern Ireland.

Thus, North/South co-operation is nothing new. However, we must ensure that that is what it is — co-operation, which brings mutual benefit to both areas. I do not want to return to the bad old days of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. In those days, people in the Republic of Ireland establishment had arranged themselves in such a way that they were almost running sections of the Northern Ireland Government through Westminster procedures, simply because they had a foothold in Northern Ireland. Thankfully, the Ulster Unionist Party was at the forefront of cutting that practice out and we at least ensured that established organisations were in place that are subject to a control mechanism and are responsible to the Assembly.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

The Member mentioned some of the creations that came out of the Belfast Agreement. Although his party supported the agreement, I recall that he did not support it at the time. Does he agree that Tourism Ireland, for example, has been an unqualified success in better promoting Northern Ireland’s tourist attractions?

Tom Elliott (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I would not say that Tourism Ireland has been an unqualified success in promoting the benefits of Northern Ireland as a tourist destination, but it is doing just as well as the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Therefore, we do not have any flagship to hold up there, particularly in Fermanagh.

While Mr Hamilton was speaking, I was thinking about his remarks about the good co-operation on the dioxins issue. I notice that the motion refers to a:

“positive relationship with the Republic of Ireland”.

The dioxins problem was a disaster for Northern Ireland and a disaster for co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Someone can contradict me if I am wrong, but I am led to believe that the Republic of Ireland Government and officials knew of the dioxins problem down there for almost a week before they thought it feasible to tell any of our officials or Ministers up here in Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not hold that up as an example of good co-operation; I hold that up as an example of a selfish outlook, and what they could do for themselves and themselves alone. When it then came to us seeking compensation, because the problem originated in the Republic of Ireland, they turned their noses up and told us to look after ourselves. Therefore, the dioxins scare is not a great example of co-operation.

I return to the 1970s and 1980s. Let us be blunt: murders were carried out in this Province, and there was not much co-operation from the Republic of Ireland Government and security services at that time when members of those terrorist organisations were allowed to roam free and roam over the border without any chance of getting caught. Therefore, any co-operation that now exists is welcome, but it must be set in the context of what we had, and to which we do not want to return.

I support efficiency savings provided that they deliver — we do not want talk about efficiency savings that does not deliver anything. I am thoroughly disappointed that the party that tabled the motion has not been able to do what it planned to do, or hoped to do, when its representatives signed the St Andrews Agreement. All that we heard at that time were proposals for possibly more North/South co-operation.

With regard to a North/South parliamentary forum, the Agreement states:

“The Northern Ireland Executive would encourage the parties in the Assembly to establish a North/South parliamentary forum bringing together equal numbers from the Oireachtas and the Assembly, and operating on an inclusive basis.”

It is just a pity that they did not do that at the time of the St Andrews Agreement when they had the opportunity.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

It would seem that many in the Chamber need a history lesson. Members opposite referred to artificial institutions and structures — are they not aware that the border itself is an artificial structure in that it is some 80 years old, whereas the island of Ireland is centuries old. The division of Ireland was caused by the threat of violence from unionism at that time. Do Members not realise that? Do they not realise also that the Good Friday Agreement was an historic compromise whereby the nationalist people of Ireland — all those who aspire to the re-unification of Ireland, its people and its territory — agreed to the removal of articles 2 and 3 from the Irish constitution? That was the price that nationalists paid, and the compromise that they made, for peace.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member accept that, prior to the removal of articles 2 and 3 from its constitution, the Republic of Ireland was the only country in the European Union that laid claim to the territory of a neighbouring country, which was an international disgrace that needed to be rectified?

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The circumstances in which Ireland was divided were an absolute disgrace. Nonetheless, we are where we are. Some Members opposite have gone some way to point out some of the positive improvements in North/South relationships, because they realise that we operate in a European context and, as the credit crunch has taught us, are part of a global village. Those Members are now noting the positive relationships and the benefits to people, North and South, from the promotion of opportunities through the North/South bodies.

It was entirely disingenuous of some Members to say that the motivation for the motion was to save taxpayers’ expenditure. If the DUP is so concerned about that, it should look at the expenditure on the Ulster-Scots Agency. That would save the taxpayer millions of pounds — [Interruption.]

I can talk all day if Members want me to.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. The Member may talk for a maximum of five minutes.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I understood that it was six minutes. I could talk for Ireland, never mind for five minutes.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

Mr Hamilton accused some Members who wish to protect North/South bodies as being absolute zealots. I am afraid that the SDLP is guilty of that charge. We are absolute zealots in relation to North/South bodies because we cannot rely on Sinn Féin Ministers to protect them, and we have one Minister in the Executive.

Mr Simpson said that the agenda had to be padded out to save Members’ blushes, but that is not the case. In fact, the DUP and other parties have placed restrictions on it.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Can I ask for a progress report? How are you getting on with establishing an all-Ireland party with Fianna Fáil?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. Mr McElduff, please refer all your remarks through the Chair and not directly to the Member.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

The SDLP has so much for sale that a number of parties are interested in looking at what we have to offer. In fact, Mr McElduff borrowed some of the language that I used last week for his contribution. However, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, so I will take it as a compliment.

The DUP says that it is interested in efficient and small structures in government. One would have to ask then why the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister was expanded to include special advisers to the junior Ministers. It is so interested in efficiency in government, yet there is no Executive business today or tomorrow, there is no Assembly business today, and there is no legislation this week. Another week has passed by, and the DUP still has no business before us, even though Ministers were to meet —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. That is not the subject matter of this debate, Mrs Kelly. Please return to the debate in question.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I was merely pointing out and rebutting some of the remarks made by Members opposite who said that the DUP was interested in efficiency in government and in good government. However, it is very clear that it is not up to the job. If one wants to look at examples of good practice, one only has to look at the Peace programme and the cross-border agencies and how they are delivering on a cross-border basis —

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

— for the people of all of Ireland.

The SDLP opposes the motion and the amendment. The petition of concern relates to both.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. How does one follow Dolores Kelly?

My party is concerned about a number of issues relating to the motion, and, therefore, we will be voting against it. That is also why the petition of concern has been submitted.

It is clear that the DUP is in election mode, and I do not hold that against it. They feel the need to embolden themselves.

The SDLP feels that it must attack Sinn Féin in every speech. Alec Attwood pointed out that the DUP is unionist. We know that: it is in the name of the party. What does the DUP want to achieve as the leading unionist party? That must be measured, examined and debated. On some occasions, Sinn Féin will agree with the DUP: on others, it will differ. However, Sinn Féin will strongly differ with any party that tries to dilute the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement. The North/South Ministerial Council is a main pillar of that agreement. None of us would be here today to debate the subject if the North/South Ministerial Council were not there. It is integral to the progress of the agreement, and despite claims by the DUP that it has somehow drawn in North/South co-operation, the opposite is the case.

Whether North/South co-operation be formal or informal, it will continue — for a number of reasons, including common sense. The motion refers to the benefits which the border has brought to the North’s economy. The existence of the border has caused greater detriment to the North’s economy than any other factor. Partition has caused greater detriment to the economy of Ireland than any other factor. Whereas we, in the North, can shield ourselves from recession to a certain extent with public-sector jobs, that cannot continue for ever. The harsh winds blowing through the world’s economy have reached here, and the situation will get worse. The economy of the Twenty-six Counties is in dire straits, but my party still firmly believes that the direction of travel for the people of Ireland should be towards operating as a single economic unit. We must participate in the global economy as such a unit.

In current circumstances, we have North/South co-operation through the North/South Ministerial Council —

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Does the Member welcome the fact that the DUP Chief Whip is familiarising himself with the contents of the Good Friday Agreement? He has the document in front of him.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I welcome that fact.

Areas of co-operation are wide, and there is a need to improve on them. We are operating two economies and services back-to-back, and that is detrimental. Mr McElduff has already referred to primary care in the Health Service; however, all strands of the health services are operated on a back-to-back basis, which is both detrimental to efficient delivery of services and costly.

Education is another area where we must look across the border for co-operation. Particularly in Mr Elliott’s constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, small, rural primary and secondary schools are under severe pressure. We must not say to children that they cannot cross the imaginary line to attend the school of their choice, or that school transport should not serve children on either side of that line. It makes sense in neither education nor economics.

Mr Simpson referred to the economic savings that would be made. He said that the North/South Ministerial Council costs £140 million each year, and that £40 million of that came from the Executive. The mathematics suggest that someone else is investing £100 million in the Council, to the benefit of all the people of Ireland, and especially those of the border regions.

I am concerned at the amendment sponsored by the Alliance Party. I know that it is a unionist party, but, even as Europeans, Alliance Party members should want to ensure that the North/South Ministerial Council is good value for the people of Ireland — not just for those of the North. That is why Sinn Féin opposes the Alliance Party’s amendment: it is narrowly focused.

Sinn Féin opposes the DUP’s motion. To debate it is a waste of time, but this is not the first debate to have wasted the time of Members, and I doubt that it will be the last. Regardless of how many motions of this nature the DUP tables, petitions of concern will be brought against them and they will fall automatically.

Let us work on, using the structures that we have, to deal with issues that we can address and improve the lives of people across the island of Ireland.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

A point of clarification: Mrs Kelly said that the petition of concern applied to the amendment as well as to the substantive motion.

The petition of concern applies only to the motion, not to the amendment.

Wallace (DUP, Belfast East)

I support the motion and the amendment. How many of us here could have predicted, when this Assembly first met two years ago, that we would now be in the midst of the worst economic meltdown since the great depression of the 1930s? Two years ago, money seemed to be growing on trees on both sides of the border. The air was thick with grandiose plans for spending on infrastructure, and schemes for all manner of extravagant cross-border projects. I think that everyone would agree that in today’s radically changed economic circumstances, our first spending priorities must be the preservation of the jobs of our workers, and the provision of a safety net for the weakest members of society.

We have all seen stories in the media in recent days about the bonuses being paid to top executives of failed banks. I am sure that most of us would wholeheartedly agree that such payments are outrageous. How can we, as Members of this Assembly, justify to our constituents the expenditure of almost £5 million to date on the North/South Ministerial Council, and the proposed expenditure of over £3·5 million over the next four financial years? I am not arguing that it does not make sense for Ministers and civil servants in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to hold bilateral meetings to exchange views on matters of mutual interest — in particular, the possibilities for minimising the effects of the economic downturn on both sides of the border. However, I am sure that this could be achieved at much less cost to the taxpayer, and I think it would be useful for the Executive to investigate whether current spending on the North/South Ministerial Council can be fully justified. I support the Alliance amendment; a review of the costs of the Council should be carried out.

I am somewhat sceptical of the advantages of membership of the European Union, and I remain unconvinced of the merits of the case for further moves towards European Union integration. However, I recognise that membership has brought considerable benefits for some in our community: the common agricultural policy has provided a secure income for farmers, and access to the wider European market has been beneficial for the development of export businesses. However, we cannot just cherry-pick the policies we like and reject those we do not. The recent outburst by both private- and public-sector representatives in the Republic, condemning Irish citizens who cross the border to shop in Northern Ireland, is an unfortunate example of that self-interested attitude.

There have been calls in recent years for Northern Ireland to abandon the pound sterling and adopt the euro alongside the Republic of Ireland. Leaving aside the obvious anomaly which this would produce, of one country in the United Kingdom with two currencies, the present crisis has revealed the economic costs of a loss of control over interest rates and the value of currency. Spain, for example, which is a member of the euro zone, has surrendered control over these vital policy tools. The number of people out of work there has now reached over 3·3 million, and many companies are struggling with declining sales and liquidity problems.

In the Republic, the official estimates for 2009 suggest that the Minister of Finance will face an opening deficit of €13·3 billion, which is 7% of GDP. I am not suggesting that we in the United Kingdom are not facing very serious problems ourselves, but the fact that the UK can set its own interest rates — unlike the Republic, which is part of the euro zone — and manage its own exchange rates. That may allow us to avoid sky-high unemployment, and the possible consequence of social unrest, and in these circumstances, I believe that the border represents a real economic benefit. I support the motion and the amendment.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In relation to Mrs Kelly’s remark, you were good enough to clarify that the petition of concern does not cover the proposed amendment. Does it cover the motion as amended?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I am happy to clarify that the petition of concern covers the motion as amended, because at that point, it will become the substantive motion.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

It has been a good-hearted debate, and like Members on this side of the House, I support the motion and the proposed amendment from the Alliance Party. The previous Member who spoke, my noble friend from East Belfast, spelled out, loud and clear, some of the current economic issues that perplex not only our country, but most other countries. He debunked the theory, which came from the party opposite, that if there was a single unitary economic entity, everything would be alright. To date, there are 27 nations in the European Union, in which different economies are openly trading back-to-back; some countries have shared monetary systems, others have different monetary systems — unity is not a recipe for success. We must spell that out loud and clear.

Mrs Kelly the Member for Upper Bann put forward the theory that one of the failures of the Assembly is that no legislation is going through today, and that there must be more legislation. A marker must be laid down clearly stating that more government does not necessarily mean good government and that more legislation does not necessarily mean good government. Less government, and the rollback of governmental interference, is usually a good thing for people, the economy and the country.

I want to get to the kernel of some of the arguments that have been put forward, particularly by the SDLP and Sinn Fein, who are beating their chests about the importance of the North/South Ministerial Council. The motion does not debunk that; indeed it indicates that the DUP is all for practical co-operation and relationships, good sense, good neighbourliness, and for using the opportunities that exist. However, we have heard the almost irrational response — a petition of concern no less — that the motion has to be stopped as it is the DUP trying to stop the unity Ireland state express. We should recognise that that express was stopped a long time ago. Do not take my word for it; take the words of the former Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern.

When interviewed by the London editor of ‘The Irish Times’, Frank Millar, for a recent book, ‘Northern Ireland: A Triumph of Politics’, he said:

“‘You know what folks, forget about the unity issue, this arrangement, this sharing of the island, this is the way that it’s going to be.’ When asked would 50% plus 1 be the basis on which to achieve it, ie a unitary Irish state, ‘No, no.’ he replies, clearly dismissive of the idea that unity could be accomplished on a simple sectarian headcount. ‘50% plus 1 is not the way to do it; the only way it can be done is if a sizeable amount of people on the island of Ireland, North and South, believe that this is the way forward. 50% plus 1 is not the way to do, that would be a divisive thing to do and there is no point in having votes that find out whether you have got 1% over or 1% under.’”

I think that that should put a nail in the coffin of those who constantly say that we are trundling toward a united Ireland, and, indeed, that the motion by the DUP is an attempt to stop that. A united Ireland has been stopped, and no less authority than the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland admitted as much in that interview.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

Further to the point made by the former Taoiseach, does the Member concur that as shown by recent polling and in studies by Queen’s University, a substantial number of people in Northern Ireland who would vote for nationalist and republican parties, support the maintenance of the Union?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I think that that is obvious; there are traders in Newry — Catholic and Protestant, working together — who recognise that the border is the best single impetus that they have had recently to overcome some of the economic woes that the country is facing.

Barry McElduff (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Member support my call to his colleague Nigel Dodds, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, to include a question in the 2011 census asking people to state their constitutional preferences? Let the people decide and do not be afraid of accurate and truthful information.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I am not afraid of it. Do not stand up to get a slap in the face. Bertie Ahern has told you loudly and clearly that you are not getting a united Ireland.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. The Member must refer all his remarks through the Chair.

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

I will refer all slappings to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Many calls have been made for all of Ireland to work together. I would have loved to have seen one practical example of that. The Member from Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr Elliott referred to the recent scare over pig meat. As a Member from a largely rural constituency, I was concerned that dioxins were affecting our economy when it was clear that the source of the problem was the Republic of Ireland. When we asked the Republic of Ireland to act as good neighbours and stand up and share the burden, give compensation to our farmers on an equal basis and admit that some role and responsibility lay with that jurisdiction, there was utter silence.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP, North Antrim)

When I was a junior Minister in the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I noticed the time that was wasted on those meetings, which could have been done by videoconference, instead of the panoply of conferencing.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Member’s time is up. I have to slap you down. [Laughter.]

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I support the amendment as proposed by my party colleague Mr Neeson, and, if the amendment is accepted, I will support the motion as amended. I draw the attention of the House to the nonsense of a situation in which the Alliance Party can propose a sensible amendment and our votes will count on that amendment, but our votes will not count on the substantive motion.

The debate has had a political aspect and an economic aspect. The motion emphasises the economic benefits or otherwise of the North/South Ministerial Council and the other areas of co-operation between the two areas of the island. Various Members, including Dolores Kelly, Lord Browne, Ken Robinson and Tom Elliott have given history lessons. Apart from that, the theme of the debate has been that all Members, to some degree, have recognised the benefits of North/South co-operation and, indirectly, therefore, the benefits of the North/South Ministerial Council.

The motion indicates that the DUP wants to do away with that body, so I am glad that Mr Simpson has agreed to accept the Alliance Party amendment, which makes it clear that the North/South Ministerial Council must stay, but that it could be subject to a review. Mr McElduff said that a review is imminent; I was not aware of that, but that is OK. The Alliance Party calls for a review by the Executive; I imagine that the same review is already in place, so that is fine.

Everyone has been supportive of co-operation, apart from one or two comments. Jim Shannon mentioned “bad neighbours”, but he also said that we need to co-operate economically with those “bad neighbours”. I see that as support for the North/South Ministerial Council.

Willie Clarke gave a litany of the achievements of the North/South Ministerial Council and the bodies that are indirectly related to it. Simon Hamilton did likewise, but he spoiled it by pointing out that all the achievements that he had listed were outside the remit of the North/South Ministerial Council. Barry McElduff mentioned the A5, the A8, Waterways Ireland and the Middletown Centre for Autism. The proposer of the motion, Mr Simpson, was also constructive in his support for the North/South Ministerial Council.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Is the Member trying to destroy my colleague Mr Simpson’s reputation by saying something positive about him?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I do not wish to destroy anybody’s reputation, but Mr Simpson’s contribution was constructive in respect of the long-term future of the North/South Ministerial Council. That was in some contrast to the party that sits to my left, which appeared to want to outdo the DUP.

Declan O'Loan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, North Antrim)

I wish to refer, in particular, to what the Alliance Party’s amendment fails to do. The amendment leaves intact, in the motion, the reference:

“notes the benefit of the border to the Northern Ireland economy at this difficult time”,

which echoes the exact language of Peter Robinson’s New Year statement.

Considering the complexity of the issue and the significance of the border for our politics, our economy and our social relations, does Mr Lunn accept that reducing any discussion of the border to merely the number of people who come up to shop at Sainsbury’s in Newry and its equivalents does not do justice to the necessary politics of our time?

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that. Mr Speaker, if the intervention lasts more than a minute, do I get more than an extra minute?

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

No. [Laughter.]

Trevor Lunn (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you.

I take the Member’s point. At present, the benefit of the border is entirely directed towards the North. Of course, times will change, and that benefit will swing the other way. However, the implication of the motion is that there is, at present, a benefit to Northern Ireland.

In fact, the Member talked about the wording of the motion, and I do not like the phrase “relatively positive relationship”, but I will let it pass. I take it that that means relative to the way it was 25 years ago, so that is OK.

As I said, there has been a theme in the debate of general support for the Council, and I am glad of that. I understand nationalist Members being — I think that the words used were — “spooked” or “suspicious”. Mr Attwood accused people of taking bites out of the agreement, because there is a developing pattern of sniping at various aspects of the cross-border bodies. However, those bodies are here to stay. I am not sure why some Members are so worried about the motion that they are relying on a petition of concern.

We hope that our amendment is accepted. I believe that John O’Dowd called the Alliance Party a unionist party. We can rest easy, because next week somebody on the unionist Benches will call it a nationalist party. That is fine with us, for as long as it continues.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I support the motion and the amendment. Much has been said in the debate, but little of it was relevant.

I take issue with John O’Dowd, who said that the debate was a waste of time. I regard it as anything but that; it has been a good and a useful debate that has put down markers for the future.

Alex Atwood, to his credit, has caught on to the fact that there will be changes in the future. He may have been the only Member who acknowledged that, and he did so for different reasons than he might have liked. However, I believe that he acknowledged that things cannot continue as they are, and that the DUP is planning changes. Mr Attwood is absolutely right, and time will reveal those plans. There will be more about that at another time and on another stage.

I want to comment on some Members’ remarks. First, we brought the motion to the House with sincerity, because we believe that given the present economic climate, this is the ideal time to cut out a lot of the bureaucracy and red tape that is involved in the running of government. I believe that it was Alan McFarland — he will forgive me if it was not — who said that more people are employed in Northern Ireland’s public sector than in the whole of the Republic of Ireland’s public sector. Perhaps it was not Mr McFarland, but someone made that remark.

That may be a good enough reason to cut back on bureaucracy and red tape, because dramatic changes have followed the demise of the Celtic tiger economy, and things will never be the same again.

We now hear a lot of bleating from across the border because people there find it difficult to live and to pay the unaffordable expenses and prices that are asked of them in a state that is virtually bankrupt. I do not say that with any malice: I say that simply because that is what economists tell us. It is highly unlikely that the Southern economy will survive. It is heading into very deep water. That poses the question of why anyone would want to add more bureaucracy to an economy that is already in virtual free fall.

Mr Neeson stated that he wants the number of Departments and MLAs to be reviewed. My party is at one with him on that matter. Perhaps that is why the Member has earned the tag of unionist, because he simply agrees with some of what my party has been saying. My party wants bureaucracy reduced and there to be fewer MLAs and government Ministers. We do not believe that there is any good reason why the current situation should continue. My party will, of course, be working overtime in order to ensure that that change happens.

Mr McElduff had much to say. In one of his comments, he used the phrase — and I am unsure as to whether he realised that he was using it, but he used it nevertheless — political honesty, which is a wonderful commodity but one that is in very short supply. I am sure that he would agree that if that were applied in every circumstance, we would see things differently, because, as another Member pointed out, there is little doubt that the North/South Ministerial Council has brought about nothing of any significance whatsoever: nothing for the nationalist community; nothing for the unionist community; nothing towards the well-being of the Irish Republic; and nothing towards the well-being of Northern Ireland. One must ask why, under the living sun, it should survive, particularly in the current economic climate.

Now that Sinn Féin and the SDLP are coming closer together on various issues, and there seems to be a conduit opened between them where there seemed to be a cold war, which they have now overcome, and if they can agree on who actually put down the petition of concern — Mrs Kelly assures the House that it was the SDLP, while Mr McElduff is not sure — perhaps those parties could sit down and discuss whether there are good economic reasons for continuing with the North/South Ministerial Council. At least suspend it for a while until the country is up and going again economically and demonstrate to the people at large that that waste will not continue.

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

I thank the Member for giving way and, in particular, for nailing Sinn Féin’s view of the motion, which is that it is a sham, because the Member indicated that the DUP had ambitions for the future of the North/South Ministerial Council. Can the Member confirm whether it is now DUP policy that the North/South Ministerial Council should, in the Member’s words, be suspended? Is that the DUP view, and is that what it is telling the Irish Government?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes; and I would say to Mr Attwood: just watch this space. I know that you have told Sinn Féin that it must get up very early in the morning to be ahead of the DUP. Therefore, rise early in the morning and you will see what will happen in the not-too-distant future. As a matter of fact —

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I shall in a minute.

As a matter of fact, during a previous debate, I said that Sinn Féin should sleep with one eye open because the DUP will be bringing forward proposals.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As regards to sleeping with one eye open, I have a young son who did not let me sleep all night, so I was up very early this morning. Can the Member explain to the House how the DUP will suspend, stop or cancel meetings of the North/South Ministerial Council? He is reading the Good Friday Agreement, and he will realise that his party cannot do that under its terms.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, I have the Good Friday Agree­ment, which was well spotted by Barry McElduff. He noticed someone bringing it into the Chamber, which was extraordinary work by him. Despite its name being printed all over it, he deducted that I had the Belfast Agreement in my hand. So, well done.

The DUP’s hand is not in the Belfast Agreement; that is not our work. Therefore, we have a responsibility to bring about its demise, and we will.

Tom Elliott was quick to make some useful comments, and rightly so, about the lack of co-operation during the war of genocide when terrorists skulked across the border and there was no co-operation on extradition. Those were good and valid points.

However, he went on to lay the blame for all the current misdemeanours at the door of the DUP — it is surprising that Tom Elliott would do that — and said that we have ambitions for an all-Ireland Civic Forum. We do not; the St Andrews Agreement was between two Governments, and everyone should know that.

I have the Belfast Agreement in front of me. It was signed off by Mr Elliott’s party, and I am certain that the SDLP was also involved. I do not know whether Sinn Féin was huffing at time, but I think that it was doing other things.

Paragraph 18 of strand two of the Belfast Agreement states:

“The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas to consider developing a joint parliamentary forum, bringing together equal numbers from both institutions for discussion of matters of mutual interest and concern.”

The DUP was not there, and I notice that Tom is not here now either.

Paragraph 19 states:

“Consideration to be given to the establishment of an independent consultative forum appointed by the two Administrations, representative of civil society, comprising the social partners and other members with expertise in social, cultural, economic and other issues.”

Despite that, Mr Elliott says that we are setting up an all-Ireland Civic Forum. The Civic Forum is in the Belfast Agreement, but has anyone seen it meeting anywhere?

Alan McFarland (UUP, North Down)

The Member’s party assured us that the document from which he is quoting is dead, and that unionists will never have a problem again. However, at St Andrews, the DUP not only made provision for the Civic Forum and cross-border bodies, it agreed that Ministers would be obliged to go to North/South Ministerial Council meetings. Ministers are forced to do that by the ministerial code and cannot opt out. There is no longer any way of stopping the North/South Ministerial Council but there was under the Belfast Agreement.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Mr McFarland misses the point. The point is that Mr Elliott said that we were setting up a Civic Forum, but the Ulster Unionist Party had already made that provision in its Belfast Agreement. The authors of that great piece of work — [Interruption.]

Mr McFarland is now trying to mix it a bit. The provision was made in his party’s Belfast Agreement and had nothing to do with the DUP. He should not try to palm off onto us something that his party created.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

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

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Dolores Kelly said that it was unfortunate that Ireland was ever divided.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. The Member’s time is up.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 47; Noes 39.

AYES

Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Mr McFarland, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Neeson, Mr Newton, Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Poots, Ms Purvis, Mr G Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Lo and Mr McCarthy.

NOES

Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Durkan, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr W Clarke and Mr O’Loan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 39.

AYES

UNIONIST:

Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Mr McFarland, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Paisley Jnr, Mr Poots, Ms Purvis, Mr G Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells.

OTHER:

Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McCarthy and Mr Shannon.

NOES

NATIONALIST:

Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Durkan, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr W Clarke and Mr A Maginness.

Total votes 85 Total Ayes 46 [54.1%]

Nationalist Votes 39 Nationalist Ayes 0 [0.0%]

Unionist Votes 40 Unionist Ayes 40 [100.0%]

Other Votes 6 Other Ayes 6 [100.0%]

Main Question, as amended, accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I beg to move

That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Social Development to review waiting lists for supported housing; and to work, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, to tackle delayed discharges from Muckamore Hospital because of the lack of homes for people with a disability.

I commend my colleagues in the Business Committee for securing today’s debate. I note the fact that the Minister for Social Development has come along to listen to this debate. It is a pity that the Health Minister is not also here, because this is a cross-cutting motion.

We tabled this motion because we feel strongly that more needs to be done to provide adequate supported housing. That must be done in a cross-departmental manner because there is a collective responsibility on all of the Departments — particularly on the Department for Social Development (DSD) and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) — to support people, and supported housing provides a lifeline for vulnerable people in our communities. It enables them to live independently, and it promotes their inclusion in wider society. We must do all within our power to ensure that that becomes a reality for those people.

Like me, I am sure that many other Members have met people in their constituency offices who have raised concerns about elderly relatives who stay in hospital for longer than necessary due to the fact that no supported accommodation is available. That must change, and we have tabled today’s motion to call for action to ensure that such things do not happen.

The Bamford Review encouraged more co-operation among Departments. We await the Executive’s response to the consultation that took place recently. The Executive’s response to the Bamford Review contained many ambitious targets, many of which I believe, with the best will in the world, will not be realised unless there is a clear, definitive and concrete work plan among DHSSPS, DSD and other Departments. Such a work plan must come to the fore in the period ahead.

The Health Committee visited Muckamore Abbey Hospital and met many people who are detained there. At first hand, we were able to see the situation for those who have experienced serious delays in being discharged due to the fact that there is a lack of supported housing in the community. I met two very young men, Sammy and Richard, who have been waiting three years and seven years respectively for discharge. However, they cannot be discharged into the community because there is no supported accommodation available. We cannot allow that to continue. Those two young men are in the prime of their lives, yet they are being detained in Muckamore Abbey Hospital because there is nothing in the community to support them.

The patients such as those who are in Muckamore are not the only section of society that requires supported housing. The needs of other groups in society must be met — for example, those who need to be housed due to domestic violence, homelessness or other numerous and varying reasons. Currently, those needs are not being met.

Today’s motion calls for a review of the waiting lists for supported housing because the most vulnerable people in our society should be supported by a clear strategy so that they can live their lives as fully and as independently as possible. I urge all Members to support the motion.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way — I caught her just at the end of her speech. This is an important debate, and I know that the Minister for Social Development will respond to the debate on behalf of the Executive. However, many of the issues that will be raised in the House today will probably relate to health.

A cross-departmental strategy is needed to deal with these issues — whether they are issues of health or social development. Rather than assuming that the debate will automatically be read by the Health Minister, perhaps the Speaker’s Office could provide the Health Minister with a copy of the Hansard report, because we are well aware that this is not just a social development issue or a health issue. This is a community issue, and it is about cross-departmental work — from the Executive right down to Committee level. Perhaps the Social Development Minister will tell us whether she will formally give a copy of the Hansard report to the Health Department.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Of course that was a speech.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

I remind the Member that the normal convention is that interventions are shorter than speeches.

David Hilditch (DUP, East Antrim)

As part of the Committee for Social Development’s review of the budget for the Supporting People programme, it heard evidence from several organisations that are involved in the provision of supported housing. Sometimes, it is all too easy to accept an argument made by a voluntary or community organisation, and to then make bland statements in the House in praise of that organisation’s work. However, in this instance, the Committee has been genuinely impressed by the professionalism, commitment and dedication of the voluntary and community organisations that provide supported-housing services.

The Committee for Social Development closely questioned those organisations, and it was impressed by their commitment not just to their vulnerable clients but to providing quality and value for money. The organisations were keen to demonstrate the range and excellence of the services that they offer to vulnerable groups and the relatively low cost of delivering those services.

The absence of joined-up government is the major complaint from those organisations. Rather than a single system that focuses on vulnerable individuals and their needs, there are several separate systems, focusing on benefits, health or housing matters. The absence of joined-up thinking means that those organisations spend a great deal of time aligning the benefits to which individuals might be entitled with their housing needs, and then matching those with health-treatment needs. Each system has its own application process, budget limitations and varying eligibility criteria — a source of exceptional amounts of frustration among the voluntary and community organisations to which the Committee spoke.

Undoubtedly, the Minister will say that the provision of supported-housing services for Muckamore Abbey residents carries a significant price tag, and I do not dispute that the provision of such services will require time. However, while I accept that there are difficulties, it is essential that the Departments of Health and Social Development work more closely together to deliver the best-value outcome for Muckamore Abbey residents.

The Committee for Social Development supports the spirit of the motion, in so far as it refers to the need for joined-up working between the Department for Social Development and the Department of Health.

Billy Armstrong (UUP, Mid Ulster)

I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I am happy to support the motion. I have always thought that a society can be measured by the way in which it treats its most vulnerable citizens, and supported housing is one of the few matters that command the support of all parties in the House.

It is the nature of the Social Development portfolio that the Department and the Minister are tasked with improving the lot of many of the most vulnerable in our society, including tackling fuel poverty, dispensing social security benefits and dispensing state pensions. Supported housing affects vulnerable people who cannot fend for themselves and who require support and assistance in order to lead a normal life in the community. Obviously, some people cannot be released from care facilities and abandoned in a flat or a house.

The recommendations of the Bamford Review form part of the background to this debate. However, although we support the goals of the Bamford Report, we must accept that public policy operates in the real world, not in a vacuum. Unfortunately, the present economic situation means that budgets — whether they are the Executive’s, departmental or household — are being cut.

With that in mind, one must have a realistic expectation of what the Minister and her Department can do. However, it is imperative that the Minister redoubles her efforts to ensure that every penny that her Department spends is spent in the most effective and efficient way.

There are real problems with the issue of supported housing. Those who require such assistance tend to be extremely vulnerable and, often, suffer from the most severe learning difficulties. Supported housing tends to be quite expensive, and, as the DSD budget has come under pressure, it is no surprise that the supported-housing scheme is feeling some pain.

Even when funds are available for supported-housing projects, it has often proved difficult to receive planning permission from councils, because, often, local communities assume, wrongly, that supported housing means bail hostels or accommodation for undesirables. Those are misconceptions, and much more needs to be done to educate the public as to who is being helped by supported housing.

Supported housing helps some of the most vulnerable people in society and, with improved information and education developments on supported-housing provision in DSD, progress can be achieved in local communities, with the help of leadership from local representatives.

As I said, societies are often judged by how they treat their most vulnerable and what priorities those groups are given. Our society should be judged in that way. Although the Minister’s intent and support for supported housing is clear, it is regrettable that she is hamstrung by a much reduced capital budget.

David McClarty (UUP, East Londonderry)

Order. As Question Time commences at 2.30 pm, I suggest that the House takes its ease until that time. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be Mrs Carmel Hanna.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) if the statement made by the deputy First Minister at the North/South Ministerial Council on 23 January 2009 that partitionism is evil breaches the Pledge of Office’s requirement to promote the interests of the whole community represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly towards the goal of a shared future. (AQO 1986/09)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Member appears not to be aware that questions about breaches of the Pledge of Office by Ministers rightly fall to be considered by the Assembly or, ultimately, as a matter of law, to the courts; they do not fall to Ministers them­selves. Therefore, OFMDFM has no role in determining whether the deputy First Minister’s comments constitute such a breach. If the requisite number of Members table an appropriate motion and if the Assembly concludes that a Minister has failed to observe any of the terms of the Pledge of Office, it may pass a resolution censuring him or her, or pass a resolution of no confidence, following which the Minister can be excluded from office for a specified period.

John McCallister (UUP, South Down)

The Business Office accepted the question as a proper one to put to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Will the First Minister state whether the deputy First Minister was attending the North/South Ministerial Council in his official capacity and, if so, when did the First Minister officially sanction the deputy First Minister’s comment that partition was evil? If the First Minister did not sanction that comment, what action is he going to take to deal with it?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

First of all, I do not think that the Member should attempt to implicate the Business Office in relation to the substance of his question; it was the substance of his question, not the eligibility of it, that I drew attention to. The deputy First Minister did not make the remarks at the North/South Ministerial Council. As was the case for Mr McCallister, I became aware of the comments through the press. However, the deputy First Minister did not make the comment that Mr McCallister has ascribed to him. The deputy First Minister did not say that partition was evil; he said that partitionism is evil.

Therefore, one must look at the definition of partitionism, and we find that, not for the first time, republicans have a different definition than that provided by the Oxford English Dictionary. For republicans, partitionism is defined as the practice of advocating the removal of the border, but behaving in a manner that reinforces it. Incidentally, it is usually used as a term of abuse to other nationalists. However, in my view, partition is good, not evil — Northern Ireland has benefited greatly from it. It could also be suggested, however, that partition is something that the Republic of Ireland engaged in when it annexed the Republic from the United Kingdom.

David Ford (Alliance, South Antrim)

I suspect that, had the deputy First Minister responded to the question that was just answered by the First Minister, there might have been a different answer. However, in order to bring about some collectivity, will the First Minister give an assessment of the progress that has been achieved in recent months toward the goal of a shared future?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have warned Members that the supplementary question must lead from the original question. The Member has gone outside that; therefore, I will move on.

Dolores Kelly (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Upper Bann)

I thank the First Minister for detailing the sanctions that can be imposed and how that can be done. Given that his office has responsibility for equality, are any sanctions to be imposed by his office in relation to the recent comments of Minister Wilson?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I think that the question asked by the leader of the Alliance Party was more germane than the question that has just been asked. The Member knows that if a Member believes that a Minister has acted contrary to the Pledge of Office, there are steps that the Assembly can take. There is no step that can be taken by the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in relation to such an issue.

As far as Minister Wilson’s statement is concerned, I would have thought that we would wish to have a robust debate on all of the issues. I am not sure which of the Minister’s statements the Member is referring to; however, if it is the most recent one on climate change, the Minister has provoked a debate in Northern Ireland that I suspect would not have taken place had he not made those comments.

Every individual must be entitled to have a view on the issue. However, the view of the Democratic Unionist Party is on record and in its manifesto; it is that view that the DUP will uphold in the Executive.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Members, let us have supplementary questions that relate to the original question. Mrs Kelly caught me out on that occasion. [Laughter.]

She knew what she was doing. Members, be extremely careful when asking supplementary questions.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

2. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what changes have been made to the ministerial code since 20th March 2007. (AQO 1987/09)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

During that period, no changes have been made to the ministerial code. However, Members will be aware that, during the debate on the Financial Assistance Bill, the deputy First Minister and I gave a commitment to bring forward a draft amendment to the code for the approval of the Assembly. We secured the Executive’s agreement to that on 15 January, and today we tabled a motion to request the Assembly’s approval for a draft amendment to paragraph 2.4 of the ministerial code. That paragraph sets out those matters that a Minister would bring to the attention of the Executive for consideration and agreement.

The purpose of the amendment is to require the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring to the Executive for agreement a proposal to make a determination on designation under the legislation. It similarly requires the Minister to designate the Depart­ment to seek Executive agreement on the scheme for financial assistance. Our existing obligations under paragraph 2.4 of the code would, in any case, have required us to bring those matters to the Executive. We have already circulated a draft Executive paper to Ministers to seek their agreement to a draft determination on designation, and, shortly, we will provide Ministers with the text of that determination.

We hope, however, that our draft amendment to the code will demonstrate, beyond any doubt, that the Financial Assistance Act is not, as some Members claimed, an instrument to facilitate intervention by OFMDFM, but a means by which the Executive — collectively — can effect essential change.

Simon Hamilton (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for his reply. Does he agree that his answer puts an end to the suggestions by some Members about the Executive’s role as set out in the Financial Assistance Act? Will he tell the House whether he has received any apologies from those who suggested otherwise during debates? Does he agree that the new ministerial code has transformed decision-making in Northern Ireland to the extent that, for example, it prevented the Minister of Education from proceeding with her plan to abolish academic selection?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Sadly, I suspect that my response will not put an end to the allegation, because Members continued to make that allegation despite receiving assurances during the debates on the various Stages of the Bill. The deputy First Minister and I approached the issue on the basis of securing a collective decision from the Executive, and we had a private meeting with the Minister for Social Development to discuss how to take it forward. However, I suspect that, although the proof of the pudding was in the eating, some people will not partake of that dish.

The only issue that I have with Member’s final question is his positioning of the word “new” before ministerial code, because that is now as it always was. The main distinction, which came from St Andrews, is that the ministerial code became statutory. Therefore, it requires every Minister — not only the Minister of Education — to ensure that they bring any controversial, significant or cross-cutting matter to the Executive for their decision. That requirement benefits the collectivity of the Executive. There can never be the fully collective Government to which a voluntary coalition lends itself, but the ministerial code brings the Assembly as close to that as the existing system permits.

Mickey Brady (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

A Cheann Comhairle, will the Minister tell the Assembly whether amendments to the ministerial code will delay the provision of financial assistance to those living in fuel poverty?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister will not delay that provision. We took the legislation forward in a manner that brought it before the House and ensured that it passed faster than anybody else had indicated was possible.

Royal Assent was announced from the Chair this morning, and we are moving on to the stage of changing the ministerial code. We will move immediately on the issue of designation — it is no secret that that will be to the Department for Social Development, so that it can bring forward a scheme to allow payments at the earliest possible moment.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister how many individuals have written to the Department or responded to the consultation process, about the reinstatement of the Civic Forum. (AQO 1988/09)

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

8. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister what consideration it will give to an online interactive alternative to a formal Civic Forum. (AQO 1993/09)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 3 and 8 together.

The review of the Civic Forum has sought to canvas as wide a spectrum of opinion as possible on the effectiveness and appropriateness of the structure, operation, composition and membership of that body. The review aims to determine the most appropriate mechanisms and arrangements for engaging with, and obtaining, the views of civic society on social, economic and cultural matters.

The consultation phase of the review ran from 29 May 2008 until the end of August 2008, attracting 60 written submissions. An analysis of responses indicated that a majority — 44 respondents — favoured some mechanism of engagement with civic society, of whom only 19 respondents explicitly made reference to the need for a civic forum. There was very little demand for a return to the same structure of forum that operated between 2000 and 2002.

I can confirm that none of the written submissions suggested an online interactive relationship between Government and civic society. However, during the series of meetings that the review team held with former members of the Civic Forum, nominated bodies and academics, which ran parallel to the consultation exercise, one academic described innovative approaches to citizenship participation and referred the team to an article on online citizenship that he had jointly authored. The review team was also approached by a local businessman, who advocated consideration of a web-based process similar to that used for gathering the views of citizens on legislation in the American state of Idaho.

Those proposals will be considered, along with the other representations made during the consultation phase, in the review team’s initial analysis. It is expected that that report will come to us in the near future.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will not establish, or re-establish, a body that has no real purpose and is a complete waste of taxpayers’ money?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Every Member — especially those with ministerial responsibility — will recognise the real value of having an interaction with civic society. However, the nature of that interaction is the issue that the deputy First Minister and I are looking at in the first instance, and which the Executive will also want to examine. I am sure that neither he nor I will want to have an interaction that could be described as a waste of money and time. We will want to have the best possible interaction, and, given the tight financial situation we face, we will want to ensure real value for money.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Will the First Minister list a single achievement of the Civic Forum?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The questions get harder and harder. The Civic Forum met on a number of occasions, it provided papers to the previous First Minister and deputy First Minister, and its role was to be a body that would provide advice. However, everybody recognises that the reason for the review of the Civic Forum is to ascertain whether it is possible to get better advice and a better system that will advantage all our Ministers.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the First Minister confirm that there is a legislative imperative in the Northern Ireland Act to bring forward legislation to bring into effect that section of the Good Friday Agreement?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

That same agreement required a review of the value of the Civic Forum to be carried out, which is now happening. It will be carried out on the basis of ensuring that we do not simply dogmatically have something because it is in the Belfast Agreement. We shall determine its value and see how best it can be improved.

After all, if democracy is important to everyone here, we want it to be a journey that will ensure that we get better and better interaction through better and better structures. There is no question that the Executive will want to have good interaction with civic society: the issue is whether the Civic Forum that was set up in 2000 and ran to 2002 can provide that kind of interaction or whether there is a better way to achieve our goal.

Ken Robinson (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for his comprehensive report. Will he tell the House how many public servants are currently working on matters relating to the Civic Forum? Perhaps he will also tell us how long they have been doing that work, as no decisions appear to have been taken.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The review has been under way for a considerable period. We have received 60 responses to it, and the team will, therefore, proceed to make recommendations based on that advice. They will talk to stakeholders in addition to considering the responses that were received from the 60 groups and individuals. Thus, work is ongoing. However, the one certainty is that much less money has been spent over this most recent period than was spent over the Civic Forum’s lifetime.

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

The First Minster will be glad to hear that my question will be easy to answer. Last Tuesday in the Chamber, the First Minister’s DUP colleagues referred to the Civic Forum as being:

“stacked with pro-agreement nodding dogs.” [Official Report, Vol 37, No 4, p214, col 1].

They said that:

“its make-up was anti-unionist, anti-orange and anti-evangelical.” [Official Report, Vol 37, No 4, p218, col 1].

They also hoped that:

“it should never see the light of day again.” [Official Report, Vol 37, No 4, p214, col 2]

Does the First Minister agree that to characterise so many so wrongly is unfortunate and an unnecessary slight on the many in this community who have made the journey to which he has just referred.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The composition of the Civic Forum was tainted by the fact that the First Minister and deputy First Minister were able to make nominations directly, without any application of the principle of merit. It says something that the present incumbents are prepared to consider mechanisms that do not amount simply to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister having patronage, but rather that ensure that we encourage the kind of engagement that allows the best people to come forward — they are the people who can provide the most accurate account of civic society’s viewpoint and needs.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the anti-poverty strategy will be published; and if this strategy will go to full formal consultation or consultation through the anti-poverty forum. (AQO 1989/09)

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

7. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister if it supports the plans to extend the proposed UK legislation on child poverty to Northern Ireland; and, if so, when public consultation on this legislation will take place. (AQO 1992/09)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 7 together.

The Northern Ireland anti-poverty strategy, ‘Lifetime Opportunities’, was published in November 2006. After devolution, we examined the strategy to ensure that it was fit for purpose for the new Administration. After consultation with the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, the Executive agreed in November 2008 to adopt formally the broad architecture and principles of ‘Lifetime Opportunities’, along with the key aims and priorities outlined in the Programme for Government, as the basis of its strategy to tackle poverty and social inclusion in Northern Ireland.

Two extensive periods of consultation took place during the development of the ‘Lifetime Opportunities’ strategy, and there are no plans, therefore, to carry out further formal consultation. We are in the process of re-establishing the ministerial-led poverty and social inclusion forum, which will enable key sectoral interests to feed into the process. We are also finalising the terms of reference for the new anti-poverty ministerial subcommittee. We aim to convene the first meeting as soon as is practicable. Our hope is that that subcommittee will ensure that there is effective cross-departmental working on key actions that will result in tangible progress against poverty.

I now turn to the proposed UK legislation on child poverty. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Treasury have sought comments from Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations on a consultation document that outlines the UK Government’s intention to place on a legislative basis its target to eliminate child poverty in the UK by 2020.

The consultation document was published on Wednesday 29 January, and the consultation will run until 11 March. It is expected that the child poverty Bill will be introduced on a UK-wide basis after Easter. We are considering the proposals and have written to our Executive colleagues seeking their views and comments. We will also seek the views of the OFMDFM Committee, and we anticipate that our Executive colleagues will consult their respective Committees as appropriate.

The UK Government have no plans for a Northern Ireland-specific consultation on the proposals. However, members of the public and organisations here can respond directly to the United Kingdom Government consultation. We intend to respond formally to the consultation through an agreed Executive response.

Claire McGill (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the First Minister for that comprehensive answer. Who will participate in the new anti-poverty forum?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

It is vital that the Executive makes a determination on all such matters. As I said, the broad architecture of the overall strategy has been accepted, and it is now for the ministerial subgroup to present proposals on the outstanding issues. When that is done, the Executive will take a decision, and the Assembly and its Committees will be informed.

Sue Ramsey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the First Minister for his comprehensive response to my colleague Claire McGill and me. However, I am disappointed. How do the First Minister’s Executive colleagues feel about the absence of a formal consultation on the child poverty Bill? Does he agree that the provisions in the Financial Assistance Bill can be used to address child poverty issues?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

My heart is warmed by the Member’s desire to be deeply involved in the UK consultation on this issue. If the Bill were a piece of Northern Ireland legislation, there would have been direct consultation with the Northern Ireland community. However, as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, its people are fully entitled to make submissions as part of the consultation process.

The Member is correct that OFMDFM has had to tackle poverty with its hands tied behind its back. The new legislation provides us with a mechanism that enables us to proactively address those issues and meet the targets that were set in our Programme for Government.

Stephen Moutray (DUP, Upper Bann)

What was the Executive’s response to the OFMDFM Committee’s report on child poverty?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

We appreciate the considerable work that Committee members put into the report — they probably spent between 12 and 18 months working on it. The report contained 47 key recommendations, which apply to almost all Government Departments. Consequently, OFMDFM attempted to separate the issues and send them to their relevant Departments. The Departments sent back their responses, which we compiled. I hope that the Committee has been made aware of the Executive response before it is finalised. The Executive response is with the Committee, although it has not been published yet — it would be wrong for me to indicate my view until the response is published.

The bottom line is that getting people a good job is the best step towards removing them from all issues relating to poverty. In many ways, therefore, it is a cross-departmental issue, and, unfortunately, the current economic climate makes our task more difficult.

Dominic Bradley (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the strategy’s actions and targets be measurable objectively, and how well funded will they be?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

The targets will be the same targets that were set in the Programme for Government, and, given our present circumstances, they will be challenging. The Programme for Government targets were set, but we always recognised that, from time to time, they would need to be revised if more energy or funding was needed in a certain area of activity in order to reach those targets.

There is a strong view on the parts of the Executive and OFMDFM that every possible step must be taken to reach those targets, even though they have been made more difficult. That is an area of activity to which the deputy First Minister and I are committed.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Questions 5 and 6 have been withdrawn; questions 7 and 8 have been answered; and questions 9 and 10 have been withdrawn.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

11. asked the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister for its assessment of the impact the exchange rate between sterling and the euro will have on the delivery of the Programme for Government. (AQO 1996/09)

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

This might have been a good time for us to have a discussion on the value of having so many questions to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that six questions have been withdrawn and Members are, obviously, duplicating the rest, but that does not relate to Mr Shannon’s question.

We recognise that short-term fluctuations in exchange rates can have a positive and negative effect on our economy. Such fluctuations are occurring against a background of continuing uncertainty in the global economy. Current economic conditions and developments in the financial markets present us with significant challenges. That makes it more important than ever that the Executive and individual Departments collectively remain focused on delivering on the commitments in the Programme for Government. Therefore, although we will review our priorities and targets regularly to ensure that they remain relevant and focused on addressing the key challenges that we face in the medium to longer term, changes in the exchange rate must not make us lose focus.

Jim Shannon (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for that reply. I am sure that the global economic slowdown is on everyone’s minds, including that of the First Minister. What impact will that have on Northern Ireland’s economy?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I could take half an hour to answer that question alone. One area of activity relates to jobs, which is critical to so many people in Northern Ireland. Although our unemployment rate has been increasing substantially, it is not increasing at the exponential rates of the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I believe that the latest figures for Northern Ireland showed an unemployment rate of 4·2%. The Republic recently announced an unemployment rate of 9·1%. The UK average is 6·1% or 6·2%. However, Northern Ireland has the lowest level of unemployment of any region in the United Kingdom. Given the Republic of Ireland’s figures, it has the lowest level of unemployment in the whole of the British Isles. No one should take any credit for that. It simply means that the way in which the Executive have approached the issue, along with the fact that there is a very high level of public-sector activity in Northern Ireland, have assisted in ensuring that we have a slower rise in unemployment.

There are a series of other matters relating to the construction industry. The Member will be well aware of the real difficulties that the construction industry faces in spite of the fact that the Executive have a much larger capital programme than has ever been the case. However, the increase in our capital construction programme has not been able to fill the void that has been caused by the lack of activity on the housing front.

The construction industry faces serious difficulties. I could describe the state of each industrial sector, but at some stage the Speaker might become impatient.

Agriculture and Rural Development

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations contained in the Review of the Wind Energy for Rural Businesses. (AQO 2006/09)

Michelle Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am conscious of problems in process and procedure in respect of this issue, but they are not all the fault of my Department. Renewable energy projects contribute to the economy and should be supported.

The review concluded that evidence existed to merit and warrant the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s (DARD) funding of the project and that it was in line with the wider aims of Government policy. The project aims to protect and enhance the environment and encourage use of renewable technologies to assist with meeting the energy costs of rural businesses across the North. The industry has told me that that is greatly needed, especially in the current economic climate. It was recognised that, with an emerging technology and a lack of local experience, the project entailed risks. The Department took steps to manage those, and it will assess the lessons it has learnt and those learnt by the industry. Together, we will be able to manage those risks better in the future.

The Department has accepted the report of the ‘Review of the Wind Energy for Rural Businesses Project’. The recommendations contained in it, and the implications for this and other projects, are being considered by the Department. It will consider the lessons learnt, and how they can be incorporated into procedures as we move towards closure of the current rural development programme and the implementation of the rural development programme for 2007 –2013.

One of the recommendations is that, subject to approval from the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), the Department should consider making an offer of an ex gratia payment to each of the applicants who purchased the Powerbreeze turbines. A business case requesting approval to offer ex gratia payments was forwarded to the Department of Finance and Personnel in December and, while it awaited a response, my Department facilitated a meeting with the Powerbreeze applicants to advise them of the current situation.

On 29 January, DFP conveyed written approval for DARD to make an offer of ex gratia payments and, in the near future, the Department will enter into negotiations with the 11 Powerbreeze applicants to offer payment.

Leslie Cree (UUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Wind generation is not rocket science — it has been around for a long time. Does the Minister accept that DARD showed serious failings in respect of wind energy for rural businesses? She mentioned an ex gratia payment; should she not consider 100% compensation to those farmers who have been adversely affected?