Northern Ireland Assembly, 24 September 2012

401 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The first item of business is a motion signed by 30 Members, under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in relation to the exclusion of the Minister for Social Development from office.

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. The Minister for Social Development will have 15 minutes to respond. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. I advise Members that the vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis.

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

I beg to move

That this Assembly, in accordance with section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, resolves that the Minister for Social Development no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly and that he be excluded from holding office as a Minister or junior Minister for a period of three months because he failed to observe the terms of paragraphs (cd) and (g) of the Pledge of Office and the sixth paragraph of the ministerial code of conduct, in that he failed to promote good community relations and did not condemn actions which were contrary to the rule of law in his public response on 25 August 2012 to the sectarian behaviour of the Young Conway Volunteers flute band on 12 July 2012 and their illegal violations of a Parades Commission determination.

This House was constituted in order to give power back into the hands of local people so that we could mould our own future: a future free from fear; a future founded on respect; a future where the rule of law took the place of the rule of terror; and a future where our communities could come together in partnership, showing tolerance for our differences and embracing dignified compromise. Some of us have even dared to dream, for over 40 years, of a civilised society where that might be possible. We dared to hope that we were moving in the right direction. After all, we have the local Executive taking charge of our regional affairs, with many people showing leadership as we strive to achieve our aspirations.

A cold and cruel shadow was cast over those hopes this summer when the ugly, ugly face of sectarianism showed itself outside St Patrick's Church on Donegall Street in north Belfast on 12 July in the form of the Young Conway Volunteers Flute Band. The Minister for Social Development, who represents the area, was asked whether he could condemn the actions of the band. He failed to do so. He ducked and dived and in fact, in the end, he justified them. He said that the band was simply playing a pop tune, that it was not really provocative, that it was outside an empty building and that there was nobody there to be provoked. On 25 August, that same band joined a number of other bands to defy a legally binding determination by the Parades Commission that they should not play music while walking past St Patrick's Church. The Minister was asked to condemn that illegal activity, and he failed to do so again. Instead, he tried to justify those defiant acts of criminal disobedience as some sort of minor civil disobedience.

When Nelson McCausland became a Minister, he signed up to the ministerial code, which includes a Pledge of Office and a code of conduct. In those, he promised to uphold law and order and to promote good community relations. We contend that his failures to condemn the actions on those two occasions — we accept that he condemned belatedly the violence that arose from that — constitute a failure to uphold law and order and to promote good community relations, and he must face the consequences. Members on the Benches opposite are keen to trumpet an unwavering commitment to the rule of law when it comes to rioting or provocative behaviour on the part of others — they are right to do so — and so are we. However, justice is based on balance, and we must be brave enough to condemn provocative and illegal actions among our own communities, friends and associates. That is where the Members opposite fall down, at least when it comes to the parading issue.

Let us be clear: whether or not we like the determinations of the Parades Commission, it is the only regulatory body for parades that we have. Members from all parts of the House have had cause to disagree with it at various times. In some instances, we have fervently disagreed with it, but it is the law and its decisions are binding. Therefore, to break its determination is to break the law. Do not just take my word for it. I want to take you back to a quotation from the First Minister, who is present here. On 5 September, speaking on camera in response to a question about whether he condemned the breach, he said:

"I condemn the decisions of the Parades Commission but when those decisions are taken then that becomes the legal requirement."

The legal requirement is a requirement under the rule of law. Mr McCausland did not condemn that breach of the requirement and did not visibly uphold the rule of law, and, in that, he broke the ministerial Pledge of Office.

The behaviour of bands and their supporters on the Twelfth and on Black Saturday was triumphalist, provocative and moved far beyond any legitimate celebration of culture into an ugly display of purported cultural supremacy. Representatives of one tradition feel that the legal determinations do not apply to them and that somehow or other they are above the law. That type of action pits one community against the other and does not lead to improving community relations. Mr McCausland did not condemn those actions and did not promote good relations, and he broke the ministerial code. Even more than that, for a long time, until the PSNI advised him to take it down, he put at risk a human rights activist and a parade monitor by publishing his private address on a blog. Those are not the actions of someone keen to serve the whole community.

The prima facie case against the Minister is clear and unambiguous. He has a duty to keep the promise he made when he took office, and he has failed in that duty. He failed to condemn those breaches. More than that, he tried to excuse, justify and condone them. He hid behind the deeply disingenuous defence that it was some sort of minor civil disobedience. This was disobedience, all right, but it was anything but civil. It was a display of contempt and disrespect and a celebration of sectarianism. Clearly, it was illegal disobedience.

Mr McCausland tries to dismiss our action and our questioning by saying that the SDLP has no right to object to civil disobedience because it was born out of civil disobedience. He is right: we were born out of the civil rights movement that swept across the globe in the 1960s. Men and women everywhere were fighting for justice, fair play, respect, an end to gerrymandering and an end to job and housing discrimination, all of which were propagated by a discredited regime sitting in this House. We stand by our record. Civil disobedience was sought for basic human rights. It was not illegal disobedience. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

No one could condemn those who campaigned at Caledon or marched across the North for human decency and respect. They were not marching for division. They wanted a sense of fairness, not supremacy, to prevail. However, you can condemn the actions of the Conway band on the Twelfth and of those who broke the lawful determinations of the Parades Commission on Black Saturday. Make no mistake: that was not civil disobedience; that was a criminal act, criminal disobedience.

The Minister is a theologically minded man. He may be aware of the concept in some biblical teachings of the sins of omission. That is what we ask him to make atonement for today, because he has shown that, however noisily the DUP has shouted over many issues in the past 40 years, inactions often speak louder than words. In doing so, we have appealed for broad support. We are pleased to bring Sinn Féin on board after a long period of discussion, and we will be pleased to walk through a Lobby today with its Members, the Green Party and others. Likewise, though they, disappointingly, did not sign the motion, we are delighted that indications from the Alliance Party are that its Members intend to take a principled stand on this matter too. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

To others in the Chamber, let me say that we are not trying to score points off an individual or a party. [Laughter.] That profits nobody, and silly schoolboy giggling does not help us either.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

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

We are not playing petty politics here. [Interruption.] This is a serious matter.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

This is a very serious matter. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

The dignity of the House, our Executive and individual Ministers is at stake. We are not, as the Minister would have it, pursuing a narrow, sectarian agenda. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

No, No. Sorry , Mr Speaker — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

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

The Minister does not have to look to me. He has only to look at his DUP ministerial colleagues: Mr Poots, Mrs Foster, Mr Wilson and, indeed, the First Minister himself. They are not guilty of this stupidity.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone. [Interruption.] Order.

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

This is a blatant breach of the ministerial code of conduct and the Pledge of Office.

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tugann Sinn Féin tacaíocht don rún leis an SDLP, agus molaim an rún don Tionól. Sinn Féin is jointly supporting this motion with the SDLP and recommends the motion to the House. I thank my colleagues in Sinn Féin and the SDLP. Gabhaim buíochas le mo chomhghleacaithe i Sinn Féin agus san SDLP.

No right-thinking person who watched the sectarian scenes outside St Patrick's Church could have come to any conclusion other than that the determination issued by the Parades Commission had been deliberately breached, with the intention of causing offence to the community and the parishioners of St Patrick's. Using the excuse of civil disobedience is a nonsense to justify unacceptable behaviour retrospectively. Minister McCausland repeatedly failed to condemn the sectarian behaviour of the bands and their supporters. Nelson McCausland is a Minister in the Executive, and it is important that he shows political leadership. There is a simple, sensible solution to all this: Nelson McCausland should apologise immediately. The question is whether he is prepared, even at this stage, to encourage the loyal orders to engage with residents. Tá seans aige a thaispeáint go dtugann sé tacaíocht don réiteach. He has an opportunity to show that he is for solutions. The responsibility of Ministers is to lead, not to pander to sectarianism. I ask Minister McCausland whether, on reflection, he would do anything differently.

I end by paying tribute to all those who have worked in the interfaces and communities — the churches, the ex-prisoners on all sides and members of the Policing Board — to ensure that we build a society that is free from sectarian harassment. Their work is in stark contrast to the failure of leadership to date of Nelson McCausland.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

As a society, we have moved forward very considerably. We have made real progress, and it is in that context that I find today's motion not only disappointing but, indeed, depressing. The proposer said that his motion was not part of a narrow sectarian agenda. He is perfectly right: there is nothing narrow about it, but it is clearly a sectarian agenda with a sectarian tag team tabling the motion. It was, effectively, a sectarian rant from the proposer. I find it frustrating to waste time listening to this when there are many serious issues that the Assembly could be addressing. The Member will know that the motion is one of the most serious kinds of motion to bring to the Assembly: it deals with the exclusion of a Minister. As he said, it is not because the Minister did anything; it is because, in his view, the Minister refused or failed to do something.

I note that there is a distinct absence of Ministers from the SDLP and Sinn Féin present, or I would ask them this directly: does the SDLP Assembly membership condemn the breaking of the law, the entering and possession of houses and the illegal parades carried out by the civil rights movement and the founding fathers of its party? Will one of them stand to their feet now and say that they condemn that? Will any Member of Sinn Féin, which is happy to be the dog wagged by the SDLP tail, stand up and condemn the brutal murders that took place in Northern Ireland as a result of the actions of the Provisional IRA? Will any of them stand up and condemn the Provisional IRA for that? Not one of them. All of them are guilty of a refusal to condemn the very thing of which they accuse the Minister. The people who tabled the motion, which condemns the Minister for not doing something, are not prepared to do it themselves. They were invited to do it, and they failed to do it. That shows you the kind of motion that we have before the Assembly today. They never believed that their motion would be successful. They knew that their motion required a cross-community vote, and they knew that it would be rejected. Not only do they not have a case to bring to the Assembly but they knew that the so-called case would be rejected. We have to ask ourselves, therefore, why they brought the motion. What was the purpose? There is only one purpose, on which the SDLP and Sinn Féin are united, which is to raise tensions in the preliminary stages of a march that will take place this weekend. There is no other purpose. They have been doing it outside the Chamber, which is why I know that this is part of that same proposition. They choose a Minister from north Belfast and decide to try to demonise him, just as they have attempted to demonise the unionist community as a whole. They have been going to the Parades Commission to try to hike up the tensions, and they have been ratcheting it up with their statements. That is what this is part of. You heard that in their remarks. Those remarks did not directly relate to the Minister but to the issues around St Patrick's.

Let us be very clear: I warn the Members opposite of the dangers involved in heightening community tensions at such a time. I believe that the Orange Institution has taken a very responsible position. It recognised that there was a problem at St Patrick's, it met the parish priest there and invited him to bring along whomever he wanted —

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

No, I will not give way. I have only five minutes, so I have very few seconds left.

It did the proper thing. It tried to deal with the problem and came forward with a resolution that said that its members would show respect and play hymns as they went past the church. That seemed to be removing the tension. The Black Institution suggested that it wanted to apologise, and the Orange Institution endorsed that. I would have thought that they had taken all the steps to reduce community tensions, while the parties opposite are doing everything that they can to heighten those tensions.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is almost gone.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

They should be ashamed.

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

Will the Member give way?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If the Members wants to say that he is going to—

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

Will the Member give way?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

I will give way to the Member — [Interruption.] Do not harangue me from the back.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member will have a minute added to his time.

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

Will you give way?

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

If the Member wants to stand and condemn the founding fathers of the SDLP for civil disobedience, I will certainly give way to him. Is that what he wants to do?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is up.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is that what he wants to do?

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

Will you give way?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

He does not want to do that. He refuses to condemn them.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member's time is gone.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

The motion is couched in the rules and protocols of the House. However, outside some sort of forensic examination of paragraphs (cd) and (e) of the Pledge of Office and the sixth paragraph of the ministerial code of conduct, this is a broader issue. The two contexts in which we have to view the motion are inside and outside the Stormont bubble. Inside the bubble, the motion proposes that we tell Nelson McCausland that we no longer have confidence in him. I am no apologist for Nelson McCausland, and I am no apologist for the Democratic Unionist Party. My councillors tell me about the verbal kickings they get every week up and down the country, and I observe how some of my colleagues are treated by the Democratic Unionist Party in the Chamber. It tends to tackle the man or the woman instead of the issue. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

That does not, in any sense, promote good relations, and that is not the way that I want to do politics.

When the late Harold McCusker opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he went to jail — twice, from memory — because he felt so passionately about what was happening. However, he took that on himself and did not, at any time, take to the streets and risk provoking a riot. Indeed, I am pretty sure that there are pictures of him opposing a riot and stopping violence outside Maryfield. He also, of course, sat with Frank Millar, then of my party, and Peter Robinson of the —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have given all Members some latitude in and around the motion. Once again, I am listening to the Member very carefully — [Interruption.] Order. Let us, as far as possible, stick to the motion that is before the House and allow the Member some latitude.

Mike Nesbitt (UUP, Strangford)

Mr Speaker, I am grateful for your latitude. I was attempting to give context, but, as you desire, I will go to the context of the day.

Will we support a motion of no confidence in Minister McCausland? Well, we will have to factor in issues such as the conduct of Conor Murphy during his time as the Minister for Regional Development, John O'Dowd's trouble with public appointments and the questions being asked about employment trends in DCAL. It seems to me that many processes are honoured in the breach, rather than the practice. We have tabled a question for urgent oral answer about the appointments process for in respect of the Maze/Long Kesh, which was due to be answered on Tuesday. I would rather debate that, but we still do not have the answer to provoke a debate.

The Ulster Unionist Party would like to use the debate to put down a marker. Everybody needs to be careful about their words and actions, and I urge all Members to remember the week that is in it outside the Stormont bubble. We need to set the tone and demonstrate leadership this week. If mistakes have been made and we could have done better, we need to show leadership by standing up and accepting that we made a mistake and could do better. We need to say so. Are we going to endure the decade ahead of us, just get through it or celebrate it? My party will listen to the debate carefully and then decide.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate. The Alliance Party will support the motion. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, Members.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

The tensions and fears around parading this summer and the sickening violence that accompanied it, leading to the injury of dozens of our police officers, are symptoms of ongoing problems in this society. In the year that has been described as "Our Time Our Place", when we are inviting the world to come to Belfast, those scenes of violence and disorder are easily shared digitally across the world. They have done nothing for our global image. In that context, it is especially important that those in positions of leadership, particularly Executive Members, show leadership in support of the rule of law. Quite simply, there is no other way.

People may not like the rulings of the Parades Commission, but, if we are to have a debate on changing and reforming that body, it should not take place in the middle of the parading season or in the street or in the midst of violations of its rulings, violence and disorder. The debate should take place in this Chamber. Whether one views the commission as flawed or imperfect, it currently provides the only way of making such determinations until others in this Chamber come together to negotiate a viable alternative.

As elected representatives, we have a duty to encourage those involved in parades and those opposing parades to abide by the commission's rulings. However, there is an even higher standard required of our Ministers: not only to abide by the rulings of the Parades Commission but to uphold those rulings. By failing to support its legally made determination and clearly condemn the violence and the threat of violence, this Minister has undermined good relations, support for the police and the rule of law. We believe that that stands as inconsistent with holding ministerial office. The pledge of that office requires him:

"to uphold the rule of law based as it is on the fundamental principles of fairness, impartiality and democratic accountability, including support for policing and the courts as set out in paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement;".

That demands support for all policing and criminal justice institutions. We cannot have different standards in Northern Ireland or standards that are different from other jurisdictions.

The Minister said that he could not condemn the actions of the band in breaking the commission's ruling, even though the footage appeared very quickly after this occurrence. He said that it was because the investigation had not been completed. Yet, the same Minister rightly condemned the conduct of dissident republican rioters in Ardoyne in July when a video appeared showing a gunman firing shots at the police. The investigation had not been completed in that case, but the Minister condemned it anyway.

The issue is not whether violence occurs or the commission's rulings are broken but whether the law is violated. If evidence exists that the law was broken, condemnation should be forthcoming. Perhaps Winston Churchill was right when he said that unionists

"uphold all law except the law they choose to break."

When Ministers in Westminster have broken the ministerial code, they have apologised. Our society should demand nothing different. If we are to move beyond division and into normalisation, the standards of modern democracy must be upheld.

Some may see this motion as pointless. It has already been pointed out that the Democratic Unionist Party can block it under the cross-community voting rules. I appeal to others to help us to avoid that. Nevertheless, the debate can serve as a proxy to enable MLAs to state clearly their views on the importance of the rule of law and to censure the Minister for his repeated failures in that regard. We hoped that he would apologise and retract his comments, and we still believe, although comment has been made about the sensitivity of the situation at this late hour, that the Minister would do so. That would help to resolve the situation rather than add to the tensions.

This is not about political opportunity or opportunism on the part of the Alliance Party. Our record is clear. We took out indictments in July 1996 against the DUP and the Ulster Unionists; in January 1998 against the Ulster Democratic Party; and in February 1998 against Sinn Féin. On all three occasions, the British and Irish Governments were annoyed with the Alliance Party. However, our actions, arguably, brought some added integrity to the talks, assisted a positive outcome and helped delivery and commitments, in due course. By supporting the motion, we hope to bring some integrity back —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time has almost gone.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

— to our political process and the institutions, in moving forward.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

I share the sentiments and comments of the First Minister in expressing disappointment at the fact that a motion such as this has come before the Chamber, given the other problems that Northern Ireland faces not just over the course of this week but in the weeks and months ahead. Unfortunately, those who tabled the motion have chosen to do so, and we must respond.

As the motion comes from the SDLP, the unionist community will look on it as extremely rich to attack and criticise a unionist Minister for a statement that he made regarding civil disobedience. Of all the parties in Northern Ireland to lambast, criticise or bring a motion against a Minister on the basis of a comment regarding civil disobedience, the past masters of civil disobedience are the SDLP. They almost patented the phrase. We will not go back to 1969 and 1970 and how they brought people onto the streets courtesy of civil disobedience, the outcome of which we are all only too painfully aware of. SDLP leader, Alasdair McDonnell, talked about daring to dream and daring to hope. The next phrase, which he did not use, was daring to do. Of course, they have gone and done it today, without thinking through the implications and criticisms that will come their way as a result of doing it. He used the phrase "criminal disobedience" twice. I do not think that we want to go back and rehearse all that happened in the exceptionally difficult circumstances that the Minister and every other political representative were faced with in July and August in north Belfast. Rather, we should try to ensure that we work towards a resolution of those problems.

I notice that neither the SDLP nor any other party tabled a similar motion when there were parades in Dungiven, in my constituency, and there were not one but two Sinn Féin Ministers present at the parade. In one of those parades, a republican band stopped to play outside the Church of Ireland church in Dungiven in County Londonderry. The same Parades Commission that Mr McDonnell lauded as an example of virtue indicated that there were no objections, despite having received a letter from me stating the objections months before that parade took place. However, there were no motions, no tabling of censure motions or criticisms in the press of Sinn Féin Ministers. Of course, we have had other instances of Sinn Féin Ministers' appointments to various bodies. You will be glad to hear, Mr Speaker, that I will not go off at a tangent, but there was no mention of censure there of Ministers who, on the face of it, appear not to have carried out their duties appropriately. The best that we can do with the motion is deal with it succinctly, positively, rationally and dismiss it as soon as possible.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Beidh mé ag labhairt i dtacaíocht an rúin. I support the motion. The motion is before the Assembly because the Minister for Social Development failed to live up to the Pledge of Office that he took when he accepted his ministerial position on 16 May 2011 and, with it, all of his responsibilities. Whatever disappointments anyone has about the motion, its origin lies firmly at the door of the Minister for Social Development and nowhere else.

The pledge that he took is very clear and precisely defined in relation to a Minister's responsibility to uphold the rule of law. The code of conduct lays out how that pledge should be practised. In particular, the Minister, by stating that those who deliberately and knowingly broke a determination of the Parades Commission — in this instance, the prohibition of bands playing as they passed St Patrick's chapel on 25 August — were, in his words, totally justified, is in clear breach of that pledge.

A determination of the Parades Commission is legally binding, and those who deliberately and knowingly breach it are open to prosecution. In essence, the Minister is in contravention of the terms laid out in the Pledge of Office. The Minister for Social Development, somewhat belatedly, qualified his position by stating that those who broke the law were participating in an act of civil disobedience. Apart from doing a disservice to any definition of civil disobedience, it looked as if he was trying to recover from his inability to provide leadership by coming up with what can be best described as a fig-leaf defence. Ironically and significantly, those who breached the determination that day made no such contention. There was no statement from them on the day that that was an act of civil disobedience. Indeed, the organisers of the march, the Black Preceptory, issued a public apology for the offence caused by those who played music as they passed St Patrick's chapel. There was no support or succour given to any concept of civil disobedience.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. As he is talking about an apology, is it his intention today to apologise for the behaviour outside the local Church of Ireland church in Dungiven?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added to his time.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

You see, we are getting the defence today — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor. The Member must be heard.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

We are getting the defence today, which is, "You have done this, you may have done that, and we may have done that." Let us stick to the issue. Was the Minister for Social Development — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Every time someone from the opposite Benches gets up and points the finger in the other direction, in essence they are deeming their own Minister guilty. What was missing from all of that, and is missing now, is leadership. If there was ever a time for leadership, it is now. The Minister failed to show good and effective leadership on 12 July, when the YCV band danced a merry ring around St Patrick's chapel. He described that as normal behaviour. I have not been to too many Orange or loyal order parades, but I ask all Members here: is it normal practice that, when a band stops, they dance around in a circle in the way they did?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members should not debate across the Chamber.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

It is interesting. I ask Mr Nesbitt —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Make your remarks through the Chair.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Through the chair, I ask Mr Nesbitt: in all his time reporting, did he ever see that, or see it as normal practice? [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Raymond McCartney (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The Minister failed to show leadership by not calling for or facilitating dialogue between march organisers in August, and ever since. A lot of people this morning have mentioned the week that is in it. For the week that is in it, let us remember the example in Derry, where leadership worked and where dialogue delivered. The Pledge of Office that he, as Minister, took should point him in that direction, instead of trying to justify the unjustifiable.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I have known Nelson McCausland literally since I was a baby, because he used to babysit me. Over those 42 years of my life, I have known Nelson to be a man of the finest Christian integrity. He is a man who has always upheld the law, who is one of the finest Ministers in the House, and who has worked hard across the detail of his brief.

When the motion came before us today, it was known that it would automatically trigger a cross-community vote and that it would automatically fail. People have to ask the question: why did they insist on bringing it forward? I do not know about the Members on the opposite Benches who tabled this motion, but I was out and about in Strangford at the weekend. People are talking about jobs and the economy, the impact of welfare reform and the good work that Nelson is doing trying to make sure that people who are caught in housing crisis and single tenancies, and the difficulties of that — they are looking to Nelson for the flexibility that he can show to protect them. Do we have a motion on the economy, on welfare reform, or on how we can assist people who are most in need? No. We have a sectarian motion. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The motion is sectarian in nature, because the Members on the opposite Benches will never condemn the sectarian behaviour of the protestors. They will only ever refer to the parade. Why is it correct for the IRA's supporters and bands to parade outside a Protestant church in Dungiven and never to get the same coverage in the media as the YCV band? Why is it OK to put up an IRA memorial to terrorists outside a Protestant church and for nothing to be brought before this House?

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member not also accept that the person who proposed the motion had no difficulty in standing with republicans of every hue, colour, shade and size in the village of Rasharkin during the summer? I never heard one condemnation of the antics and actions of those who brought discredit and disgrace to the village of Rasharkin, but that Member was quite content to stand with those who had a sectarian agenda during the summer. There was no apology from him.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member will have a minute added onto his time. I ask all Members to come to the debate that is before the House.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I fully concur with the Member's point about the leader of the SDLP. I would have liked to hear him say when he is going to propose a motion in the House condemning the behaviour of Colum Eastwood and his colleague Durkan, who paraded behind dissidents. Does the D in SDLP now stand for dissident — sectarian and dissident? They paraded behind dissidents and then the masks came on and the gloves came out. Will the leader of the SDLP condemn the behaviour of those Members?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I ask the Member to come back to the motion.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

It is a sectarian dissident leader who appears to be bringing forward this attack on Nelson McCausland, and he would do well to remember that when he points the finger at others, three point back at him; at least one at Colum Eastwood and at least one at Mark Durkan.

What I cannot understand is that we should be putting our minds towards facing the crisis of welfare reform. Nelson certainly is. Ninety minutes of his time has been taken up in the House by a motion that was going to fail from the very beginning. All I can think of are Bill Clinton's words, "It's the economy, stupid".

We need to go back and remember the words, "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone". The First Minister dealt with that to deafening silence. Mike Nesbitt does not know what his policy is. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

We have Mr Mike "no policy" Nesbitt, who does not know what he is going to do at the moment. Let me tell you something, Mike. You said, in relation to Harold McCusker, who was a hero of mine —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members must not address other Members inappropriately.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Through the Chair, let me talk about Harold McCusker, who was a hero of mine. I know that Mike Nesbitt is new to the game, but he clearly knows nothing about Harold McCusker's integrity, because he said that he never paraded illegally. As a 16-year old boy I watched Harold McCusker parade illegally round Belfast City Hall in protest against draconian laws, and he went to jail for it. So maybe he should learn before he makes foolish comments about some of the past heroes of unionism. Most people got a conference bounce; he got a conference poll that told him that he was behind the Alliance Party.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must return to the motion.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Let us deal with the issue of the demonisation of the Orange Order. With no disrespect to the Members opposite, the Orange Order has been here for generations before them and will be here for generations after them.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member must come back to the motion.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

Nelson McCausland has always sought to defuse tension and provide leadership on the ground. That is the leadership that we need in advance of next weekend. Next weekend can and should pass off peacefully, and it is up to the Members opposite, because I believe that the only attack on that parade will come from supporters of each of their parties.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member will recall that, on the day of that parade, seven police officers were injured by the protestors. Will he give others the opportunity to condemn the protestors who injured the police officers on that occasion?

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

The Member makes his point very well. They will have an opportunity in summing up to condemn the protestors. Let us look to a new agenda and to a new future [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Members should not debate across the Chamber.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

I will say to Sinn Féin and Caitríona Ruane — if she would put down her book on Colombian birdwatching for long enough — that we will not take lectures from those who ethnically cleansed and shot people in churches and who held my grandmother, among other things. Do not talk to us, because the hypocrisy that stands from the IRA is self-defeating. Nelson is a good Minister. He is a fine Minister —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is gone.

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

— and he will lead us well into the future.

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

I will make a couple of points before I get into the substance of what I want to say. A number of DUP Members have made reference to the business before us today, given what is needed in relation to the economy and job creation. However, I look with dismay at the business for today and the next couple of weeks, because nothing is coming from OFMDFM. In fact, the only DUP motion —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I have warned all Members to try, as far as possible, to come back to the debate that is before the House. That goes for all Members. We should certainly not be discussing what business might be coming from the Executive. That is far outside the motion.

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

The SDLP refutes allegations of sectarianism, particularly from those on the Benches opposite. We have always put our face against sectarianism. The DUP can create as much hot air — it is good at that — as it likes to distract from Nelson's wrongdoings. However, the crucial distinction between advocating civil disobedience and criminal disobedience is not lost on the wider public. If we put parades, traditions and community divisions out of our minds for a moment and think about this carefully, we can see that the catalyst for the motion is immaterial, although we do take the parading issue seriously; very seriously indeed, but separately. This is about a blatant breach of the code of conduct and Pledge of Office. The Minister could have broken that in 100 different ways and 100 different circumstances, and we would have brought this motion in any of those events. That this breach is inextricably linked to parades is incidental.

The House has a duty to uphold the highest standards so that the people of the North — the people who put us here — can have confidence that those who make the rules play by the rules. This motion would be coming here today regardless of how the Minister broke the code. It is about decency; it is about accountability; and it is about honour, something that frequently absents itself from the Chamber. Our electors voted for the Assembly to be brought into being in the hope that we could usher in a better future and more respectful society and that those who hold high office would work in the best interests of all the people of the North and strive to let the wounds of the past heal. That is why we have the ministerial code, and that is why it must be upheld.

We have expressed concern in the House at the actions of the Minister in his office. We have raged at his acquiescence to the Tory cuts to our welfare system, and we have questioned the efficacy of his actions, but we have always accepted that, however fast and loose he played with the workings of his Department and however much we disagree with his decisions, ideologically and otherwise, he acted until now within the code. No more. There are Members all around the House who have erred in the past, acted in ways that they are not proud of, or misspoke to the detriment of public confidence. We, as a society, have been on a long road towards learning how to forgive, and we still need to do that. However, forgiveness requires repentance. If rules are broken, sanctions must be imposed.

The Minister for Social Development has responsibility for a Department that affects every corner of our community, including our most vulnerable. Regardless of who they are, where they come from or what their backgrounds or politics are, they must be able to trust the man who is tasked with making their communities better. When Nelson McCausland failed to condemn the actions of those who acted to set communities against each other, he broke that bond of trust and his code of office. I ask all those who stand for honour, decency, prosperity and peace in our communities to go through the Aye Lobby with us this afternoon and make a stand not against parades or expressions of tradition but against a breach of our rules and the public trust.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I normally say that I am glad to speak on the motion that is before us, but I speak today with a sense of weariness. Indeed, there is a stench of hypocrisy from those on the other side of the Chamber who put forward this motion. This is not about breaching the ministerial code, because there has not been a breach of the ministerial code. The Minister will deal with that in greater depth in his response. Nor, as others have said, is it about dealing with the key issues that face Northern Ireland; it is not about attracting jobs or seeing what we can do to improve our education service or health service. It is about nationalist chest-beating. It is about a party that is losing its relevance, with support in the latest opinion poll at 9%, trying to establish a sense of relevance in this House. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

Let me give a little bit of advice to the nine per centers across the Chamber: you will not revive your electoral fortunes by engaging in petty political point-scoring or having your APSs carrying the coffins of a dead terrorist. We should remember that there is a code of conduct for APSs as well. Lobbying for dissidents who are in jail is also not the route to electoral recovery for the SDLP.

The motion is not trying to ease the tensions around the parades issue. Good work is being done by the loyal orders and others to try, through quiet diplomacy, to ensure that we have a peaceful way forward. Does this motion reduce tensions or exacerbate them? It is clearly intended to exacerbate tensions.

At the heart of the motion lies the issue of civil disobedience.

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

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

No, I have a limited amount of time.

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

You will get an extra minute.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Weir (DUP, North Down)

I have heard more than enough from the Member today to last me for quite a long time.

People should be reminded, as there seems to be a little bit of dithering from the Ulster Unionists on this issue, that in the 1980s DUP and Ulster Unionist members went to jail because they were involved in peaceful civil disobedience. They were convicted and jailed because they went onto the streets and walked on the Queen's highway. They were prepared to take their medicine. That should be remembered.

It seems that the party opposite regards civil disobedience as that rarity in the English language — an irregular noun. That party was born out of protest, out of a rent strike, out of boycott and out of taking part in illegal marches. Whenever that sort of civil disobedience occurs, they say that it is simply a way of trying to obtain fair play. Yet, when there is civil disobedience connected to the unionist or loyalist side, it is evil sectarianism. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

The main source of this motion is the SDLP. Until they are prepared to condemn their past, we will not take them seriously. As the First Minister put it, Sinn Féin is the dog being wagged by the SDLP tail. There is an utter hypocrisy when civil disobedience is raised by an organisation that was linked, year after year, to the murder of people. Indeed, I will only again take the argument of Sinn Féin seriously when their Members and Ministers get up and, one by one, condemn all of the murders that were committed in their name by the Provisional IRA. It ill behoves those who will not condemn murders to condemn the Minister today.

It seems that what we have is an exercise in chest-beating from both nationalist parties. Indeed, some seem to be joining in their wake.

This is a flawed motion, because there has been no breach. It is the wrong argument from people on the wrong side of history. Indeed, as has been indicated, it is a motion that is doomed to failure. However, perhaps a futile gesture by nationalist parties, which will ultimately end in defeat in this Chamber, is their fitting tribute to a century of Ulster remaining British and a century of the Ulster covenant. Perhaps this is a timely motion in that regard.

I urge Members to reject the motion on the basis that it is flawed, makes a spurious attack and is simply a chest-beating exercise.

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

This motion is about values, it is about standards in high office and it is about a Minister who has failed to live up to the values and standards contained in the Pledge of Office and the code of conduct for Ministers.

In contrast to the actions of the First Minister, the Minister for Social Development failed to condemn those who breached the legal rulings of the Parades Commission. The First Minister, by contrast, said:

"I condemn the decisions of the Parades Commission but when those decisions are taken then that becomes the legal requirement".

In contrast to the First Minister, he ducked and dived on 'The Nolan Show' when Nolan asked him three times whether he would condemn those illegal and, indeed, potentially criminal actions by those who breached the Parades Commission's decision. He was not capable of living up to the standards of a Minister. When you become a Minister, you take the Pledge of Office, and when you take the Pledge of Office, you are committed, inter alia, to paragraph 6 of the St Andrews Agreement, which states:

"We believe that the essential elements of support for law and order include endorsing fully the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the criminal justice system, actively encouraging everyone in the community to co-operate fully with the PSNI in tackling crime in all areas and actively supporting all the policing and criminal justice institutions, including the Policing Board."

Mr Speaker, you will note that that is not exhaustive but includes expansive support for all of our law-making institutions. That includes the Parades Commission. You may not like the Parades Commission, but you have a duty, as a Minister, to obey and uphold the decisions of the Parades Commission. If you do not do that, you are failing in your duty and failing in your Pledge of Office.

Further to that, paragraph 6 of the ministerial code of conduct states that a Minister is obliged to:

"operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment".

How did the Minister promote good community relations when he dismissed the despicable action of the Young Conway band outside St Patrick's Church, where he contemptuously referred to the fact that the church was empty and that, therefore, no offence or no provocation could, in fact, take place? What an offensive remark. How damaging was that to community relations? His subsequent failure to condemn the sectarianism — not just simply the defiance of the Parades Commission's decisions — shown by the Black and the bands and their supporters — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

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

— on 25 August —

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

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

No, I will not give way.

That was giving comfort and support to that sectarianism, which appalled and offended not only the local Catholic community and the Catholic Church but any right-minded person who observed it. The Minister himself was there, and the Minister himself observed the obnoxious and sectarian behaviour of those who paraded on 25 August. That was appalling, and it is a breach of the ministerial code. That is why the SDLP has brought this motion to the Floor of the House. It is to assert decent standards and to assert the values in the ministerial code. It is to get rid of the poison of sectarianism that afflicts our society and damages the body politic and has continued to do so with the sort of actions and inactions of the Minister. If the Minister is committed to the ministerial code, let him apologise and say to the people that he will, in fact, adhere to the ministerial code.

Basil McCrea (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member agree that the Minister has an opportunity in the way in which he responds to the debate to defuse what has become a rather rancorous debate and that, perhaps, an apology would go a long way?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has a minute added on to his time.

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

Thank you very much; I am grateful for that intervention. In fact, the Minister should apologise, irrespective of the outcome of the debate. He should apologise in the same way that a Cabinet Minister in Britain apologised for abusing a policeman. Compare that with what this Minister has done — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member has the Floor.

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

— in failing to condemn the breaches of the Parades Commission's rulings — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

— and in failing to condemn the blatant sectarianism that was displayed on 25 August. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. The Member's time is almost gone.

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

I ask the Minister — indeed, I plead with the Minister — to apologise in the interests of good community relations —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member's time is up.

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

— and in the interests of upholding decent standards in office. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Even if there were merit in the motion and it were carried by a majority in this House, the reality is that it has no effect. That, therefore, points up a greater issue than the subject of the debate. It points up the fact that this House effectively has no control over some Ministers, whatever they do. That is because, although there is a ministerial code and mechanisms for dealing with complaints of alleged breaches under that code, no mechanism exists that is foolproof and effective to deliver penalty for any breach of the ministerial code by a Minister from either of the two largest parties. Under the arrangements of the 1998 Act, the two largest parties have a veto on any motion of censure even if it carries majority support in the House. That is why this is a pointless exercise and why it points up a greater problem that needs to be addressed.

If anything positive and worthwhile comes out of this debate, it should be that that difficulty in the 1998 legislation is addressed. Of course, the SDLP was the craftsman of that legislation, and it honed, drafted and helped to prepare it and very much has ownership of it. However, in today's terms, a veto was written in for the DUP and Sinn Féin where any censure of their Ministers was concerned. Yes, an SDLP Minister could be censured. Yes, an Ulster Unionist Minister could be censured and removed from office by the House, because they do not have a political voting payroll that is sufficient to block such a motion or a veto in a cross-community vote. However, the reality is that a Sinn Féin or DUP Minister is secure from that. That is wrong, just as the motion, in its focus, is wrong.

It is particularly wrong, as Sinn Féin constantly takes refuge in the reality that it is immune because it does the sort of things that Martin McGuinness did at Dungiven when he participated in a parade where people who were dressed as paramilitaries touted Armalites. He did all that confident in the knowledge that he is immune from any action in this House.

The House needs to address how we bring accountability to Ministers in the two largest blocks, because, at this moment, the rules do not provide any possibility of sanction or any remedy in those circumstances. Perhaps before it looks to Mr McCausland today, the SDLP should look to its construction of that legislation and ask why it was so constructed to give that protection and immunity. Unless that is sorted, a motion such as this is utterly a waste of time and will go nowhere, because it will be defeated by the blocking device in the arrangements of this House.

So, if you want change, you should change that, and then it will be time enough to tell whether a Minister has breached the ministerial code, because there will then be an opportunity to do something about it. In this case, I do not think that Mr McCausland has breached it.

David McNarry (Independent, Strangford)

What we have here is a charge of failure to observe the Pledge of Office and the ministerial code of conduct, linked to allegations — spurious, in my opinion — based on assumptions and interpretations of a failure to promote good community relations by not condemning actions that are contrary to the rule of law in a public response to the alleged sectarian behaviour of a single flute band. As this place is not a court of law and as the Member Nelson McCausland is not facing, as far as I know, any legal charges, what powers could the Assembly exert, even if it desired to do so, around section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which requires, as you pointed out, cross-party support? Therefore, is not the motion impotent?

Have we perhaps reached a stage in this that is similar to the case of Spartacus? I do not compare Nelson to a persecuted and badly wronged slave; rather, I make comparison to many Members, including me, who are in the Chamber and who, if asked, would say, Spartacus-like, "I, too, am Nelson McCausland". What has happened is that erroneous charges have been levelled that could fit everyone who has participated in any form of exerting his or her own rights. Like Nelson McCausland, none of us would condone the breaking of the law — at least, not these days, in some cases. However, we would be open, honest and transparent when challenged about non-violent disobedience, just as Mr McCausland was. Therefore, it is disappointing to hear those who were previously articulate and passionate exponents of justifying civil disobedience — even cases of violent disobedience — grandstanding on what they have called, lamentably, a matter of principle.

I regret to say that the motion has not been tabled for the good of the House or to encourage, if it were needed, better judgement from any Minister. Rather, to me, this is a sad piece of bitter recrimination. They have a fall guy to pick on, because of the people whom Mr McCausland honourably represents. That reflects more on the motion's signatories and their supporters than on anyone else. More to the fact, the motion will reflect badly in the public eye on all Members. It deliberately plays to a certain gallery and purports to represent its opinion. That suggests that there are crowds baying for Nelson McCausland's head through his dismissal from office. That is what the motion says. I do not see or hear those crowds, and I do not know where they are. However, I do see people who are turned off by this crass motion. I see people who are more concerned about employment, rising costs, education and health matters, caring for loved ones at home and fighting drugs and sex trafficking — all the things that we should and do debate from time to time. Those are the things that the public expect us to discuss, rather than this attempt at what I call pious hypocrisy.

Nelson McCausland has not broken any law. The House has no logical, practical or political reason to support the motion — no reason whatsoever. Values of office and standards have been referred to. The Minister's record shows me that he has upheld those values and standards, and he should not be persecuted in the House for doing so. I trust that the House will reject the motion.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I want to say, right at the start, that I have not broken the ministerial code of conduct or the Pledge of Office, and I totally refute any suggestion to the contrary. Anyone who has read the transcript of what I actually said will know that already. Any public comments that I have made in the past or will make in the future do not need to be interpreted by the SDLP.

This afternoon's debate is totally unnecessary. The SDLP's decision to bring it forward has very little to do with parades and protests or, indeed, with mutual respect and good relations. It has much more to do with the desperate plight of the SDLP. The proposer of the motion, Alasdair McDonnell, took over the leadership of his party in November last year, and, in less than a year, he has managed to take support for his party down from 14% to 9%. That is quite an achievement, even for Alasdair McDonnell. In North Belfast, the sole MLA from the SDLP has held on to his seat with a declining vote, and, in the Oldpark electoral area, Councillor Mallon, who works in Mr McDonnell's office, is holding on by her fingernails. This is about the SDLP trying to retrieve some ground, not just in North Belfast but across the Province. We saw that some time ago with the party's ridiculous stance on the redevelopment and regeneration of the Girdwood site, and now we see it again in relation to parades, an issue on which, in the past, it has generally been almost invisible, as someone, on one occasion, painted on a gable wall not far from Ardoyne. Desperation can be a powerful motive.

A censure motion had been mooted by the SDLP for some days, but, when it was confirmed last Tuesday, I was sitting in the airport in London on my way back to Belfast after a meeting with Lord Freud and his officials on welfare reform. That is the sort of political work that Northern Ireland needs, not the charade of this spurious motion. Today's debate is simply an unnecessary distraction from the real issues.

At first, the SDLP went on the attack in relation to what can be described as civil disobedience. That was its initial focus, but it was, as has been said, on very difficult ground, and it still is. The SDLP was born out of a movement that employed civil disobedience as a tactic, including the illegal occupation of public property. On his personal website, Alban Maginness states that he took part in a march in Londonderry that was in fact, although he does not state it, an illegal march. Yet, he is proud of his participation, puts it up on his website and picks out for special mention his participation in an illegal event. The founding fathers of the SDLP also advocated civil disobedience in 1971 when they launched a rent and rates strike. Will Alasdair McDonnell condemn his predecessors for their actions? Of course, Alasdair McDonnell is not a member of the Executive, and so I pose a second question: has Alex Attwood, who is a member of the Executive, condemned the founding fathers of the SDLP for their actions?

When we look at the record of the proposers of the motion, we see that it is clear that they are in no position to bring forward such a motion today without opening themselves up to charges of gross hypocrisy. Moreover, they were unable to bring forward the motion without the support of Sinn Féin. They needed the support of Sinn Féin; they pleaded for the support of Sinn Féin; indeed, they pleaded day after day and, eventually, they managed to get it. As Alasdair McDonnell told 'The Irish News':

"after an extended period of discussion, Sinn Féin decided to make common cause with us".

So, let us look at the new ground to which they moved, and it is on the issue of good relations. However, here again the SDLP has adopted a thoroughly hypocritical position. The SDLP demands high standards from Ministers in the Executive, but, surely, consistency requires that it also demands high standards from its own members. In that context, I noted the silence of Alasdair McDonnell when, on 17 April, one of the SDLP MLAs for Foyle, Colum Eastwood, participated in the paramilitary funeral of veteran republican Seamus Coyle, who had been a member of both the Official IRA and the INLA. The funeral included the firing of shots by a Real IRA gunman, and, as Mr Eastwood carried the coffin with its paramilitary trappings, he walked between two rows of men dressed in paramilitary uniforms. That was not just a funeral; it was a paramilitary display. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Later, Mr Eastwood defended his actions.

William Humphrey (DUP, Belfast North)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the Minister was making his contribution, the leader of the SDLP pointed to the Minister and said, "You do that all the time." Is that appropriate?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I remind Members about their language in the House. Allow the Minister to continue.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Later, Mr Eastwood defended his actions. His defence makes interesting reading, but I did not hear Alasdair McDonnell or his deputy, Dolores Kelly, censure Colum Eastwood for his role in a paramilitary funeral. Alban Maginness was also silent on the matter. More significantly, Alex Attwood, a Minister in the Executive, was silent on the matter, and, even more significantly, the media did not rush to get Alex Attwood to condemn his party colleague. Meanwhile, the PSNI is investigating that funeral.

Just last month, several Sinn Féin Ministers were present at the annual republican hunger strike commemoration, which, this year, took place in Dungiven. There was no Parades Commission determination for that march. I noticed the part of the statement in relation to Ministers about equality of treatment, but there was certainly no equality of treatment from the Parades Commission. There was no determination with regard to Dungiven. Those Ministers were at an event that included young people brandishing replicas of weapons from the recent Troubles. That was no historical re-enactment of a bygone era but a re-enactment of recent terrorism. The Member for East Londonderry made a point about the band playing outside the parish church in Dungiven. Alban Maginness might want to take note of this: every Easter, the Volunteer Sean McIlvenna Republican Flute Band from Scotland plays republican tunes as it parades past two Protestant churches on the Whitewell Road, which is in his constituency. Of course, he has never commented on that, approached the Parades Commission about it or censured those responsible. Moreover, that was not the first time that replica weapons were displayed at that annual event. It has happened for a number of years. Even Sean Murray has said that it is time for change, and he is right. However, the SDLP does not see fit to censure the Sinn Féin Ministers who were there and who spoke at the event. Did the SDLP rush to censure those members of Sinn Féin? No, it did not. It has not sought to censure them this year, and it did not seek to censure them on previous occasions.

It was interesting to read the argument put forward by Sean Murray in the 'Belfast Telegraph' on 12 September. He wrote about the need for republicans to change to improve good relations. Surely, if it is an issue about good relations and if there are Ministers in the Executive who took part in that event, the SDLP should be rushing to censure them instead of seeking their support for a spurious motion. It is clear, therefore, that in bringing forward this motion —

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

Will the Member give way?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

No. Mr Speaker, there is absolutely nothing that the SDLP —

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

Mr Speaker —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. It is quite obvious that the Member has no intention of giving way — [Interruption.] Order. The Member should not persist. The Minister has the Floor.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that you make a ruling. On a number of occasions throughout the debate, DUP contributors have explicitly invited the SDLP to respond to points that they have made. When the opportunity to respond has been sought, Mr Robinson and Mr McCausland have refused to give way. Is that a proper use of parliamentary time?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

All sides of the House and all Members who have spoken have taken quite a bit of latitude around the motion. If Members raise issues that are outside the motion, the Minister has every right to respond to those. That goes for all Ministers. Members complain to me about Ministers responding to issues. The simple reason for that is that Members have opened the debate further. So the Minister has every right to respond to all issues that other Members have raised in the House and which have opened up this debate. I have warned all sides of the House to try, as far as possible, to stick to the motion. Unfortunately, that did not happen, so the Minister now has every right to respond to all issues that Members have raised.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not the case — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Peter Robinson (DUP, Belfast East)

Is it not the case that, when Members, as happens in a lot of debates, indicate that another Member in the Chamber should answer a certain question, that does not mean that they have to interrupt that Member's speech to do so. They have the opportunity to get to their feet and make their comments when called by the Speaker. That is what is called debate, and it was noticeable that the Minister did not want to take part in the debate.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I will allow the Member in on a point of order, but let me say as well that it is the Member who has the Floor who decides whether he wants to take an intervention. Obviously, on this occasion, the Minister has no intention of doing so. That is where it ends, and we really should move on.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Londonderry incident to which I referred took place on 17 April, the Dungiven incident in August. There has been ample opportunity — more than ample — for SDLP representatives and, indeed, the Minister to express their views or offer some sort of censure. It is clear, therefore, that, because of this different treatment, in tabling the motion, the SDLP has been both selective and vindictive. There was also the appalling incident at the Tí Chulainn centre in Mullaghbawn, where small children were dressed up as terrorists and given replica weapons. Sinn Féin leaders, including at least one Executive Minister, sought to explain away what happened, but did the SDLP rush to censure? Of course, they did not.

There is a tendency for Irish nationalists and republicans to suggest that only unionists are sectarian and that sectarianism does not apply to nationalists. I noticed that particularly in regard to the events on the last Saturday in August. That evening, I stood on the traffic island at North Queen Street. I looked across at the protesters at Carrick Hill. I do not know whether the SDLP Member for North Belfast was there, as I did not see him.

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

I saw you.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Good, we now know that he was there. He certainly did not go out of his way to rush to condemn the crass, crude, appalling behaviour of the protesters who were standing at Carrick Hill. There was sectarianism on the ground that day, but the impression given by the SDLP is that it was all on one side of the fence. The fact is that it was a very unpleasant day and one that I would not want to see again, but this was —

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

Is that an apology?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to continue. The Member should not debate across the Chamber.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I want to turn to the issue of sectarianism just to illustrate the point. As Alban Maginness has spoken, I will deal with him first. Speaking in the context of the housing needs of Roman Catholics in North Belfast, he at one stage described the Torrens estate as a windfall site. A windfall is generally seen as a piece of good fortune, but there was not much good fortune for the few Protestant families there, who suffered during years of sectarian attack and abuse and were eventually ethnically cleansed from their homes. Those words of Alban Maginness were deeply damaging to community relations in North Belfast, and I believe that they betrayed an undercurrent of sectarianism in nationalist thinking.

Today's motion was signed by Caitríona Ruane, who spoke earlier. I can well remember — it is indelibly etched on my memory — her interview with Wendy Austin on Radio Ulster when Sinéad O'Connor declined to take part in the West Belfast Festival because of the issue of punishment beatings. Caitríona's exact words were that punishment beatings were not a black-and-white issue. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Minister to continue.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

The Sinn Féin Member is a former member of the Executive. When she was a member of the Executive, was she challenged to condemn those words? Does she condemn her own words, or does she stand condemned out of her own mouth?

Caitriona Ruane (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Member take an intervention?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

No. You have had — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Given that the comment was made in 1999, she has had nearly 13 years to explain it away. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I understand that the incident on 12 July is now being investigated by the police. We must await the outcome of that process. A video clip taken by a member of Sinn Féin is only part of the evidence of what happened on the day. Moreover, the band in question has stated that it was not its intention to cause offence and has apologised for any offence that may have been caused. I welcome that. That point was reiterated in a joint statement issued in August by unionist politicians, loyal orders and representatives of the band sector. Recently, I and a party colleague met Father Michael Sheehan of St Patrick's and Father Tim Bartlett. They explained their position to us, but they also noted the apology, which they acknowledged had been almost overlooked. The way forward is the way of mutual respect. That is a point to which I will return. As regards the last Saturday in August, yes, there were things — I see that our time is almost gone, so I will come quickly to my final point.

The Parades Commission, in making determinations, is supposed to take account of the impact on community relations. The system is a bad system, but the situation is made even worse by the fact that the current commission is a particularly bad commission, whose decisions are characterised by incoherence and inconsistency. It is a commission that has sought to deny the right of freedom of religious expression by prohibiting the playing of Christian hymns.

I remain focused on working with all sections of the community to deliver a long-term solution to the problems in north Belfast, as a local representative, and for the whole of Northern Ireland, in my role in the Department for Social Development. Whether it be socially, economically or politically, I and my colleagues are, first and foremost, interested in building a community that is peaceful and prosperous and in which sectarian behaviour and violence have no place.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I support the motion. I suppose it was to be expected that, in a debate like this, it was going to get a bit rough around the edges. It is difficult to finish off the debate and not make it worse, but I will try to do that.

Maurice (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Start in Dungiven.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Well, let us start where this came from, Lord Morrow. We are talking about Nelson McCausland, which is important. He is a Minister —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Let us have all remarks through the Chair.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We are talking about Nelson McCausland, who is a Minister: that is the big difference in the debate and much of the "whataboutery" that has been given by the other side of the House.

A community was very wronged. That is at the core of this. Although the debate is centred around the ministerial code, let us not forget what happened. What happened on the day is that an insult, a very specific insult, was given outside a Catholic chapel. That really only manifested the sectarianism that has been shown, time and time again, in the parades that go down past Carrick Hill. What happened at St Patrick's was a manifestation of something that has been going on and on and on for a very long time. The difficulty, I think, for the Minister, as has been pointed out by Alasdair McDonnell and many others, is that the remarks he made are not just an issue of omission; he defended the sectarianism involved. He talked about empty buildings, he refused to condemn what happened, and he actually pretended — he must be the only person in this Assembly who believes it — that the anti-Catholic song, the famine song, is some sort of pop song. He is from north Belfast. I do not know whether he supports Rangers, but I am sure that, if he has been to any football matches, he will have heard the song many times before.

Caitríona Ruane said that perhaps the way out of this is for the Minister to give an apology. Perhaps that is the way out of it. As other Members have said, we can go only so far in this debate. She also said that she welcomed all those — as I notice the Minister himself did — who are trying to make an effort to move the process forward. We are heading towards 29 September, and perhaps we can get dialogue that can do some good.

Peter Robinson also talked about moving forward. He has engaged and made a number of statements about that, but he spent his time accusing the SDLP and Sinn Féin of sectarianism. This was a huge act of sectarianism. We are debating something that was an act of sectarianism. Coming to the debate and blaming everybody else is not the way to drive this forward. We talk about trying to move the whole process forward, and a number of Members have mentioned quiet diplomacy. I would like to see the quiet diplomacy. I would like to know where it is going on because there is no evidence of it. Peter Robinson talked to the Orange Order, along with many other unionists and loyalists, and he came out of that meeting saying —

Jonathan Bell (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your ruling last Monday, if I understood it, was that, when matters are clearly in the public domain, Members should be accurate in what they say. The Member for North Belfast has said that there is no quiet diplomacy going on, but he has been in meetings with me in the Executive room as we have sought to deal with the issue. He knows that there are meetings going on with the Roman Catholic priest and parishioners, so can I ask you to rule at some stage on that accuracy that you referred to last Monday?

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. I said last Monday that Members should be careful in how they address the House and not put words into Members' mouths. However, the Member has it on the record, and I am sure that the Member will want to respond.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Maybe the Member should read Hansard tomorrow as well. He is talking nonsense also.

Peter Robinson came out of that meeting, and what did he declare to the world? Not that he had some way of moving this whole process forward, not that we were going to have a quiet 29 September, but that there was unionist unity. We do not even know what the unionist unity was about, but it seems that it was about condemning the residents of Carrick Hill. Mike Nesbitt went through all sorts of "whataboutery".

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

I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member accept that the only real diplomacy and dialogue that counts is between the Orange Order and Carrick Hill residents, and that has not yet taken place?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his intervention and absolutely agree with him. That is exactly where the discussions should be taking place. That is what we need to make the scene-changer in all of this.

I will move on fairly quickly. Mike Nesbitt got up, and it was all "whataboutery". He did not deal with the issues. Stewart Dickson also repeated that there should be an apology. Gregory Campbell and many others across the aisle spoke about civil disobedience. You are the only ones talking about civil disobedience; we are talking about a determination that was broken, and that makes it criminal disobedience.

Raymond McCartney said accurately that what we have here is a fig leaf of defence. Jonathan Bell gave sainthood to Nelson McCausland. Fair play to him. It was very loyal and very good. However, he showed no way of going forward. This Dungiven issue has been raised on a — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order, order. The Member has the Floor. The Member must be heard.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Dungiven was raised, as well as many other issues, but they have never been raised before. There was no determination in Dungiven. Incidentally, because it has been raised so often, not just in the House, I went and asked about it, and your information is absolutely wrong.

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No, I will not give way. Go to the Parades Commission if you have a complaint. [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I enjoyed some of what Jonathan Bell said. He said, "It's the economy, stupid". You are right: "It's the economy, stupid". Some £7 million has been taken out of the economy for parades, and £6 million — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Let us not have a debate across the Chamber.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

— has been spent on policing a small number of contentious parades. You are right, "It's is the economy, stupid". [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Dolores Kelly and Alban Maginness again emphasised that this was criminal disobedience. Alban, as is his wont, gave the legal interpretation of that, and I am thankful for that.

Jim Allister and David McNarry said that it will not make any difference. I am not too sure about that. The reason for tabling the motion, even if we cannot achieve the censure, is that people out there want to know that we are making a difference on the issue.

The reason why I support the motion is that the Minister has clearly broken the Pledge of Office and the code of conduct. I know that he said that he did not break it, and that is his opinion. Whatever you think about that, I have to say that Nelson McCausland was wrong on a number of issues. On 12 July, he and, I think, another elected member of the DUP saw the stoppage and were very close to the band when it was marching around. If he had any sense — a bit of common sense — he would have gone over to the band and said, "Catch yourselves on. You are insulting people here. Wait till we go past the chapel", but there was no such action.

On 25 August, we had the same thing again. The same band that caused that insult broke the determination, along with the rest of them, apart from, I think, one band, and yet the Minister did not condemn that. He also defended the song and the act. He has to realise that that was deeply insulting to people. He said that the building was empty, but the significance to the parishioners and to the people who live in the area was that it was a Catholic chapel. He is a religious man, so he must know how deeply offensive that was.

There is an opportunity to show leadership. Perhaps it is necessary for the party to support Nelson McCausland. One Member said that the motion is about dismissing him as a Minister, but it is about a suspension for a period of time. We need to send out a notion about ministerial behaviour. Harold McCusker was quoted a number of times, and other people were quoted on the issue of civil disobedience. The one big difference is that those people were not Ministers. They did not have to take the Pledge of Office and sign up to the ministerial code. I think that we can move on from where we are.

At the core of the matter is not only the issue with Minister McCausland but the fact that we are trying to move the process forward in north Belfast, Rasharkin or wherever. To get the loyal orders to talk to residents might be a better use of time than defending this issue. Although the Members on the Benches opposite are all lined up behind Nelson — fair play to them — I know that what he did was wrong and that he should not have done it. Maybe the party leadership needs to take him aside and tell him to catch himself on. Let us show a bit of leadership — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. Allow the Member to continue.

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Let us as an Assembly support the motion.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

We will move to the vote on the motion. Once again, I remind the House that the vote requires cross-community support.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 47; Noes 49.

AYES

NATIONALIST:

Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Byrne, Mr Dallat, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Ms Fearon, Mr Flanagan, Mr Hazzard, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Mr McCartney, Ms McCorley, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Ms McGahan, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Ms Maeve McLaughlin, Mr Mitchel McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr Maskey, Mr Molloy, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Mr Rogers, Ms Ruane, Mr Sheehan.

UNIONIST:

Mr McClarty.

OTHER:

Mr Agnew, Mrs Cochrane, Mr Dickson, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCarthy.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Lynch and Mrs McKevitt.

NOES

UNIONIST:

Mr Allister, Mr Anderson, Mr Beggs, Mr Bell, Ms P Bradley, Ms Brown, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr Clarke, Mr Copeland, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mrs Dobson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mr Frew, Mr Gardiner, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Hussey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Mr McGimpsey, Mr D McIlveen, Miss M McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Newton, Mrs Overend, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Ms P Bradley and Mr Humphrey.

Total Votes 96 Total Ayes 47 [49.0%]

Nationalist Votes 37 Nationalist Ayes 37 [100.0%]

Unionist Votes 50 Unionist Ayes 1 [2.0%]

Other Votes 9 Other Ayes 9 [100.0%]

Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote).

Gregory Campbell (DUP, East Londonderry)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that things were said across the Chamber during the debate and that we have to make allowances for those. However, when making the concluding remarks in the previous debate, the Member for North Belfast, Mr Kelly, intimated that I was inaccurate when I said that I had made representations to the Parades Commission about the parade in Dungiven. I sent a letter to the Parades Commission and received a response that indicated that I had made such representations 10 months ago. I say that for the accuracy of the record.

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

The Member has that on the record. Let us move on.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During his contribution, the junior Minister from the ranks of the DUP referred to the party leader of the SDLP by reference to the word "dissident". The record will confirm that, on a number of occasions, that Member referred to the leader of the SDLP in that way. Given how that term is generally understood in our society at the moment, that it is an inflammatory word and the very clear significance of the use of that word, I ask you, Mr Speaker, to make a ruling on that Member's remarks and the use of that particular word by a Member of the House. I ask you to review Hansard as a matter of urgency — [Interruption.]

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order.

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

— in order to give your view on that, given that that word has such relevance and —

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

Order. As the Member will know, I have given him quite a bit of latitude on his point of order. The Member will also know that I insist that all Members and Ministers use proper titles when referring to other Members in the House. However, on many occasions, that is part of the cut and thrust of debate in the Chamber. Let me look at Hansard and come back to Member.

Executive Committee Business

William Hay (Speaker, Foyle)

I call the Minister for Social Development [Interruption.] Order.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That the draft Landlord Registration Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

I welcome the opportunity to get down to the serious business of the Assembly. The regulations were laid on 21 August 2012 and are made under article 65A of the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.

In response to the growth of the size and significance of the private rented sector in meeting housing need and in recognition that the current regulatory provisions needed to be supplemented, the Department's strategy for the private rented sector, Building Sound Foundations, was launched in March 2010. Its objective is to ensure the provision of good-quality, well-managed accommodation, which is supported by an appropriate regulatory framework and which encourages and promotes the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. One of the key issues to emerge from the work to develop the strategy was the need to introduce mandatory landlord registration in order to make the existing regulatory provisions more effective. A register of all private landlords will give local councils the means to work and communicate with landlords, better equip them to ensure that landlords comply with the law, raise standards and, where necessary, take enforcement action. The collection and availability of such essential and relevant data will allow councils to deliver their statutory responsibility more effectively, for example by targeting their activity more appropriately and identifying problem landlords who do not comply with the law.

The purpose of the draft Landlord Registration Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 is to give effect to the landlord registration scheme, including the functions and responsibilities of the scheme registrar, and the information that a landlord must provide to the registrar in order to register and continue to be registered. Landlord registration is seen as an essential step in assisting with better regulation of the private rented sector.

The purpose of landlord registration is to create a register of all private landlords and maintain relevant and up-to-date information about those landlords and their tenancies. First, it will give local councils information to ensure that landlords comply with the law and assist environmental health officers to enforce standards and improve tenancy management, and, secondly, it will allow particular information held on the register to be accessed by members of the public and prescribed statutory bodies.

In simple terms, data collected will be used by council environmental health officers to target landlords who are not complying with legal requirements that are already in place. It will also allow tenants and others to check whether a landlord is registered and, if not, this can be reported to a council for follow-up action. As the information held on the landlord register will be an invaluable tool for councils in the pursuit of their statutory obligations under the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, it is planned that the role of registrar will be undertaken by a council.

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

The cost of establishing the registration system will be met in the first instance by the Department, which will contribute to the initial one-off start-up costs. Once established, the scheme registrar will be expected to manage the scheme, including meeting any ongoing costs, through a nominal fee paid by landlords.

The landlord registration scheme here will be light touch. That means that bureaucracy and costs will be minimised. Landlords will be able to register their details on an online system, pay a fee, receive a registration number, and be directed to various forms of guidance and advice on renting from the private sector. Although landlords will be encouraged to register online, there will be a paper-based option that will facilitate landlords who wish to register manually. Registering manually will incur a slightly higher fee. Although all landlords will be required to register, landlords of houses in multiple occupation (HMO) registered with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will be exempt from paying a fee.

The definition of a landlord for the purposes of these regulations includes, for example, an agent. However, the onus to register still lies with the landlord. It is considered appropriate that the role of scheme registrar will be undertaken by one of our larger councils. This decision is based on the fact that councils are currently responsible for regulation of the private rented sector and have extensive knowledge and experience of that sector. I am sure that Members across the Assembly will agree that the private rented sector is critical to meeting housing need for many. I consider that these regulations will make significant improvements to the private rented sector, and that tenants will have the confidence to continue to rent privately or to consider doing so.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the regulations tabled by the Minister, but wish to express for the record a number of caveats that have been of concern to the Committee. Suffice it to say that, given the concerns that the Committee has had on the issue, which have been of concern to members right back to the previous mandate, it has considered this issue on no fewer than four occasions.

So, the Committee obviously welcomes the regulations, and we will, as a Committee, support them. However, it is important to put on record our concerns, which fall into four areas. The first is the question of a fit and proper person test. That is the issue of the eligibility, if you like, of a person who wishes to become a landlord, which was, I think, recently put into law in Scotland. It was something that members considered during their deliberations on these regulations. This is all designed to improve the situation for those renting from private landlords.

From the outset, we accept entirely that the vast majority of landlords are professional people of impeccable integrity, but there are of course those who are less scrupulous. Given that there have been, and continue to be, some unscrupulous landlords — Members are aware of the types of complaints that they receive — it is important that we have in place legislation that will not frighten good landlords but put down a real marker for those who are not so good, telling them that they have to, dare I say, get their house in order and provide a proper service to those paying them rent. When one considers the amount of public money that is paid in housing benefit to landlords and to the private rented sector, this is obviously a matter of public importance.

The regulations are designed to improve the overall situation for tenants. We want to see a situation in which both landlords and tenants have a clear understanding of their responsibilities, rights and obligations. In Scotland, for example, they have legislation that requires a person who wishes to be a landlord to meet a fit and proper person test. That deals with a range of issues, including whether there is a criminal history there, or maybe a person has been a bad landlord, or the agents letting the property have a history of antisocial behaviour in their properties, or some other criteria. Without going into all the criteria that may be adopted, the Committee wished to see a fit and proper person test of landlord eligibility established. That, again, is part of the framework and the environment within which, we believe, the provision and the standards of houses for private rental would be dramatically improved.

The Minister referred to registration fees. The Committee was of the general view that the registration fee may be too limited, too low. Although we do not want a fee that will be a burden on landlords, we think that registration fees are too low. We have to consider the fact that the registration fee for a landlord who owns a single property will be the same as that for one who may own 100. That has to be taken into consideration in establishing a registration fee.

The fines for non-registration — again, the Committee looked at this. It felt that, if landlords were in default of their responsibilities — and again, this applies only to those unscrupulous landlords who are out there, not those with professional integrity, who we all know are out there — the fines, as we understand them, would not be a deterrent. For example, to use the Scottish model again, I think that the maximum fees are up to £50,000. The Committee is not saying that it wants to see a £50,000 fine as a maximum; in fact, it was cautioned against seeking to second-guess what the judiciary may wish to impose. However, the Committee felt that there needs to be a maximum fine that would be a deterrent for people who fail to register. Again, we thought that that was very important.

On the issue of an information pack, we felt, as a Committee, that it would be important that all landlords be issued with an information pack that details their responsibilities, obligations and, of course, rights. Equally, the Committee was concerned that those information packs would also be provided to people renting accommodation. To try to encapsulate the Committee's views; it thought that these regulations, as the Minister has outlined them, are too light touch in design. Some Committee members thought that, over the past years and given that this was dealt with in the previous mandate, they may more aptly be described as soft touch.

The Committee believed that, in general — I think I am faithfully recording this — the regulations need to be more robust if we are going to achieve the outcome that the Minister and the Department are saying they want to achieve. Therefore, as I said, they wanted to increase the registration fees and the fines for non-registration.

One of the things that we were very clearly reminded about and advised of by the Department over the last number of months when we were deliberating on the regulation was that the regulation can go no further than what the primary legislation of 2006 provides for. Some members of the Committee had rehearsed the fact that, in the previous mandate, they had argued for a more robust Private Tenancies Order, but they were advised at that time by the Department that their concerns could be addressed by way of statutory regulation in the upcoming period. Lo and behold, we now discover that that, in fact, has not been the case. I will not use the term "misadvised", but certainly that was the interpretation provided to the Committee at that time. I was not on the Committee at that time, so I am going by members' recollections, and clear recollections at that. The fact of the matter is that, at this moment in time, the primary legislation of 2006 prevents this regulation from being more robust. That is an issue.

We were advised that the Department would want to review the regulation within something like a two-year period. That, of course, will take us into a new mandate, and I think that the Committee will be quite determined to ensure that we monitor it much earlier than that, and as soon as we can. We entirely accept the intention of the Department and the Minister to ensure that the regulation improves the situation for those who are renting from the private sector and that it drives up standards, accountability and so on. We want to make sure that the Department puts in place a monitoring process so that we can track that in a shorter time frame in the time ahead.

Therefore, notwithstanding the reservations and caveats that I have outlined — I do not want to go into them in any more detail, but obviously the Committee expressed a number of reservations, which I am rehearsing this morning on its behalf — the Committee recommends that we support the statutory rule.

Michael Copeland (UUP, Belfast East)

I will begin by thanking the Minister for bringing forward the proposals, and I agree with and echo most, if not all, of what the Committee Chair said. Anything that will raise the standards in the private sector is clearly welcomed. Even at this late stage, it is the least that we should expect.

In Northern Ireland, around one in six people lives in privately rented accommodation. It is therefore imperative that that sector is adequately regulated. The landlord regulation scheme is certainly a step in the right direction towards achieving that end. It is my hope that the scheme will also act as an educational tool for landlords. Private landlords should and must be held to account at every potential opportunity. They should be made fully aware of their responsibilities to their tenants and acknowledge the role that they play in this society. In future, with the scheme in place, there can be no excuses regarding any ignorance of responsibility or duty.

When we talk about incompetent landlords, we refer only to a small fraction, but that fraction is still too large. If we are to retrieve the image of the privately rented sector, we must do all that we can to eradicate shoddy landlordism. There are, of course, bad tenants as well as bad landlords, and the scheme should act as an educational tool for them also. In future, it should not be acceptable for tenants to ignore their responsibilities to their landlords and, indeed, to their neighbours.

Under the new scheme, the vulnerable persons in our society who are living in private rentals are afforded a reassuring hand. I am particularly mindful of our student population, who are, at present, dependent, to a large degree, on the honesty of their landlords. So too are foreign nationals residing in Northern Ireland, who are driven, by the way in which we provide social housing, to the private sector. Here they find themselves possibly at risk of exploitation due to language barriers as well as their unfamiliarity with our system.

This registration scheme will allow tenants to put their trust in a landlord and vice versa. It will provide peace of mind for the vast majority of good landlords and tenants alike. The scheme was first mooted in 2009-2010 before the Housing (Amendment) Bill passed Final Stage a year later, in March 2011. I will register my small disappointment that the scheme was not in place for the start of the current academic year, therefore subjecting students to another year of potential exploitation by incompetent landlords.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I, too, thank the Minister for proposing the motion. I will not go over the Chairperson's and Mr Copeland's comments, although I agree wholeheartedly with most of what has been said. I also welcome the regulation of this sector and the improvements that that should bring to the quality of tenants' lives.

It will help to clamp down on what Mr Copeland described as incompetent landlords and on what Mr Maskey described as unscrupulous landlords. However, it is also very important that, as Mr Copeland and Mr Maskey said, landlords are afforded some protection, because the vast majority, on whom we are going to be ever more reliant, are good landlords with consciences.

As Mr Maskey said, it is regrettable that the Department has not moved to include the legal obligations in these regulations, but I will take them as they are, because they certainly represent a step towards the regulation of landlords in Northern Ireland and provide a safeguard for tenants as a result. I support the motion.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the adoption of these regulations. In the previous mandate I tabled two motions in the House calling for mandatory registration. One was successful and one was not; Members must have been in a bad mood on that day because they did not pick up on it.

My party raised the issue of the need for regulation of the private rented sector at Committee after Committee after Committee, and we were glad at the end when, through the Housing (Amendment) Bill, the regulations were drawn up. As Alex said, we were unhappy that a more robust registration scheme had not been brought forward. However, this is a beginning, and the sooner the scheme is in place, the better it will be for tenants who suffer at the hands of bad landlords.

The private rented sector has become the biggest supplier of social housing across the board. It is bigger than the Housing Executive and the housing associations put together, and £100 million in rent goes into the sector every year. The main issue for any of us who have dealt with the private rented sector over the years on behalf of our constituents is that we have found landlords, by and large, to be inflexible, especially when we were arguing about rents.

The purpose of the registration scheme is to bring those bad landlords and all landlords onto a register so that people can attend to those issues. I think I heard the Minister say that the registration scheme would be given to councils. That is a wise move, because council officers have the experience that will allow them to pursue those matters.

I am concerned that some of the issues that were raised in Committee and which, we were advised, would be picked up in the regulations, have not been included in the regulations that are in front of us. However, I hope that, as the scheme goes on, we will be able to include them in any update of the Housing (Amendment) Act 2010 or through further regulations.

Many tenants will welcome the regulations and will see them as a first step in protecting them against many landlords. Although I support the registration scheme, I want to say that — it has been said before a number of times in different debates — Members who speak in the debate should declare whether they are landlords themselves.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I can assure the Member and the House that I am not a landlord. I own no property other than my own home.

I am pleased with the consensus of support across the Assembly for the regulations. I thank the Chair, Mr Maskey, and the Committee for Social Development for the positive way in which they dealt with the regulations. If I miss any issues, I will follow up in writing to Members.

Mr McCann raised a point about the appointment of a scheme registrar. As yet, no final decision has been taken as to the body that will take on the role of registrar. However, the preference is for one of the larger councils to fill that role. It is a wide-ranging role, because the registrar will be required to promote, develop, oversee and maintain the landlord registration system. That includes providing guidance on the system; making the prescribed information available on the public register; issuing landlords with certificates; and a whole series of other functions. There is something very appealing, almost natural, about one of the larger councils filling that role, and that is the thinking at the moment.

Mr Maskey asked whether it is fair that all landlords pay the same fee regardless of the number of properties that they own. Obviously, there are landlords who own only one or two properties and landlords who have a wide portfolio of properties. The Northern Ireland scheme will be a register of landlords and not a register of properties, although landlords are expected to list their properties on the registration. The registration fee is set at £70 — £80 for manual registration — for a three-year period, which equates to a total of £2 a month. Moneys received from fees will pay only for the operation of the landlord registration scheme and not the actual regulation of the private rented sector. However, a council can use any fixed penalty moneys for regulation of the private rented sector.

We will see how the scheme operates over the next number of years. It is important that we get the private rented sector right. It is a major contributor to meeting housing need in Northern Ireland. We want it to be seen as an attractive option from which people will not shy away. We want people to see it as a reasonable, attractive option and consider it.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Minister give way?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

Yes, sure.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

You also raised the issue of HMOs, which were to be exempt. I know that consultation on HMOs is in the process of being completed. Are you saying that that decision will be put back and dealt with in the consultation?

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I will come back to that in a moment.

As far as I remember, Mr Maskey also raised the issue of introducing a fit-and-proper-person test. We want to drive up standards in the sector, which is clear from what I just said. There is no evidence to indicate that a person's ability as a landlord equates to his being a fit and proper person.

At this stage, the key issue is to ensure that the chief purpose of a register of landlords is to create a central source of information about landlords and their properties. That information has not been available in the past. I am sure that Members, as local representatives, will feel that it is important to be able to access that information so that they can contact landlords and know who they are. With some properties, nobody seems to know who the landlord is, so it will be beneficial to have clarity. It will be light touch and will minimise unnecessary hurdles and costs. The information collected will be shared with councils to enable them to target enforcement action.

HMOs and the need for action were also mentioned. All landlords will have to register, but if a house is in multiple occupation, the landlord will be registered with the Housing Executive. They will be exempt from paying the fee, but they will still have to register.

Those are the main points that were raised. We would have liked the regulations to be in place sooner; that would have been good. However, we are moving as quickly as possible, and the scheme is welcomed by everybody. I am certain that we all want to see improvements in the sector, make it an attractive option and give tenants confidence in renting privately. I thank Members for their interest in these regulations, and I hope that they back them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Landlord Registration Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

Nelson McCausland (DUP, Belfast North)

I beg to move

That the draft Tenancy Deposit Schemes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 be approved.

These regulations are made under articles 5A and 5B of the Private Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.

One of the key issues in the Department's 2010 strategy for the private rented sector, 'Building Sound Foundations', was the need to introduce a mandatory tenancy deposit scheme to address the problems that arise around the return of tenant deposits.

Tenancy deposit schemes will provide benefits both for landlords and tenants by encouraging a more professional approach to tenancy deposit practice, minimising disputes and going some way to improving the sector's reputation as a desirable housing option. It is not intended that the scheme will make deposits compulsory, but it will apply where a landlord decides to take a deposit from the tenant. For every new tenancy where a deposit is required, the landlord must be covered by a tenancy deposit scheme that is approved by the Department.

The introduction of a tenancy deposit scheme has a number of objectives. First, it will safeguard the tenant's deposit, which will minimise the difficulties that can occur between landlord and tenant on the return of a deposit. Secondly, it will ensure a speedy and independent dispute-handling service that is free for both the landlord and tenant to use. Thirdly, it will improve accessibility to private rental accommodation for low-income families and the most vulnerable. Fourthly, it will gather relevant data on tenancy deposits, the dispute service and the performance of the scheme administrator so that policy development can be underpinned.

The purpose of the draft Tenancy Deposit Schemes Regulations is to give effect to the establishment of tenancy deposit schemes, including the functions and responsibilities of a scheme administrator and the information that a landlord must provide to both the administrator and the tenant to ensure that the tenancy deposit is secure.

The regulations set out the requirements for the approval of a scheme administrator, and only those who satisfy those requirements will be approved to operate a tenancy deposit scheme. The role of scheme administrator will be advertised. I have asked my officials to ensure that the scheme administrator can be appointed as soon as possible after the regulations are made and pave the way for the speedy introduction of a scheme. That will probably be early in the new year.

Two types of tenancy deposit scheme will be allowed to operate in Northern Ireland, similar to the custodial and insurance schemes that have been operating in England and Wales since April 2007. In the custodial scheme, which is free to use, the landlord hands over the deposit to the scheme administrator for safe keeping in a designated account, and either the tenant or the landlord can apply at the end of the tenancy for repayment of the deposit. In the event of a dispute, the scheme administrator will hold on to the disputed amount until the dispute is resolved.

Under the insurance scheme, the landlord holds on to the deposit and pays a fee and any contribution towards insurance to the scheme administrator. The landlord refunds the deposit to the tenant when it is due to be refunded. In cases where there is a dispute, the landlord hands over to the scheme administrator the disputed amount to safeguard until the dispute is resolved.

I am sure that Members across the Assembly will agree that the private rental sector is critical to meeting housing need for many, and I consider that the regulations will make significant improvements in the private rented sector so that tenants can have confidence in renting privately, in handing over their deposit and in having that deposit refunded at the end of the tenancy.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I do not think that you will have to, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I will be very brief.

The Committee first considered the SL1 on 28 June, and, at that meeting, it was content for the rule to be made, although the Committee sought clarification on a number of issues. The Minister outlined many of those, which are to do with the nature of the scheme, the type of scheme, who may be the registrar, and so on. Although the Committee would like to have had that information at the time, it did, of course, agree that the statutory rule be made. As Chair of the Committee, I endorse that on its behalf.

Many Members will be aware of the issue of dealing with of unscrupulous landlords. Thankfully, such landlords are in a minority, but a number of people have fallen foul of unscrupulous landlords or been in circumstances in which deposits have been taken from them more or less routinely rather than as required. Therefore, the Committee welcomes the deposit scheme for tenants and the information that the Minister has provided to the House. On that basis, we will endorse the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

1. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what support her Department is giving to dairy farmers in urging Dairy UK in Northern Ireland to engage with the farmers’ unions to implement a code of practice for the dairy sector supply chain similar to the voluntary code of practice launched in Great Britain earlier this month. (AQO 2470/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

At the outset, I advise that the voluntary code of practice on contractual relationships that has been agreed between dairy farmers and milk buyers in Britain is an industry document. It builds upon existing arrangements in the dairy sector. We have been following developments in Britain closely in liaison with the local dairy industry. During that process, their view has been to await the outcome of the negotiations in Britain before assessing its relevance and applicability to the local industry.

Following agreement of the voluntary code in Britain, my officials have been in contact with representatives of the Ulster Farmers’ Union and local representatives of Dairy UK to encourage them to develop a local position on this matter, and both organisations are fully apprised of the need to do so quickly. Last week, Dairy UK gave the local representatives of the organisation an outline on the new code, and they have now arranged a meeting with the Ulster Farmers’ Union on the matter. I hope that both parties will reach a decision soon on the best way forward for our dairy industry.

Paul Girvan (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer but the message that I am getting from farmers, not just in the dairy industry but in the whole agricultural sector, is that they are all coming under extreme pressure because of the increased cost of fodder and grain. I want to make sure that those concerns are being taken on board and that we do not lose part of our agrifood industry due to lack of support from the Department.

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I totally agree, and I sympathise with farmers. It is a very difficult time, particularly with the weather and the increase in prices on the global markets, and we have to continue to work with the industry. That is one reason why Minister Foster and I established the agrifood strategy board to look at the challenges for our sectors. Unfortunately, a lot of the issues, such as pricing and global markets, are beyond our control, but we have to work with industry and do our best for all those involved. When we are talking about the dairy sector and the voluntary code, we must recognise that there is a distinct difference between the set up here and that in Britain in that most of our farmers are involved in co-operatives and so are involved further up the chain. We will have to continue to work with industry to make sure that we protect all our industries. Dairy is an important player in gross agricultural output, but all our sectors need to be supported given all the challenges that are presented to them.

Robin Swann (UUP, North Antrim)

Can the Minister guarantee the House that she will bring measures — and will she outline those measures — to bring stability to local milk producers, processors and retailers before the ending of milk quotas in 2015?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Member will be aware that, as I said in an earlier answer, we are working very closely with the industry to support its needs. We have become involved in the EU dairy package, which works with industry to look at what markets we should explore after 2015 when quotas go. One difference between us and Britain is that we are self-sufficient in milk and milk products whereas Britain is not. So, we are targeting the export market. We will continue to work with the industry to make sure that we are prepared for post-2015. That work is ongoing.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Will the Minister tell us the main elements of the voluntary code?

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Yes. The code of practice put into place in Britain recently allows for a period of 30 days' notice to a change to a farmer's price or other contractual terms. There is provision in it that, where buyers exercise their discretion to change a farmer's price or other contractual terms, the farmer can, in turn, exercise his right to terminate the contract on a month's notice if he disagrees with the change. There are some other aspects to it, particularly around encouraging processors to engage with producer groups, and terms to allow a producer to expand production, and, if the purchaser does not want all the additional volume at the same or existing terms, there is an option for the producer to supply another buyer on a non-exclusive contract. Finally, the review process will be kept under review and reviewed after 12 months.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

2. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to outline the business case for the move of her Department's headquarters to Ballykelly. (AQO 2471/11-15)

Sydney Anderson (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. asked the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development what sites, other than Ballykelly, were evaluated for the relocation of her Department's headquarters. (AQO 2475/11-15)

Michelle O'Neill (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. With your permission, I will answer questions 2 and 6 together.

As Members will be aware, the Department’s headquarters at Dundonald House and Hydebank are no longer fit for purpose. It was against that backdrop that my predecessor, Michelle Gildernew, saw an opportunity to spread high quality public sector jobs across the North and announced her intention to consider relocating the headquarters of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) to a rural area. I progressed that further by securing a Programme for Government commitment, and a strategic outline case for the project has been approved.

In relation to the relocation to Ballykelly, a number of steps were taken before reaching my final decision. The first stage in the process was to develop a long list of potential locations. That list was taken from the new regional development strategy. My officials scored each local government district against a defined set of criteria, which included nine socio-economic factors such as unemployment levels, deprivation and earnings levels, as well as practical considerations such as the number of public sector and Civil Service jobs already sited in the area.

As a result of that analysis, the top two areas indicated were both in the north-west. I made my decision to relocate to Ballykelly based on two further factors, namely the availability of the Executive owned site at Shackleton Barracks, and the availability of buildings on that site that could be converted to office accommodation. Use of that site and the buildings available has the potential to significantly reduce the cost of relocation from £26 million, which is the estimated cost of a newbuild.

I have asked officials to provide me with a business case that outlines the options for relocating the headquarters to Ballykelly. That business case will consider other issues such as value for money and potential savings.

Judith Cochrane (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for her response. Can she confirm that no staff will be forced to relocate to Ballykelly against their wishes?