Northern ireland assembly Tuesday 22 May 2007 Private Members’ Business The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. The First Minister (Rev Dr Ian Paisley): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that at some Committee meetings in this Building there has not been enough room for the general public or, on one occasion, the press. I ask you to look into the matter so that accommodation can be made available for those who wish to attend Committee meetings. Mr Speaker: I will consider how the press and the public might be better accommodated. I remind the House that accommodation here is a very difficult issue. It will be a priority of the Assembly Commission in the coming months and years. Mr McElduff: On a point of order, Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I wonder whether it is an absolute requirement that Members should wear a jacket when addressing the House. Has short-sleeve order been introduced yet? Mr Speaker: The protocol regarding dress code in the House is very clear, and I should not have to remind Members about it. Private Members’ Business Ms Anderson: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises that discrimination operates in many different ways and on many different levels and encourages the Executive to bring forward harmonising legislation, in a single equality Bill, for discussion and consultation at the earliest opportunity. Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar son an ruin. In moving the motion and reflecting on our responsibilities, as Ministers or MLAs, to build a new society that guarantees equality for all in a shared future, Sinn Féin welcomes the fact that the single equality Bill is to be high on the agenda of the new Executive. Discussion on this key, cross-cutting exercise has been ongoing for more than six years. As we look to build a new future for all of our people, let us equip ourselves with the instruments and competency to do so. Members, we live alongside discrimination and exclusion every day. Some of the barriers that inhibit our development as individuals, communities, or communities of interest, can be blatant or unseen. For example, women continue to suffer discrimination in gaining employment; in salary levels in the workplace; and through under-representation in public life. We have only to look around the Chamber to see what we must do. There is a long way to go to achieve proportional representation of women in this Chamber, among others. As a legislative Assembly, we have the obligation and the power to put in place an equality framework that looks to the future of our developing and increasingly complex society. In the North, the fragmented array of legislative instruments applies different standards of protection across the discrimination strands. That has proved difficult, confusing and costly for individuals who are seeking to assert rights, and for employers and service providers who seek to understand and observe their legal obligations. Confused law is no law at all, and when that is added to the fact that discrimination is, in many cases, a multiple-identity issue, then the case for harmonisation is compelling. The legislation in force is a hotchpotch of different Acts that need to be brought together into one compelling Bill, which sets out clear protections against the discrimination of groups, especially children. We need a robust conciliation and interpretation of the different legal instruments, which will harmonise and enhance them to produce a Rolls Royce of legislation. It is no protection against discrimination that the law should simply declare discrimination to be illegal and leave the burden on victims to bring justice for themselves or their peer groups. An effective anti-discrimination Act must stipulate, in enforceable law, the positive action that needs to be taken to ensure that discriminatory practices cease. It must include obligations on those who discriminate to undertake positive action to change existing practices that are discriminatory. It has long been recognised that a “same-treatment approach” will never be enough to deliver substantive equality; and by that we mean equal outcomes. After all, people and groups do not start from the same place. Because of the discrimination and disadvantage suffered by certain groups, the playing field is not level, and additional measures are therefore needed to address those issues if equality is to be achieved. A combined affirmative-action/anti-discrimination model should be the baseline from which future legislative improvements are made. It is clear to us that rather than merely affording direct and indirect discrimination, the single equality Bill must contain positive duties to promote equality of opportunity and deliver substantive equality in society of the type that protects everyone. It is our collective responsibility to move that process on. A consultation exercise in 2002 was to have been followed by a draft single equality Bill, but that did not happen. Instead, it was decided that a further consultation exercise should be undertaken to consider in much more detail the key issues and main policy options. That second exercise, which took place in 2004, was wide-ranging and detailed, as were many of the responses that were received from key stakeholders. The second consultation document identified the overall aim as being the harmonisation of equality law into a single legal instrument, and set out the principles on which such an instrument would be based. Among the stated principles were: “to acknowledge … human rights … in their broadest sense, … to demonstrate no regression from existing law … [and] to minimise the tendency for [the creation of] hierarchies of inequalities”. Members should consider the process that is required from this point on. Two major public consultation exercises have already taken place and have secured substantive responses from all the key stakeholders, whose positions will not have significantly changed. Much work has already been done, which we must use and build on. I urge the Executive to introduce a draft single equality Bill that reflects the weight of submissions already received. It is vital that we progress this without any further delay and take the lead in developing a robust Bill that will prevent discrimination and promote equality of opportunity for all in the North. We must legislate to respect the different needs of all the people who live here. If we merely plug gaps and, in effect, force the existing provisions into a single instrument, we shall end up with a cobbling exercise, not a harmonisation exercise, and that will offend the principles of minimising hierarchies of inequality. Therefore, let us build on the First Minister’s remarks on 8 May about the past being the ways of yesterday. Let us set a course to make the discrimination and exclusion that many in our society have suffered, whether in the Shankill or Shantallow, the New Lodge or New Buildings, a thing of the past. Let discrimination and inequality belong to the ways of yesterday. I urge all Members to grasp the huge significance of what we do today. It is our obligation to do so. Our people deserve no less, regardless of their religious denomination or the colour of their skin. Ba mhaith liom an rún a mholadh. I move the motion. Mr McCausland: The issues of equality and human rights are important, and they should certainly be embedded in the heart of our vision for Northern Ireland. We can trace those issues back to the time of the Enlightenment, especially to the time of the Scottish Enlightenment. In fact, one of our local folk, Francis Hutcheson from County Down, contributed much to the development of the Scottish Enlightenment. These are issues that we should feel comfortable with. However, the motion gives me cause for concern. The issue of a single equality Bill is a long-standing one. The proposer of the motion has mentioned the extensive consultations that have already taken place on the issue — but how extensive and inclusive were those consultations? I suspect that if we went out into the centre of Belfast, or any other part of Northern Ireland, and asked people on the street what they knew about a single equality Bill, or whether they were aware of the consultations that took place or had been asked to contribute to them, the vast majority would say that they knew nothing about it. 10. 45 am The reason for that could be that so much of the consultation has been conducted through what is generally described as “the voluntary sector”. I refer to some figures about that sector, which has taken such a key role through organisations such as the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) on those matters. The monitoring reports of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) for the years 2002-04 show an employment pattern of significant and increasing disadvantage — some might say, discrimination — against the Protestant community in the voluntary sector. The 2004 employment figures for NICVA, which is supposed to represent the community, show that only 40% of its staff came from the Protestant community, whereas 60% came from the Roman Catholic community. Other key organisations in that sector — for example, the Rural Community Network (RCN) — have reached the stage at which their representation from the Protestant community is less than 25%. Consequently, there is an issue about how inclusive and representative much of the consultation has really been. There is another matter to which I wish to draw Members’ attention. We are grateful to the Equality Commission — the key organisation in the equality sector — for sending a briefing by email yesterday in which it calls for greater enforcement powers. It might wish to use those powers against itself. This is an organisation that is tasked with monitoring and changing employment patterns in every section of Northern Ireland society, yet it cannot get that right itself. Among its staff there is a 60% representation from the Roman Catholic community — only 40% are drawn from the Protestant community. That is a deterioration from 2002, when Protestants represented 44% of the workforce and 56% came from the Roman Catholic community. Key organisations in the voluntary sector, and the Equality Commission itself, have significant work to do to make themselves fit for purpose, so that there can be real debate and engagement on the issue of equality, the type of legislation that is required and, indeed, the sort of commission that is needed. We must get those matters right. It is an absolute disgrace that the Equality Commission, year after year, has abjectly failed to improve the position of its own employment pattern. Before proceeding with a single equality Bill, we must demand that the Equality Commission and the voluntary sector, which represents — or so it claims — communities across Northern Ireland, put their house in order. For that reason, I oppose the motion. Mr Kennedy: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I want to make some preliminary remarks in respect of my new responsibility as Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre. I shall then outline some personal remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Committee of the Centre has met on only one occasion since restoration and has not had the opportunity to consider a single equality Bill. I shall therefore limit my comments, as Chairperson, to more general observations on the proposal for a Bill to harmonise equality legislation and on the role that the Committee may wish to take on that issue. I expect that the Committee will attach considerable importance to equality issues and will be provided with a detailed briefing on the work of the equality directorate in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) at the earliest opportunity. The Committee has provisionally included in its work programme a discussion of policy issues that relate to a single equality Bill. In advance of more detailed consideration by the Committee of the Centre, I nevertheless wish to signal the Committee’s interest in the single equality Bill and its expectation that it will be involved in discussions and consultations on the Bill and related policy matters. In its early consideration of policy matters that relate to the single equality Bill, I expect that my Committee will wish to be entirely satisfied, most importantly, that the objectives of the proposed Bill are clear, unambiguous, and understood by all those who have a relevant interest. Without such clarity, it will be impossible to assess whether the provisions of the Bill will achieve the intended outcomes. I have no doubt that my Committee will wish to see robust evidence that the Bill will produce real and tangible benefits for all those whom it aims to protect. I anticipate that my Committee will wish to be reassured — while welcoming, in principle, the value of harmonised legislation — that the provisions of the Bill are practicable and will be implemented without unnecessary bureaucracy. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) I turn to my own view and that of my party. The Ulster Unionist Party believes that, for too long, the issue of equality in Northern Ireland has been the subject of a politicised mantra, and that, for too long, it has been used as a political football, particularly by Sinn Féin. The equality issue has been used to somehow justify ideological agendas that belong to yesterday. Just as we must build a new society in Northern Ireland, we must confront the challenges of securing equality of opportunity for all. We need an equality agenda that deals with the twenty-first century and that is not stuck in the past. There is a good case for a single equality Bill that brings together equality protections, simplifies procedures, and rationalises the numerous and, at times, extremely burdensome provisions of existing legislation. There is an economic and social imperative to guarantee equality of opportunity. A prospering economy and a fairer society require equality legislation that is robust and flexible, secures equality of opportunity for all, and provides effective remedies to unfair discrimination. That is why the Ulster Unionists will support a single equality Bill that provides appropriate equality safeguards. Mrs D Kelly: My party and I support the motion, unlike Mr McCausland, who appears to lack knowledge of the membership of the voluntary and community sector. I wish to begin by placing on record my thanks to the community, voluntary and private sectors for their valuable contributions to the single equality Bill process to date. Mr McCausland: Does the Member accept that the figures that I quoted were all taken from annual reports that have been published by the Equality Commission? Mrs D Kelly: Indeed, but those figures relate to the employment make-up of those organisations, not the membership make-up. I am aware that many community and voluntary sector members represent the loyalist, Protestant and unionist sector. Anyone can pick out statistics to make particular points. It is unfortunate that, for some in the DUP, equality is still a matter for Catholics. I hope that the DUP will take an objective interest in its own communities, which suffer from inequality in many ways. I will now return to my original point. The community, voluntary and private sectors responded in detail to the consultation on the issue, and brought to the table ideas and facts we can depend on: if only the response from the Government were so dedicated. Under direct rule, the single equality Bill was occasionally degraded and treated as a political pawn, as was much else. That was disgraceful, given the position of all parties on equality and rights. However, it would be unforgivable were that situation not to improve now that we have control of our own decisions. The eyes of the world are upon us now, as they will not be again for some time. This is our chance to show that Stormont will offer a regime of equal opportunity and that no one will be discriminated against in the way that so upset our history. I am deeply concerned that if we continue as we have started, we will let ourselves, and our voters, down. Never has it been clearer that there is a mandate in the North for power to be shared, and to be seen to be shared. A single equality Bill must reflect the wish of the people. No Member is here on a mandate of discrimination. However, unwillingness to co-operate with the creation of the Bill, and lack of effort and drive, are a backhanded show of support for the discrimination that tore our society apart in the past. As I said earlier, the response to consultation on the single equality Bill was remarkable. A variety of intelligent and well-argued responses covered a multitude of positions, but represented much shared ground as well. In light of that, the consultation report that was released in March — quietly, and to a select few — was, to put it mildly, frustrating. Various reasons have been suggested for the paper’s brevity, lack of detail and absence of imagination, but none was convincing. Indeed, the matter has been on the long finger for too long and the Assembly must move quickly on it. However, that is no reason to ignore the progress that has already been made: quite the opposite. Even the framing of the process has, suddenly, gone into reverse. It was clear that the remit of the Bill was to mainstream legislation and to harmonise as far as possible — not as little as possible. However, that is what we hear from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister — in a whisper, of course, so as not to upset anyone. I wonder how comfortable the people who elected us would feel about their rights and liberties being handled in that way. I suggest that the public likes its politicians to behave openly and accountably, to get on with the job of working together and to come up with the kind of results that befit their salaries. Let us inject some common sense into our approach, and get on with doing just that. Working together accountably means engaging with the detail of the local framework, while remembering the considerable protection given by European legislation, on which we can all rely and agree. However, it is not necessary to look continually over our shoulder at Westminster. We must do something impressive and directional in the Assembly, and present that to Westminster as evidence of our capability. The North is currently a global leader in terms of equality legislation. Is that a reason to be half-hearted, or outright resistant, when engaged with improving the system? I think not. Let us keep the ball rolling, and capitalise on the one area in which we really excel. Let others come to us to learn about best practice. I urge the Assembly to take a consistent view of all areas, and urge Members to remember their parties’ policies. Mrs Long: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I welcome, in general, the wording of the motion. However, my comments will make it clear that I take issue with some of what the proposer of the motion said in moving it. The Alliance Party welcomes the opportunity to comment on the matter. The party has, for some time, supported the introduction of such legislation, and its members are pleased that that will be taken forward. A single equality Act should amend, standardise, harmonise and extend equality law in its application, not only by extending the scope of the existing regimes but by further innovative thinking and development. New areas of equality of access to employment and services must be considered. Also, as medicine progresses, for instance, there will be increasing discrimination on the basis of genetic predisposition. We must be aware of such developments now as we review the legislation. There should be no regression in what we do; protections should be upwardly enhanced as we harmonise. There should not be a hierarchy between forms of discrimination. However, the Alliance Party believes that too much prevalence is given to religious and political matters above all others in Northern Ireland. That leads not to equality but to discrimination against those for whom religious and political affiliations are not an issue. 11.00 am The Alliance Party believes that our approach to equality must be governed by certain principles, and I will put them on the record. The individual citizen is the foundation of society, and all individuals are of equal worth and should be treated as equal citizens. Individuals are also members of religious, ethnic, cultural and regional communities. Those identities are open and fluid, and people can hold a range of identities and loyalties to different structures and different levels of government. Citizens have different needs, and equal treatment requires full account to be taken of difference. When equality ignores difference, uniformity of treatment leads to injustice and inequality. Society needs to be cohesive, as well as respectful, of diversity, and it should nurture diversity while fostering a common sense of belonging and shared identity among its members. On that basis, I will touch briefly on three issues. First, although I am in favour of the principle of equality of outcome, I cannot subscribe to the notion that it should be engineered. It is important that we end discrimination rather than choose to reverse its direction or target; we should seek to end discrimination completely. To merely reverse the direction and change the targets of discrimination would be destructive and discriminatory towards others. Furthermore, we should not rest at saying that equality of opportunity is sufficient. We should not shy away from taking affirmative action to build capacity and to encourage participation. We can do that and yet stop well short of positive discrimination. Secondly, on the issues of fair employment and equality monitoring, it is vital that we continue to adequately review and monitor equality in employment and recognise the importance and improvements that have been made over the years. However, the use of community background, particularly the residuary method for identifying people with a community with which they have chosen not to identify themselves, for the purposes of monitoring is an unacceptable breach of human rights. People have the right to define their own identity, and that right should be equally respected whether the identity common in this society or rare. The cornerstone of equality is that everyone is treated equally. Therefore, those who choose not to associate themselves with a community designation must have their choice respected as much as those who choose to associate with a designation. To continue using the residuary method of designation for monitoring purposes undermines the basis of equality in society. We must therefore review how equality is monitored in order that people are not discriminated against. Thirdly, the motion states that: “discrimination operates in many different ways and on many different levels”. However, I want to address one way that is pertinent in this place. The lack of equality in the Chamber between Members who choose to designate themselves as unionist or nationalist and those who choose not to so designate is a matter that the Assembly must take seriously. In previous debates, Members have discussed the need for increased diversity in the Chamber. It is therefore vital that the voting mechanisms of the Assembly are reflective of that diversity. The discrimination in the Assembly’s voting system must be addressed so that those of us who choose to define ourselves in more inclusive ways are not ignored or counted as less important in key votes. The current voting system dismisses a positive statement of our identity as a member of the United Community group as simply “Other”. Until that inequality in the Chamber is dealt with, it will be difficult for us to have credibility on the issue of equality outside it. Lord Morrow: The DUP has great concerns about the motion. My colleague David Simpson and I sought to table an amendment to the motion that would have resulted in universal support in the House. It is regrettable that it was not accepted, but we must debate the motion as we see it. I listened to the proposer of the motion and was appalled to hear her be selective in who would benefit from a single equality Bill and who would not. I remind the Member that there are many victims out there, and she would know something about them. They were not mentioned. They are not to be included. My party would include them, and would defend and uphold their rights. For that reason, we sought to table an amendment. No political party is opposed in principle to an equality Bill. However, these issues seem to take legs, and to go in all directions. They often lose the focus of what they are supposed to deliver. We must ensure that it is the public — those who are not being treated equally — who benefit in the end; not barristers’ bank accounts. We used to criticise the amount of equality legislation and its impact on workloads, and we talked sarcastically of the development of an “equality industry”. Things have deteriorated to such an extent that that situation now exists. The “equality industry” has become a professional term. One website for diversity managers, equal opportunities and social inclusion workers advertises itself as the “home of the equality industry.” Is that what we seek? Is that the equality we set out to achieve? Hardly; yet there are many lawyers who are only too happy to see that industry continue and mushroom even further. In his recent blog on the website of ‘The Guardian’, Peter Tatchell argued for a comprehensive equal rights Act in Great Britain, that would ensure that: “all forms of discrimination were tackled in a uniform and coherent way.” He went on to stress that upgraded protection should be provided on the basis of : “marital status, social background, genetic inheritance, physical appearance, area of residence and medical condition.” Just where would any finance minister begin to deal with every individual who might have a gripe about any of those issues? In 2002, R Brubaker agued that potential benefits to individuals were being lost on account of a phenomenon which he termed “groupism”. He stated that: “an equality industry, or set of vested interests have exaggerated the importance and significance of group social identities at the expense of the individuality of the people concerned.” He maintained that that was “harmful to minority social groups”. The vested interests of the equality industry, to which he attributed groupism, have been created by state recognition of social group statuses and their inscription into equality measures. Recognition by the state generates its own dynamic in the agendas and the positions of organisations claiming to represent minority groups and individuals. The new equality “mega-quango” across the water, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, is up and running. It is estimated that it will spend about £50 million a year. Trevor Philips will become the chairman, but of his 13 fellow-commissioners, three are trade unionists, two are academics, three are civil servants — or quangocrats — and three are professionals in non-governmental organisations. Only two have jobs in the wealth-creating sector. They will be paid salaries of between £130,000 and £134,000. Ms J McCann: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate my colleague Martina on tabling the motion, and I welcome the opportunity to take part in debate. A variety of legislation attempts to deal with inequalities in all areas of life. Sometimes that leads to unnecessary confusion. A single equality Act has the potential not only to harmonise equality law, but to extend the scope of equality legislation. A single law can address the interests of everyone and provide a framework for achieving equality for everyone. However, much more than a commitment is needed to prohibit discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. Any single equality Bill must be underpinned by equality of access, of outcome, and of condition. Last week, we debated the under-representation of women in public life and the consequences of that for the development of policies that are sensitive to the needs of women. There are many areas of life in which women face discrimination. I wish to concentrate on the elements of a single equality Bill and any related consultations that are of particular significance to women. I support the broadening of marital and family status to include all persons with dependents, whether they are married, single, or cohabiting — including opposite-sex and same-sex couples. That would provide a greater degree of security for many people through entitlements to pensions and other benefits, and in the general treatment that they receive. The under-representation of women in large sectors of the economy is of critical importance. That issue cannot be tackled effectively without affirmative action that is directed at the structural barriers that prevent women from participating equally within the labour market. Despite the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and other equal pay legislation, there is still a problem of low and unequal pay for women. Women earn on average only 81% of male full-time earnings, and female workers remain disproportionately concentrated in low-wage jobs. The recommendations of the equal pay task force on flexible working patterns, the provision of childcare, and the tax benefit system must also be examined and potentially addressed by a single equality Bill if we are to achieve equality of outcome. Pregnancy and maternity continue to be a chief basis of discrimination against women. There has been a clear increase in the number of cases that has been taken to employment tribunals. Clarification is needed in the single equality Bill so that direct discrimination on grounds of pregnancy is defined as direct discrimination on grounds of sex. If the single equality Bill is to be effective as a tool for enforcing the rights of all groups to equality of treatment, and for preventing all forms of discrimination, there must also be effective protections against victimisation and harassment. Mr Storey: Will the Member give way? Ms J McCann: No; I only have a short time to complete my remarks. In the short period of available time, I have succeeded in highlighting only some of the important measures for ensuring equality of opportunity and outcome for women. The task of tackling deeply rooted discrimination and changing attitudes must be at the core of any commitment to end all forms of discrimination, particularly against the most vulnerable in society. I hope that the Executive will publish a draft single equality Bill for discussion and consultation at the earliest opportunity. I support the motion. Mr Campbell: I imagine that every political party, in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, is in favour of equality legislation, provided that it delivers what it is supposed to — a more equal society. My party does not oppose a single equality Bill in principle, but examination of what fair employment legislation has, in practice, delivered in the past leaves us with a jaundiced view of what such a Bill can achieve. For example, we have seen the passing of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, and the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 — both pieces of legislation that would no doubt be endorsed by those who are promoting the single equality Bill. Implementation bodies emerged from those pieces of legislation: the Equality Commission and its predecessors. What results have the Equality Commission and the legislation that provided for it produced in Northern Ireland? 11.15 am The Equality Commission is supposed to oversee issues regarding gender, religion and race. There is no doubt that the problems that continue to exist with gender are improving. It might be argued that they are not improving quickly enough, but they are improving. Issues to do with race need more work, but they are improving. The one area in which there is no improvement is the one that the hon Member for North Belfast Mr McCausland mentioned: the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. There is no improvement there; in fact matters are getting worse in spite of legislation that was made in the House of Commons and supported by those who say that they are in favour of equality. That makes the DUP very jaundiced about a single equality Bill. The Equality Commission in place today does not rail against the discrimination of members of the Protestant community who apply for jobs in the police force — it actually supports that. It says that that is good. The Equality Commission is supposed to be against discrimination, yet it is in favour of it, and we are asked to support legislation like that. The Equality Commission that exists today does nothing about the worsening Protestant under-representation in the Civil Service. It recognises the issue but does nothing about it — and people want us to support an Equality Bill that would replicate that. It is easier proportionately for a Roman Catholic to become a member of the Police Service than it is for a Protestant to become a housing officer, but there is no implementation of the 50:50 rule as regards recruitment to the Housing Executive. Under-representation is becoming worse because of legislation that we were told would deliver equality. Those people who are prepared to say that they want equality for all should begin to turn the magnifying glass on the area where a lack of equality is getting worse and tell us what they plan to do about it. Mr Storey: Does the Member agree that those who expound the virtues of equality need to ensure equality for Christians in Northern Ireland who have grave reservations about legislation that has been introduced that discriminates against them because they hold a particular religious view? Mr Campbell: That is the case, and I thank my hon Friend for his point. Many in the Christian and evangelical community feel that they are being disadvantaged, and legislation that the Assembly is considering must address that. A Minister said yesterday that we have got to feel comfortable with the wording of legislation — but it also has to deliver the goods. If a single equality Bill could do that then the DUP would support it, but past experience shows that such a Bill would not, and that it would actually make matters worse for my community. Come up with the goods that will deliver pure and genuine equality, and we will support them. Mr Elliott: Who could argue with the wording of the motion, which states: “discrimination operates in many different ways and on many different levels”? Of course, it does. What concerns me is that mostly when republicans talk about equality and discrimination, one would think that they are the only people who are being discriminated against in the Province. That is far from the truth, and other Members who have spoken have alluded to that. The Member who moved the motion, as Lord Morrow said, almost talked of selective discrimination and selective equality. I am concerned that we will bring forward equality legislation that will actually discriminate against a section of the community in Northern Ireland. Victims have been mentioned, but they have often been ignored in the equality process. What equality and rights did the families of the victims Fred Love and William Hassard in Fermanagh have when Sinn Féin/IRA erected a monument to an IRA murderer right beside where their family members were murdered by the IRA? What rights and equality did the people who were killed in the Enniskillen and Omagh bombs or the Kingsmill massacre have? We could spend all day asking about the equality that those victims had. I am interested in hearing from Sinn Féin Members how they propose to address equality for those victims but, as yet, I have not heard anything. Mr Storey: The IRA statement of 2005 endorsed the IRA campaign, describing it as “entirely legitimate” and handed over the baton to the party that sits opposite. Does the Member agree that the serious question must be asked of the party opposite whether it is of that view today? Mr Elliott: I cannot disagree with the Member’s comments, and I thank him for them. That question needs to be answered by those Members on the other side of the House — not by me. Those people are now in the Government of Northern Ireland, sitting in the Executive of this Assembly. Have they changed? They serve as Ministers acting on behalf of Her Majesty The Queen and her realm. I hope that they have changed; if so, I want to hear it clearly. Any single equality Bill should not deal only with the issues of inequality and discrimination that I have mentioned — and I have talked about some negatives. The Bill should set a positive framework for the promotion of equality especially for traditionally marginalised groups, such as people with disabilities and those with learning disabilities. Effective remedies for inequality must place an emphasis on disability. The distinct nature of disability inequality demands a focused approach in order to recognise the long-term social, economic and institutional nature of the discrimination and disadvantage experienced by disabled people. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted in December last year and signed by our UK Government. The Convention, which is awaiting ratification at Westminster, offers clear progress on a range of areas. Those include raising awareness, protecting the integrity of the person, personal mobility, independent living, access to information and many more. The single equality Bill may not, as yet, be able to legislate for the changes that will arise once the UN Convention is ratified by the UK. However, it is important to strengthen disability protection from the outset in anticipation of ratification. I therefore call for proactive and inclusive support for anything that emerges from this equality Bill. However, those on the other side of the House should realise that if there is to be equality, it will be for everyone, not only for those who seem to believe that they are the only people who have been discriminated against. I was quite interested in the comments of the Member for West Tyrone Barry McElduff who asked if short-sleeve order had been introduced in the Chamber. My recollection is that it is an army regulation — I wonder in what army Mr McElduff picked that up. Mr Dallat: Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your elevation to high office. The introduction of a single equality Bill presents new opportunities to go much further than harmonising anti-discrimination laws. Indeed, it is an ideal opportunity to extend protection well beyond that demanded by European Union directives. Furthermore, it is our opportunity to frame Northern Ireland’s equality legislation more positively and to include proactive duties to promote equality of opportunity. In a world that is full of inequality, there is a need to demonstrate that, beyond a shadow of doubt, this is a fair place where reasonable adjustments are made in order to recognise disability and where there is fair participation by two communities. The underlying principles of the single equality Bill must include a commitment to the following core principles: upward harmonisation of existing anti-discrimination and equality coverage; fulfilment of the Belfast Agreement mandates; adherence to European law and international best practice; provisions in accordance with existing equality duties under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and a positive, unified conception of equality — something that I have not heard this morning. Several issues arise from the effort to harmonise existing laws. In particular, there must be no watering down of those laws. The added protection offered by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 must be ring-fenced. Protection must be given to marital and family status, and there must be a clear understanding of what is meant by “disability”. I share many people’s concern that adequate protection is not offered to those who continue to experience the wrath of the paramilitary groups that still terrorise communities. It is unacceptable that families, having been intimidated out of their homes, are given nothing more than a piece of paper from the PSNI advising them that there is information that suggests that their lives are at risk. It is unacceptable that those families are left homeless — often for long periods of time — with little intervention from the Housing Executive or the Northern Ireland Office. That is not equality in any democracy. My heart goes out to those families who continue to experience inequality caused by terror groups who do not seem to have discovered that their day has gone — I hope, for ever. Enforcement is all-important; any legislation that is not followed through is, to all intents and purposes, as useless as a handbrake on a canoe. The SDLP believes that there is an ideal opportunity to complement the Bill with a single equality tribunal, and that an independent equality appeals tribunal is justified. None of that rules out the increasing role for mediation that was suggested in the consultation paper. There should be a recognition that considerably greater statutory powers and resources will be required if an outcome-based approach to equality is to take root. In that respect, as in the fields of enforcement and monitoring, the Equality Commission has shown itself to be of great value. Finally, let me emphasise the need to promote the extension of positive action measures to all grounds. Positive measures should be allowed, so as to ensure fair participation or good practice in order to facilitate full equality in practice. In these circumstances, and in an atmosphere of partnership, all our citizens are winners and there are no losers. Equality is no longer a demand — it is a right, enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement and emulated by genuine democracies throughout the free world. Sadly, there is much still to be done. Equality is not the remit of one party or another, but of all of us. Here, at least, we can make a difference — although it is long overdue. In other parts of the world, through famine, disease, war, and unfair trading practices, there is no equality, no justice, and no hope. Let us go forward positively, accepting that in the past many people in both communities did not have equality — not even the right to live. Finally, I was interested to hear Mr Storey calling for the rights of religious groups. A very short time ago he complained about a religious icon on Royal Mail postage stamps. I think that that underlines Mr Storey’s hypocrisy. Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún, agus ar dtús ba mhaith liom cothrom na Féinne a thabhairt do Martina as an rún a chur romhainn. I commend Martina for proposing this motion. She also raised the matter at a meeting of the Committee of the Centre last Wednesday afternoon. She has highlighted the fact that the current legislation is very fragmented and that it needs to be pulled together and strengthened in the form of a harmonised single equality Bill. Martina also said that there was an obligation and an opportunity to do that now and that we have the power to deliver on the matter. The Executive can lead the way in this matter if they, and the Members of this House, have the political will. It has also been pointed out that, to date, consultation has been extensive and that substantive contributions have been made to at least two major consultations so far. 11.30 am Nelson McCausland said at the outset of the debate that he supported equality. However, I was counting the seconds until he said “however” or “but”. It was like one of those goals that is scored in the first minute of a football match. Nelson was very quick to qualify his support for equality by immediately reaching — Mr Storey: If the Member is so keen to ensure that others are precise in their definition and support of equality, will he now condemn the IRA’s 35-year murderous campaign and admit that it could not be described as having been in the interests of equality? Mr McElduff: I thank the Member for his irrelevant intervention. However, when Nelson McCausland spoke in support of equality, I was counting the seconds until he said “however” or “but”. He then said that he was against the motion. If Members were to read the motion, I do not know how they could be against it yet claim to support equality. The motion states: “That this Assembly recognises that discrimination operates in many different ways and on many different levels and encourages the Executive to bring forward harmonising legislation, in a Single Equality Bill, for discussion and consultation at the earliest opportunity.” How a Member can suggest in one breath that he supports equality but in another that he will oppose the motion defies my understanding. The DUP needs to show more maturity in examining motions. The important matter is not from where the motion has come; it is about its substance and whether a Member or party agrees or disagrees with it. The DUP should stop the silly practice of objecting to Sinn Féin motions and instead examine the substance of the issue at hand. A Latin phrase can be applied to that practice: the DUP could be said to be playing the game ad hominem. That party should therefore look at the issues, not from where they emanate. When Danny Kennedy spoke as the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, I was conscious that we have not yet had a full opportunity to discuss single equality legislation at Committee level. Danny asked the interesting question of whether such proposed legislation would result in tangible benefits. I think that it would. He also asked whether equality legislation is a political football or a politicised mantra. The motion is searching for equality: it does exactly what it says on the tin. It is about introducing composite and harmonised equality legislation that focuses not on yesterday’s agenda but on tomorrow’s. Some unionist contributors to the debate seem to be nervous about recognising that discrimination either existed in the past or exists now and has been suffered extensively in the past by nationalists, among others, across the board. Dolores Kelly defended the reputation of the voluntary and community sector. The debate was being taken in a different direction at that time, so her contribution was very valuable. The DUP should be more objective and examine aspects of its own community, such as education. It is well known that the unionist political parties, particularly the DUP, are doing a very bad job of representing Protestant and unionist children and young people who come from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. We need only listen to — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member’s time is up. Mr McElduff: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delivering my winding-up speech. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Simpson: Although we clearly do not want to see anyone being discriminated against, the new Administration must tread carefully. In recent years, Northern Ireland has spawned an equality industry. In the 10 years since 1996, 4,735 cases of religious discrimination at work were reported, with just 50 of those being upheld. Staff costs and fees were estimated at £2·2 million, and none of that total included the cost of getting legislation passed or appointing equality watchdogs. Of course, to Sinn Féin, and, also, to the SDLP, minor details such as efficiency or budgetary constraints appear to be of little concern. They might well relate to a former Congressman of the United States who once said: “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.” Where has all of this got us? We are now in a situation where Christians who run guest houses have the choice of allowing practices to occur under their roofs that they find objectionable, or of being dragged through the courts, or of selling up. Those choices will be faced in the full knowledge that parties in this Chamber approve of every penalty faced and every hardship endured by those families. It is also the case that if anyone in any part of Northern Ireland sees a news report about an assault in another distant part of the Province and decides that, regardless of evidence and how it was reported, the assault was a hate crime, that viewer can pick up the phone and report his or her perception to the local police. The incident is then recorded by the PSNI as a hate incident, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. There is a danger that if such a proposal were not handled correctly it could make the situation worse. It could multiply costs, turn even more ordinary, law-abiding people into criminals, find ever-new ways to set aside the right to expression and freedom of speech, and further restrict civil and religious liberty. It is no surprise that such a proposal is made by Sinn Féin’s spokesperson for Protestant and unionist outreach. That is a contradiction in terms if ever I heard one. If someone from the proposer’s background thinks that she can reach out to unionists, she must think that she can sell snow to Eskimos. The Executive must consider a number of points, including the basic question of whether such a Bill is necessary or desirable. Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way? Mr Simpson: No, I have almost finished. The Member had her opportunity. The Assembly must look at the whole question of costs and efficiency, and, indeed, consider whether some new piece of crippling legislation is needed. It should also set about undoing some of the bad legislation that has already been passed, and make right some of the deep wrongs that have been done in the name of equality. I reaffirm the DUP’s commitment to genuine equality for all. The DUP will not be supporting the motion, as it would put us deeper into the mire that we are already in. I urge every Member to do likewise. The Deputy First Minister (Mr M McGuinness): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your new position. I am pleased to address the Assembly on the matter of equality. Equality and anti-discrimination measures are cornerstones of international law. The legislation already in place to protect the vulnerable defines our standards as a community. The mark of an advanced society is that it tackles inequality and protects the vulnerable. Equality is an important principle. It is a priority to work together to eliminate inequalities. The concept of having new equality legislation has been around for a considerable time. Work was begun by previous Administrations, and the first Programme for Government identified a single equality Bill as an objective. Consultations took place to seek views and to evaluate what a single equality Bill might look like, because it is recognised that this is a large and complex area. Direct rule Ministers made it clear that their preference was that a Bill should be taken forward by a restored, devolved Administration. When launching the 2004 consultation, John Spellar said that, ideally, he would like to see the legislation brought through the Assembly so that those who had initially decided that there should be legislation would have the opportunity to debate and shape it. Since 2004, there has been much progress in strengthening different areas of equality legislation. That has resulted in extra protection on the grounds of gender and for those with disabilities. Recognition of the importance of this issue and a commitment to making progress on it were included in the St Andrews Agreement in October 2006. Now that there are functioning, devolved institutions, the Assembly can finally focus on bringing the legislation forward. I thank all the contributors to the debate today. Nelson McCausland asked how extensive and inclusive the consultation has been — the Equality Commission survey of 2006 showed that there was 92% support for a single equality Bill and that a majority recognised that discrimination occurred on many grounds and in many ways. We are currently talking to a wide range of stakeholders including employers’ representatives, trade unions, the Churches and the voluntary and community sector. The 2004 consultation was wide-ranging and targeted the same groups. Dolores Kelly argued that OFMDFM is suggesting the implementation of minimal harmonisation in the community. Proposals for the extent of harmonisation have yet to be put to the Executive, and there is no presumption of minimum harmonisation. Several MLAs argued for extending the grounds to provide new protection for areas of marital status, genetic predisposition and victims. In bringing forward proposals for a Bill, the Executive will consider the case and the evidence for introducing new grounds. Gregory Campbell spoke about equality legislation having to be comfortable for everyone. Equality legislation is about protecting everyone’s rights. By implementing equality legislation, the Assembly must ensure that all rights, without exception, are protected. What is the purpose of a single equality Bill? Equality is a right regardless of gender, religion, race, political opinion or other defining factors. Any equality legislation must effectively embrace diversity and enable people to fulfil their potential. Mr McNarry: The Member who moved the motion, Ms Anderson, mentioned ‘A Shared Future’ and social engineering. Does the Deputy First Minister agree with me that it would be helpful if the Office of First Minister and the Deputy First Minister clarified whether or not there is official endorsement of ‘A Shared Future’, given that his predecessors were unable to endorse it in the past? In addition, does he agree that it would be useful to know if the Office of First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is responding jointly to today’s debate? Finally, does he accept that, regrettably, in the light of his party’s tone during this debate, my party has altered its opinion of the nature of, and the reasoning behind, this motion and is unable to support it. The Deputy First Minister: Whether a party decides to support or oppose the motion is a matter for that party. Today, I am speaking on behalf of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. 11.45 am As many Members know, and as the motion states, discrimination can operate in many different ways and on many different levels. It is not always easy to recognise prejudice and intolerance, but it is all too apparent to those who suffer as a result of discrimination and inequality. In June 2006, the Equality Commission commissioned an independent survey of 1,000 adults, ‘Awareness of Equality Issues amongst the General Public’. The findings indicate that some 17% of the adults who were surveyed felt that they had been treated unfairly or had been harassed in the previous three years. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy First Minister: It is therefore important that we address discrimination issues for all parts of our community. It is essential that we continue to build an inclusive, progressive and equal society, and that we welcome and celebrate diversity and difference. The first public event that was organised by the First Minister and me took place in Stormont on 9 May, when we invited people from a wide range of backgrounds and nationalities who have chosen to come here to live and work among us. We wanted to thank them and all those people who have brought their skills, expertise and unique culture into our society. We spoke to people from all ethnic backgrounds, and the fact struck me that we are all united in our desire to make this society a better place in which to live and work. At that event, the First Minister and I made clear our determination to tackle and stand against all forms of prejudice and intolerance. We wanted to show that the Administration celebrate and welcome diversity. That event was about showing political leadership in a tangible way, and it was a clear statement of our opposition to inequality and discrimination. The business sector has also recognised the benefits of maintaining equality standards. If a society is based on inequality and discrimination, the best person does not always get the job or promotion. I wish to take a little time to put the concept of the equality agenda in context, to outline some of the progress that has been made to date, and to describe briefly the way ahead. My officials are engaged in a series of meetings with key interested groups. Those officials are listening to the views of those groups and are keeping them informed of our current thinking. I am conscious that that work has been ongoing for the past eight years, so there is a justifiable sense that the issue must be resolved early in a way that makes a real difference. The Administration intend to present proposals to the Executive for their earliest consideration and approval. Those policy proposals will detail the range of available protections, any changes that we consider necessary or desirable, and the arrangements that will be put in place to ensure the continued effectiveness of any possible provisions, examining, in particular, the role of the Equality Commission. What is our thinking, and what are our principles? There is a strong argument about the need to streamline and consolidate the legislation into one legal instrument. Our purpose in considering the issue is to ensure that the most effective protection is available to all people. Much work lies ahead, but we remain absolutely committed to the view that equality is a right and that it is good for individuals, the community and the economy. It is our intention that any possible equality legislation will provide an effective framework for everyone in our increasingly diverse and multicultural society. We need to send a signal to all people that our future will be based on justice, equality and protection from discrimination. I welcome today’s debate and the focus that it has brought to this important area of work. I look forward to working constructively with the Assembly on this vital issue. Go raibh míle maith agat. Mr Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that they must all switch off their mobile phones, however attractive their ringtone. Ms Anderson: Go raibh maith agat. As the proposer of this motion, I appreciate the fact that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are present for the debate. I have listened with keen interest to many of the contributions. It is important that all Members recognise that this motion is a serious attempt to put in place a law that will be effective for everyone in society. I am not at all singling out the nationalist and republican section of our society; I am talking about the Protestant, unionist and loyalist community, the nationalist and republican community, and all those who do not identify themselves in those ways. This legislation should be introduced for everyone’s benefit. Despite what David Simpson said about me and the work that I am involved in as director of unionist engagement, I know from conversations that I have had with many people from the Protestant, unionist and loyalist community that there is an appetite for engagement. Inequality and disadvantage definitely exist within that community. I care as much about the fact that only 2% of children in the Shankill area pass the 11-plus as about under-representation in Shantallow and elsewhere. I care about all our children across this society. It is unfortunate that the UUP has arrived at the conclusion that it has. The motion states: “That this Assembly recognises that discrimination operates in many different ways and on many different levels and encourages the Executive to bring forward harmonising legislation, in a Single Equality Bill, for discussion and consultation at the earliest opportunity.” As Members, we have an obligation and a duty to put in place an equality framework to address the fragmented array of legislative instruments that are causing confusion across society. Let us build on the opportunity that we have. Let us take advantage of where we have come from and all that has happened since 8 May. We have a duty and responsibility to build a genuine shared future on equality. For that reason, I ask Members to reflect on the motion and to support it. Go raibh maith agat. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 45. AYES Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Dr Deeny, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Mr Neeson, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr P Maskey and Mrs McGill. NOES Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir. Tellers for the Noes: Mr Craig and Mr McQuillan. Question accordingly negatived. Mr Deputy Speaker: As Members know, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at lunchtime today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 12.06 pm. On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) — 2.00 pm Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one and a half hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and has been published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for a winding-up speech. Mr Ford: I beg to move That this Assembly calls for assurance from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety that junior doctors will be offered appropriate training to ensure that their careers, and patients’ care, are protected. As others have done, Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your reappointment to your office. We look forward to seeing you preside over real business, rather than your duties of last summer. Before discussing the motion, I must first declare an interest: I am the father of two junior doctors, both of whom have been affected in different ways by the disaster that is the so-called modernising medical careers (MMC) scheme. However, as the motion makes clear, my friend Kieran Deeny and I are also seriously concerned about the scheme’s effects on patient care. The MMC scheme had all the hallmarks of a modern Government project: it addressed a system that, although working, could undoubtedly work better. However, instead of incremental changes, the scheme proposed massive and radical changes, many of which had limited justification. Among those changes was the new medical training application service (MTAS), which depended on a new and untried computerised scheme to administer applications for jobs on behalf of every junior doctor in every region of the United Kingdom. The information technology failed continuously — now where have we heard that before in Government projects? The term “junior doctor” conveys a rather misleading impression. The term actually covers all doctors other than hospital consultants and general practitioners. It does not mean only those doctors who are just out of university; it means the vast majority of doctors who staff our hospitals and who provide life-saving care for our constituents 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. In an effort to address the problems that ensued from the scheme, different ad hoc schemes have been developed in each of the four nations of the UK. There has been a desperate attempt to ensure some continuity in the National Health Service when doctors are due to take up their new posts in early August. In the meantime, every significant body of medical opinion — not just the junior doctors themselves, but the royal colleges and representative groups of consultants — has expressed its opinion on the fiasco. Those opinions have ranged from concern to absolute horror. Two days ago, the chairman of the British Medical Association (BMA), Mr James Johnson, felt obliged to resign apparently because he had not expressed his concerns forcibly enough. For those of us who had never before seen the medical profession rising up, as a whole, to protest, that was an indication of how serious the situation is. The Department of Health in Whitehall has set up a review, but the review team is, “top-heavy with DoH apparatchiks” — not my words, but those of a large group of medical professors in a letter to ‘The Times’ last week. In one respect only has the scheme been different from a classic new Labour scheme. This Government does not apologise — not even for the Iraq war. However, the Secretary of State for Health was forced to apologise to doctors for the distress that she had caused. So far, no apology has been made to patients for the harm that they may be caused. In such circumstances, it is little wonder that doctors are so upset and annoyed, and it is little wonder that the acronym MMC has had a number of spin-offs, of which the politest is probably “making medics cry”. We are clearly in the middle of an ongoing crisis; so what is to be done? I welcome the actions of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety here. In particular, I welcome the reopening of the interview process. Those who were denied first-round interviews by the deeply flawed process — flawed in its implementation and designation — will now have the opportunity to be considered for their other choices. Even that compromise is deeply flawed. In no other field of employment, particularly in the public sector, would it be acceptable for candidates for the same positions to be interviewed under different conditions, with no proper shortlists, on widely different dates, probably by different panels, and with those who are called to the second round of interviews inevitably tagged as the failures from the first round. That hardly reflects equal treatment of all applications, which is surely a prerequisite of any public appointments procedure. I know of cases of doctors who have failed to be called for interview for posts in specialisms in which they have experience and have passed postgraduate exams. However, those doctors were interviewed for posts in their lower choice specialisms, for which they were less qualified and experienced. The system is fundamentally flawed. Even the letters of offer from various specialties leave candidates with unacceptable dilemmas. Should candidates accept early offers from their second choices, or should they hold on in the hope that, due to others turning down offers, one of their first choices becomes available? That scenario would be difficult in any job. However, it is not a one-off job application. The current design of MMC means that that issue cannot be redressed later. Currently, interviews are supposed to cover a seamless progression from the newly instituted foundation-year programme through to consultant grade. Therefore, the system works fine when junior doctors get the positions that they want and realise their ambitions during the first stage of the process. If they achieve that initial step, they know that they have begun the seamless progression. However, what happens to the majority who do not get the post that they want or do not get any post at all? What happens to those who fail at their one and only attempt to begin a career for which they have trained for several years and in which the general public, as taxpayers, have invested heavily? The current system is not only damaging to the prospects of the individuals concerned — it is seriously damaging to public welfare and the public purse. I am not a lawyer, but I know a little about employment matters. It seems to me that any doctor who fails to get the post that he or she wants, as a result of this deeply flawed and variable process, could almost certainly have redress through the courts. However, I do not get the impression that people wish to take those cases through the courts. Rather, they want to be treated fairly, to have the opportunity to make progress in their careers, and to contribute to society. They do not want to seek compensation because of their failure to achieve those objectives. The willingness of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to take the issue seriously is a positive sign. I am grateful to him for attending a briefing in the Long Gallery that was organised by Northern Irish Medics, and for his recognition that this matter requires urgent action. Today, he has the opportunity to add substance to that commitment. It is clear that the current year’s process is so flawed that it cannot possibly be used as the basis for the future career patterns for the nearly 1,000 junior doctors who want to serve the people of Northern Ireland. It would be unacceptable for any doctor to lose his or her career, and the Minister has previously confirmed that, at this stage, more than 100 doctors could be affected. It would be almost as bad if doctors were forced into second-choice training posts or non-progression staff grades, with no further chance of starting on new career paths. The current process compresses two years into one. With the introduction of the F1 and F2 training posts for those who are just out of medical school, there must be no question of doctors being refused posts on the basis of over-qualification. As a potential patient, I would rather visit an overqualified doctor than an underqualified one. The Minister has stated that it is not possible to return to the previous training scheme. That may be the case, although there are many who wish that it had been returned to a few months ago. Doctors — and the entire population — have a right to expect the Minister to confirm that he will ensure action on several key points for the future. His first priority must be an assurance that when new appointments are made this August, there will be no compulsory redundancies among those junior doctors who wish to continue working in Northern Ireland. That will require the Department to initiate an urgent review of medical staffing across the region, in every grade. His second priority must be the full option for transfer among posts next year. In other words, this year’s appointments, under the current flawed process, of junior doctors who are dissatisfied with their posts, should be effective for one year only. The third priority is that there must be recognition that the current number of posts proposed for the future is inadequate to provide for the needs of the NHS in Northern Ireland, and for those who are currently engaged in medical training. It must be ensured that adequate posts are available to provide the care that our constituents require. I further ask for the Minister’s agreement to set up a review group in Northern Ireland to examine the conclusions of the national review of MMC, as well as an assurance that such a review will be broadly representative of the medical profession and the wider community, instead of being stuffed with departmental apparatchiks. I thank the Minister for his attendance and for taking the matter so seriously. I commend the motion, and I have no problem with the amendment that Dr Coulter will propose, as it merely adds some flesh to the motion that Dr Deeny and I tabled. I ask for the support of the House and urgent action from the Minister. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I beg to move the following amendment: At end insert “; and that there is a review of junior doctor workforce planning, to be reported to the Assembly.” The crisis over junior-doctor training is potentially the most damaging that the Health Service has faced since its inception some 60 years ago. The level of breakdown that it represents, and the extreme damage that it has done to morale among our junior doctors, is difficult to exaggerate. I know that the new Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is deeply committed to solving the crisis, and I compliment him for attending a mass lobby by junior doctors in Parliament Buildings on 16 April. That showed his good intentions towards the professionals in the Health Service, as did his pledge at that meeting to put the junior-doctor training problem high on his agenda. That made a huge difference to the morale of our junior doctors who, up to that point, had been ignored by officials and direct rule Ministers. I understand that the Minister met with junior doctors again on 3 May. It takes, on average, £250,000 to train a doctor. That means that any level of unemployment among doctors represents a massive waste of public money. Up to 200 junior doctors could be unemployed as a direct result of the training system in Northern Ireland, and a further 212 could be unemployed in two years’ time when fixed-term specialist-training appointments run out. The maths of that is straightforward: 200 times £250,000 equals £50 million of public money squandered, which is indefensible. Across the UK, the problem is even worse. There are 32,000 eligible applicants for only 18,500 jobs. That represents a crisis of massive proportions. Indeed, to define the current situation as a crisis is a massive understatement. The UK Government’s position on the matter is best described as a rout. One element after another of their position on MMC has collapsed. The chief executive that headed the MMC operation has resigned. The chairman of the BMA has also resigned, as the House has already heard from Mr Ford. After making some tremendous mistakes, which included sending doctors to two appointments on the same day in different parts of the country, the computer system that was built for the BMA was eventually abandoned, after the details of thousands of doctors were leaked. For the first time in my long career, I have heard responsible doctors talking of strike action, which has not happened in 4,000 years of medical history. 2.15 pm What alarms me most is that, in the midst of this crisis, we are losing some of our best young doctors. I have had reports of mass recruiting by the state of Victoria in Australia. Hospitals there are recruiting many of our best young doctors, most of whom will never return to this country. Even more alarmingly, I have had reports of some of the best medical students from our top medical schools abandoning medicine altogether. Many have gone to work in London in financial services and other careers. This whole episode has been a gross betrayal of the vocation of many junior doctors by a cynical and exploitative UK Government. It is high time that the Government got their hands off medical training. This surely must be the lesson learned from this dismal episode. Medical training should be a matter for the professionals and no one else. Medicine is a serious, life-and-death business. Petty bureaucrats who lack proper medical training should not be involved in it. Control of medicine and medical training must be returned to the professionals. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. My apologies, it is not. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I thought that you had given me 10 minutes at the beginning, Mr Deputy Speaker. Spending must be on front-line services, and key decisions must be made by a medically qualified, clinically aware leadership. I know that the Minister has taken steps to end the worst excesses of the modernising medical careers (MMC) catastrophe; he did so within days of taking office. It was important for us to break with the rapidly deteriorating English MMC situation, and the Minister was decisive in doing just that. He has the best interests of the Health Service, its patients and professionals at heart, and the future of the Health Service in Northern Ireland is much safer now that it is out of direct rule hands. I thank the proposer of the motion for accepting the amendment. I believe that the House fully supports the motion. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Storey: All who have been in contact with the medical profession recently will be aware of the grave concern this issue has caused among junior doctors. The Assembly should note the high level of dissatisfaction among junior doctors regarding the changes to the postgraduate training-course application process. Today, we are also reminded that this is the sort of issue that is of ultimate importance to the people that we represent. It would be easy for the House — as it has done in the past under the Hain Assembly — to blame others; to say that others are responsible for this problem. If devolution is to mean anything to our communities and constituents, it is as an opportunity to ensure that we learn from mistakes, and that we put in place processes that are manageable and that can deliver. Everyone accepts that the introduction of a new system of training for junior doctors has been a chaotic mess. It may yet bring an end to the political career of the Secretary of State for Health. We await the outcome of that matter. The online application process was a fiasco, and recent security breaches resulted in the personal details of applicants being made widely available on the Internet. That does not inspire confidence in multimillion-, or perhaps, multi-billion-pound IT systems that are being introduced in the NHS. We should issue a note of caution to our own Minister to ensure that any new proposals for new processes do not fall foul of the same problems. There are reports that the initial application tests were so poor that a nurse applied for a training post for hospital consultants. The result of the judicial review sought by Remedy UK is due later this week. No posts across the water are being offered until the second week in June, but here in Northern Ireland offers were sent out by email last Wednesday night — the night before the Health Committee had the opportunity to discuss the issue at its initial meeting the next day. That was done in the full knowledge that this debate was to take place today. We need more doctors, not fewer; I think that we are all agreed on that. There is a concern that the service offered in our hospitals will be undermined by a shortage of experienced doctors currently employed in the NHS. The Department has argued that the controversial system of run-through speciality training posts was the only way to allocate posts for 2007-08. Many doctors do not share the view that run-through posts are key to having sufficient doctors working this August. It has been explained to me that that was not necessary: the Department had the option of making appointments for one year only. These would have been fixed-term speciality training posts. I welcome the Minister’s presence for this debate and will be interested to hear from him what consideration was given to that option. The use of single-year appointments could have ensured that doctors were in post for 2007, while the longer-term appointments could have been held over until a fairer and more reliable recruitment process had been put in place. Furthermore, it would have meant that postgraduate medical education remained compatible with training in the rest of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister give my constituents in North Antrim an assurance that he will review these changes in order to ensure that the Department employs the most effective recruitment policy, in the interests of effective healthcare and the well-being of patients? The level of concern has been so high that it has even been argued — Mr Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Mr Storey. Mr Storey: It has even been argued that the medical training application service’s online recruitment process could present a risk to patient safety. I trust that that will not be the case. Mr Deputy Speaker: I was cautious about calling the Member’s time in case I got it wrong again. Ms Ní Chuilín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am delighted that this motion, and the amendment, is before the House and that the Minister is present to hear what appears to be cross-party support for junior doctors. I am sure that, since our election, we have each heard representations from the British Medical Association and Irish Medics about training and the securing of posts. Recently, as David Ford and Rev Robert Coulter said, a few of us held an event in the Long Gallery where we heard at first hand of the difficulties experienced by junior doctors and by their families. Today the Assembly has an opportunity to record its support for the motion and the amendment and, crucially, to support the junior doctors, who are the bedrock of the future of the Health Service. Any review must look at the number of speciality training posts, with a view to expansion. It is critical that the number of training posts be linked to care for workforce training, not only to support and protect the careers of junior doctors but to protect patient care. Today we can see that there is cross-party support for junior doctors, and for the motion and the amendment. The key issue is that we must not lock junior doctors out of training. That would be bad for them and for the Health Service. We need to ensure that junior doctors are able to avail of appropriate training — specifically, that they are able to reapply next year at the appropriate level, so that they are not locked out permanently. There needs to be more useful and meaningful employment for them here. We need to support the junior doctors, at a time when their morale must be very low, to ensure that there is no more displacement and that we do not lose our finest to Australia. We need to ensure that the financial investment that we as a community have made is secured here. Everyone agrees that this saga has gone on too long. Members need to take charge of the situation and ensure that the needs of our junior doctors and our Health Service are protected now and in the future. Go raibh maith agat. Dr McDonnell: I will be brief, because the proposer of the amendment has made many of the points that I wished to make. I would like to emphasise that our National Health Service, with its many faults, is still one of our most precious public assets and is highly valued by all our constituents, regardless of their politics or the party they support. Having formerly been a junior hospital doctor, I wish to put on record that they are not students — they are not even housemen. Junior hospital doctors are also not hospital consultants. They are medical people who have been housemen, who have completed their initial university education and training and who have spent a year in the hospital system. They are in the process of building a lifelong career in a particular speciality. Until now, there has been a fairly logical progression, in steps of two or three years at a time, from houseman to senior house officer, registrar, senior registrar, and so on, which took eight to 10 years to complete. That medical training is in the process of changing, which is where the MMC scheme has come in. There will be instant consultants — the new system is suggesting that training can be completed in five years rather than the previous eight to 10 years. The new system is OK, broadly speaking, if one accepts that some flaws need to be ironed out. It may work better in England, due to circumstances in many of the English regions, but it will not work well in Northern Ireland or Scotland where a much more localised system has worked well in the past. I believe that the MMC scheme may be one short cut too far. The intention is to put newly qualified housemen into a fixed, intensive career path for five years. However, that will remove many opportunities for them to specialise or do six months in areas of interest. Rather than receiving a rounded medical training, they will be getting very intensive, focused training running through their careers. 2.30 pm My main concern is that many junior doctors are either married to, or cohabit with, other doctors, and some of them have children. The new system could send one doctor to the far north of Scotland and the other to Land’s End, leaving their children somewhere in between. At this point, those children do not know where they will be going to school in September. Many doctors will lose out due to the inadequacy of the system. Mr Easton: The people best qualified to analyse and assess the weaknesses and strengths of any organisation are those who work in it. They know the problems and are often best able to identify the solutions. That is the case in the Health Service. Junior doctors and other medical practitioners are saying in no uncertain terms that the Government’s modernising medical careers (MMC) initiative has led to massive discontent in the profession throughout the UK. The evidence suggests that the current crisis could lead to an exodus of highly- and expensively-trained young doctors from all over Northern Ireland and the UK. The present process is fatally flawed — and fudging decisions and tinkering with the process will not produce the efficient streamlined system that is required. An independent review of the situation in Northern Ireland is required in order to deliver a system of training and allocation of posts that is competitive yet equitable. In particular, the system must be tailored to the specific needs of the Province. The Assembly must ensure that young doctors in Northern Ireland have the right to a validated system that ensures that applications are matched to appropriate training positions and that no cohort of trainees is disadvantaged. Those young doctors carry heavy responsibilities in their day-to-day work, and it is incumbent on the Assembly to ensure that they are content and satisfied with their conditions of service in a profession that can be hugely demanding. Specifically, young doctors must be provided with equal opportunities to acquire the skills and experience necessary to create a twenty-first century Health Service. To avoid the profession suffering extreme damage, attention must be paid to the opinions that doctors are expressing so publicly. If Members respond to the challenge speedily and sensitively, a workable solution is possible, and we must take on board the opinions of those who have the expert knowledge and experience needed to devise such a solution. I call on the Minister to do all in his power to ensure that junior doctors in Northern Ireland have equal and direct access to appropriate training to ensure the protection and development of their careers and the well-being of the patients whom they serve with such care and dedication. Mrs Foster: As colleagues have said, this issue is very important. It is not often that doctors contact politicians — I do not know why — but because of how strongly they feel about this issue, many have done so. The impact on their morale must not be underestimated. It is difficult enough to try to run an efficient Health Service without the staff being made to feel unhappier and adding to the many pressures under which they work. As Dr Coulter said, the last thing that Northern Ireland needs is an exodus of more local doctors to other parts of the world. He mentioned Australia, and I am sure that other countries also benefit from the expertise of doctors from Northern Ireland. As Members know, there has been much talk about the brain drain. The loss of junior doctors is adding to that problem, which should cause Members increasing concern. I have a concern that relates specifically to my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. As the Erne Hospital does not have any registrar grades, it usually takes in about six senior house officers each year. Those six young doctors have more than two years’ experience, to enable them to deal with any issues that may confront them. My particular concern is that, under the new system, those senior house officers will not have gained two years’ experience. That will put a lot of pressure on the young doctors and on the consultants who will have to provide back-up cover. The most important concern for me, as a representative from the area, is the patients who will visit the hospital. I know that hospital staff will continue to be professional and to do their best. However, that concern must be recognised. I trust that the Minister is aware of the issue with regard to the Erne Hospital. More generally, the Assembly must ensure that junior doctors are not denied the opportunity to acquire training posts and, in effect, be locked out of the system. It is imperative that next year there are sufficient training posts to accommodate those who have been unsuccessful this year. Crucially, spending a year in a post that they might not ideally have wanted must not be allowed to be a disadvantage in obtaining a training post. For some time, my party has argued for better workforce planning across the NHS. The problem is indicative of the need for that. Equally, career guidance at every stage of a person’s medical career must improve drastically, be that at school, university or at postgraduate level. It is essential that trainees are able to obtain employment in England, Scotland and Wales, because Northern Ireland cannot afford to be out of step with training on the mainland. I hope that the Minister will respond to some questions in his remarks. For example, are there any circumstances in which clinical experience can actually prove to be a disadvantage to applicants? What effect will the changes to MMC posts have on the cost of doctors’ salaries to the local NHS? I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those questions. Unfortunately, due to time pressures, I will not be able to remain in the Chamber. However, I will be able to read his comments in the Hansard report. I am glad that the motion is being debated. I congratulate the proposers and Dr Coulter for his amendment. I look forward to the rest of the debate. Mrs Hanna: As health spokesperson for the SDLP, I welcome the opportunity to support the motion and the amendment, to express my concern about the plight of junior doctors who are caught up in the new application system and to offer them my support. I agree with the proposers of the motion that the Assembly must call on the Minister to assure the House that junior doctors will be offered appropriate training in order to ensure that their careers and, importantly, the safety of patients, are protected. Junior doctors are angry and demoralised by the unfairness of the system, which fails to select the best applicants for jobs and threatens to damage the careers of thousands who are left without a place on the training ladder. Members are aware that the application system has been ridden with problems; with reports of lost applications, applicants being considered for specialities that they had not applied for, and serious security breaches. I welcome the Department of Health’s decision to ensure that all eligible junior doctors who submit an application will be interviewed and that there will be a workable solution. A specific long-term review of the heavily criticised online system must also be carried out. That is absolutely essential if patients are to be provided with the best doctors and the highest standards of care and treatment. Our doctors and specialists of the future deserve high-quality medical training. A commitment from the Department of Health to supply that will convey the message to junior doctors that they are valued. It must be ensured that no doctor in training loses out on a career as a result of Government mistakes or poor workforce planning. There is a fear that taxpayers’ money is being wasted if our locally trained doctors are attracted or, indeed, forced to take up employment abroad. The National Health Service simply cannot afford to allow that crisis to continue. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Mr McGimpsey): Events over the past couple of months have proven to be difficult for doctors in training and for their families. I am familiar with the issues, having heard them at first hand before I took up my ministerial post. I welcome the opportunity that this debate offers to comment on this important matter. Much has been said about the recruitment process for junior doctors. I will set out what I will do to address the difficulties. Before that, I wish to clarify that the priority of my Department, and of the Health Service, is the continued provision of safe, effective treatment and care for patients by a range of healthcare professionals, including junior doctors. The measures that have been taken, which I will now outline, ensure that continuity of care. The retention and development of the skills in the healthcare workforce is an important consideration, and I will take some moments to put that issue into context. There has always been an annual round of recruitment, and therefore competition for posts. There have always been doctors who have been successful in securing training posts and some who have not. In addition, I wish to emphasise the distinction between the recruitment process for training posts, known as the medical training application service (MTAS), and the restructuring of postgraduate medical training, known as modernising medical careers (MMC). The aim of MMC, which was launched in 2003, was: “the end product of the training process, whether a hospital doctor or a general practitioner, should be a high-quality, well-trained and accredited doctor who can deliver the care and treatment patients need in the modern NHS”. All Members can support that aim. The first stage in the reform of training saw the introduction of foundation programmes. Those programmes are available to medical graduates in the first two years of their careers, and they enable them to develop basic practical skills and competencies in medicine, which include clinical skills; effective relationships with patients; high standards in clinical governance and patient safety; the use of evidence and data; communication and other necessary management skills and decision making; and a wider understanding of where and how medicine is practised. Again, all Members can support what is on that list. In August 2005, 230 medical graduates were the first under MMC to enter foundation programmes in Northern Ireland. It is that group of doctors, with others, who now seek to enter the next level of training. Feedback from recruitment to foundation training has mostly been positive, although there have been reservations. The UK-wide MTAS was used successfully as the recruitment vehicle for foundation doctors for 2007. However, that system proved to be anything but satisfactory or successful when used for recruitment to speciality training. Problems began to emerge in February 2007, when applicants were advised of the results of the shortlisting process. Events moved quickly, and, because Northern Ireland was in a direct-rule situation, the Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt, called for a review of MTAS to be carried out before the end of March. My Department kept in contact with the Department of Health review team throughout that period. At the same time, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) locally got the BMA, consultants and health trusts to agree to a more suitable and acceptable approach, which was announced on 5 April — again, pre-devolution. DHSSPS abandoned MTAS at that point. In Northern Ireland, all eligible applicants have been offered interviews for each job for which they applied. Those interviews are under way and follow a process that is identical to earlier interviews. The Department has assured the BMA, and I assure the Assembly today, that all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that equity is maintained for the entire interview process — one of the points that Mr Ford made. Offers of appointment started to be issued on 27 April and continue as each set of interviews is completed, and the process will be completed by the end of May. 2.45pm There have been calls for the abandonment or postponement of the process. Practically, that is not possible. Any further delay in the recruitment of over 600 junior doctors, would seriously jeopardise the ability of our local Health Service to operate from 1 August, the date when doctors take up their posts. Furthermore, the delay would prolong the anxiety of junior doctors, bearing in mind that many of them still await the results of interviews conducted last March. In effect, the practical steps necessary to keep the system going must be determined, while, at the same time, addressing the flaws that have been identified this afternoon. The consequences of delay are far-reaching. Doctors will not be recruited to take up posts in August. Existing contracts will expire, leaving doctors without a post, a place in a training programme or anything else. That will leave our trusts with a destabilised and depleted medical workforce and will place an unprecedented threat on the ability of the Health Service to function. Patients could be put at risk and essential treatments delayed, and patients and patient care must be protected. Allowing the continuation of the recruitment process and the issue of job offers ensures that the trusts are able to fill the posts in August. There will be stability, and patients can have confidence that there will be continuity of high quality, safe and effective services. Along with other Members, I appreciate that the MTAS recruitment process has brought high levels of concern and uncertainty to a dedicated and committed workforce. This year, just over 600 training posts are available; that is roughly the same number as last year. There have been no cuts in the training places; however, as I said earlier, competition for posts is not new and, as with any competitive process, it is inevitable that some doctors will be disappointed. Locally, our labour pool has been fairly constant, and the recruitment process in previous years has not generated significant unemployment. The system used this year has opened up applications, and many doctors living and working outside Northern Ireland may have applied to work here. It is too early in the recruitment process to estimate how many, if indeed any, locally- based doctors will be without a post. Apart from those designated as training posts, doctors who are unsuccessful can apply for a range of other Health Service posts, for example, clinical fellowship posts. The situation is no different from that of last year. The delay in completing the recruitment process has had a knock-on effect for others. The local deanery, the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency (NIMDTA), received around 900 first-preference applications for Northern Ireland. With over 600 training posts and approximately 170 additional posts, it is clear that a number of applicants will have to pursue their second, third or fourth preferences. That may mean taking up a post outside Northern Ireland. At present, offers are being made to successful doctors. They will take up their posts in August 2007. At this stage, it is impossible to pledge that every doctor who wants to take up a post in Northern Ireland will get a job here. However, I will take all reasonable steps to address any significant surplus in the local medical workforce. I assure the Assembly that I believe in retaining the important skills and potential of these people in Northern Ireland. I am aware that doctors who are unsuccessful in securing a speciality training post are concerned about being locked out of further opportunities to enter training in their chosen speciality. The rigidity of that aspect of the process will be examined. Therefore, I now announce a local review this year of the process. That will analyse the difficulties, take account of the lessons learned and chart a local approach to the way forward, including the lessons learned from changes to the training and recruitment processes. The Secretary of State for Health, the Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, announced a national, independent review of the reforms to date, to be chaired by Sir John Tooke, and we will analyse carefully its findings. However, it is also important that a local review examines the local problem. I am a great believer in local solutions for local problems, and the Department is looking at ways of addressing the concerns of the local junior doctors. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, in agreement with the BMA — the consultant body on local trusts — has acted early in an effort to minimise the concerns of the local medical workforce. Up to now, interviews have been offered to all doctors who have applied for a post in Northern Ireland, and offers are being made. Further difficulties regarding the rigidity of the process have been recognised, and the local review that I requested will address the whole process — including the difficulties and concerns about any potential surplus in the local medical workforce. The Department will contribute to the independent national review, and it will continue to work closely with trusts, the Northern Ireland Medical and Dental Training Agency — the deanery — and the BMA to agree the way forward. Steps have also been taken to ensure the stability of the Health Service and the delivery of its services. An attempt to answer, for example, Mr Ford’s four questions, may be based on the fact that we are taking forward a local review, and medical staffing issues will be part of that. The inflexibility of the process about which Mr Ford asked, and the number of medical training posts kept regularly under review, will also be examined. The review will not be local apparatchiks from the Department under the Tooke review, as Mr Ford suggested. It will involve key stakeholders from the Health Service, and that is an important factor. The Department has taken steps to address the concerns of junior doctors. The problem has been ongoing since February. It is most important to ensure continuity within the Health Service, and we must ensure that 600 junior doctors get posts and that those posts are filled in August. Otherwise, the Health Service will be seriously destabilised. There are still difficult issues to address, but I am confident that the measures already taken, and the local review that I have requested, will address the problems that have arisen. I assure the Assembly that meaningful steps will be taken to ensure that a recruitment process for speciality training will be put in place — one in which our Health Service patients and doctors can have confidence. Mr McCallister: I thank the Minister for his statement. My colleague Dr Coulter mentioned the distress that had been caused to the junior doctors and health professionals by the problems in the Health Service, and the blow to the profession’s morale. Therefore they will be relieved to hear that the Minister is following up, with actions, on the concerns that he had on this issue before taking office. There have been many issues and concerns raised from Members on both sides of the House. It appears that everyone supports the Ulster Unionist amendment and wants to see a locally accountable review of how best to move forward from the whole fiasco and sort out the problems that it has left. Mr I McCrea: Does the Member agree that the best way forward is to knock this on the head? Should we not accept the Minister’s review, take on board its proposals and, finally, implement them, but allow the junior doctors to take up posts now? Mr McCallister: The Minister cannot stop the review. It must take place, and the Minister has assured the House that it will be quick and that it will continue. He has also given guarantees that the doctors will be placed in their new positions and that the interview process has already commenced. I do not accept that that will cause much of the problem. My colleague Mr Elliott had hoped to attend to express the concerns of doctors in Erne Hospital. Unfortunately he cannot be here because the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development is meeting. It is unfortunate that Committees meet when there are important duties to attend to in the House. Mr Elliott is most disappointed that he could not be here. Rev Dr Coulter eloquently described the damage to morale caused by the over-centralised process, and Dr McDonnell the chaos engendered by sending doctors to different parts of the country. It is a comfort to all Members that the Minister is reviewing the situation, and is determined to have safe and effective treatment and follow-up care for patients, so that no patient is put at risk. That is the crux: no one wants to see patients endangered because of this mix-up. I have therefore no difficulty in supporting Dr Coulter’s amendment. Mr McNarry: Does the Member agree that it is a total and absolute disgrace that we bring a Minister into the Chamber and less than 25% of Members attend? What sort of message does that send to the public on such an important health issue? Members cannot be in the Chamber, and cannot participate in the debate, because of commitments to Committees. The Member will agree that it is time that something was done about that. Members alone should decide which issues have primacy in this House. Mr McCallister: I could not agree more with my colleague. Mr Elliott has been lobbied on an issue that is important to him and to all the people of his constituency, Fermanagh and South Tyrone. That he cannot attend the debate because of duties in the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development should be a matter of concern to all Members. What should take priority here, the Assembly in plenary session or a Committee? The system should be that Mondays and Tuesdays are set aside for plenary sessions of the Assembly, and Committee business conducted on Wednesdays and Thursdays. I have, therefore, no difficulty in agreeing with Mr McNarry, and I express my discontent just as forcibly as he has done. I support and commend Dr Coulter’s amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker: I call on Dr Deeny to conclude and wind up the debate on the substantive motion. Dr Deeny: Thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate, which is of obvious interest to me in a professional capacity. It is good to see that the Minister has attended the debate on this important issue. Points have been well made by Members right across the House. My mother, who is now 82, used to tell me when I was growing up that there were only two important things in life, both of which began with the letter “H”. They are — in order of importance — happiness and health. I used to think that she was off the plot. However, as I grew older, I realised that she was absolutely spot on. I hope that we are looking forward to a happier time in this part of the world: whether you call it Northern Ireland, or the North is entirely a matter of choice — A Member: Or here. [Laughter.] Dr Deeny: Or here. That is entirely a matter of choice. I hope that a brighter and happier future beckons all of us. Being happier, we should then turn our attention to the second of the two “Hs”, our health. The last thing we need is a situation where health professionals and doctors are leaving our shores. I have no wish to repeat what other Members have said, but I will advert to comments made by others to remind people of how serious the issue is. Junior doctors have serious concerns. They have declared that the medical training application service and the modernising medical careers system are seriously flawed; that they should be abandoned; and that, for this year, we should revert to the previous system. 3.00 pm In a report, Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer in England, promised that medical training would be “flexible in design and operation” and “respond to changing service needs”. I shall give Members some recent, if not up-to-date, figures. Of the 2,687 applicants to be interviewed for medical jobs in Northern Ireland, 1,162 have been interviewed and 1,525 are still to be interviewed. There are 906 first-choice applicants and 386 specialist training run-through posts; doctors who get those go on to become consultants. There are also 231 posts that are fixed-term specialist training appointments (FTSTAs), and there are 617 posts in other fixed-term, dead-end jobs. As Rev Robert Coulter correctly mentioned, between 200 and 300 junior doctors could be unemployed this year. There is potential for further unemployment in two years’ time when the FTSTAs come to an end. I must again highlight the vast amount of money that could be lost to the Northern Ireland economy as a result. As a doctor, I am delighted that this issue has already been discussed in this Building, at an event in the Long Gallery. As I said then, this issue is about junior doctors, but it also concerns patient care — patients should always come first in the Health Service. I am deeply concerned that doctors are being rushed through the system. Doctors are being promoted to consultant level far more quickly than years ago. I am not saying that the system was right years ago, but, including five years as a student, it generally took 11 years to become a full-time consultant. Those doctors who are GPs like to be able to refer patients to Health Service professionals with lots of experience who we can trust to be good. My concern is that this system is a cheap, quick-fix solution by central Government, intended to increase consultant numbers in order to meet targets set by waiting-list initiatives. We GPs are ticking boxes more than we are seeing people. That serious concern is shared among medical professionals. It takes a lot to get any doctor off his or her butt, but 10,000 to 12,000 of us marched in London this year in protest at this situation. That shows the level of concern. I was scared by research that suggested that 70% of junior doctors had considered leaving medicine as a result of the changes. The MTAS computer system has produced different results in different parts of the UK. I point out to the Minister that the recent announcement that the MTAS computer system has been shelved will not affect the situation, as the same process is running offline. We should not get confused: the uproar about information being divulged online has been dealt with; however, the process itself is still wrong and needs to be reviewed. In Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, candidates are being offered interviews for all four of their choices. In England, all interviews are being honoured, with a |