NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY Tuesday 2 October 2007 Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Ministerial Statement: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Dodds): I beg to move That the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/344) be approved. I am seeking the Assembly’s approval for a set of regulations to add a new word to the list of those that require approval before being used in the name of a company or business. My Department made the regulations on 23 July 2007, and they came into operation the following day. As laid down in the parent legislation, and to ensure continuing effect, the regulations are subject to the confirmatory procedure and require approval by a resolution of the Assembly within 10 sitting days of their coming into operation. The Department’s prior approval is required for a company seeking to use certain words or expressions as, or as part of, a company or business name. A recent application was received in Great Britain to incorporate a company that proposed to include the word “Government” in its title. At the date of the application, which was rejected on a technicality, “Government” was not on the list of words that were proscribed. However, that application generated concern to the degree that a decision was taken that the word “Government” should be added to the list of proscribed terms in order to protect the public from harm arising from a business using a name that falsely suggests an incorrect status. Consequently, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform — formerly the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) — in Whitehall introduced regulations in Great Britain from 10 July 2007, adding the word “Government” to its proscribed list of words and combinations of words, the use of which requires the written permission of the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Since that legislation did not extend to Northern Ireland, my Department was asked to consider the introduction of similar legislation here. These regulations amend the Company and Business Names Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1984, which are the principal regulations, to add the word “Government” to the list of those words requiring the written permission of the Department before being included in the name or title of a company. The Northern Ireland regulations were brought into operation as soon as possible following the corresponding GB regulations, which came into force on 10 July 2007. I hope that this motion, which is non-contentious, will be approved by the Assembly. The Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Durkan): The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment has considered the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/344) and, as the Minister has reflected, has noted the circumstances in which the amendment has been brought forward. In a sense, this is “karaoke” legislation — following through on what the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has done in Whitehall. The Committee understands the circumstances that have necessitated the amendment and recommends that it be confirmed by the Assembly. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Company and Business Names (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R. 2007/344) be approved. ‘Equality in Northern Ireland’ Report Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Mr Attwood: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with concern the report by the Committee on the Administration of Justice ‘Equality in Northern Ireland: the rhetoric and the reality’; believes that the numbers of economically inactive Catholic and Protestant households is of particular concern; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the content and conclusions of the report inform decisions and proposals. At the outset, I apologise. As soon as I have finished my speech, I must go to the Senate Chamber where the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is taking evidence from the Lord Chief Justice and the Policing Board. However, I hope to return as soon as possible. I explained the difficulty to the Speaker’s Office, and the Speaker understands it. It is only right to acknowledge the report, and to note that, at its launch, all the main political parties in the Assembly were represented, either by politicians or by their staff. That indicated the parties’ recognition that continued and deep attention must be paid to the issue of equality across the communities of the North. Furthermore, I put on record that the particular contributions of many who have struggled over the years for equality must be acknowledged and applauded. Although we might disagree with some of their actions and initiatives, the work of people such as Inez McCormick, the late Bob Cooper, and the late Seán McBride have brought this community to a much better place than heretofore in that regard. I cannot do justice to a 200-page report; I urge Members to read it themselves. Its good authority is based on the statistics and data of Departments in the North, and it should be a catalyst for the next phase of equality. A catalyst is needed even though there have been significant achievements over the past 30-odd years in respect of equality in the North. As we embark upon the next phase of our political journey, we must be mindful of remaining inequalities — historically, particularly in respect of the Catholic community, and in areas of acute inequality that have begun to emerge in the Protestant community. I do not want to burden the debate with statistics, but some need to be acknowledged. I will quote two or three from the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) report. First, there is an area of employment for which the Assembly has personal and intimate responsibility, namely the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The top-line balance of employment figures in the service is 40% Catholic and 55% Protestant. It is clear that a differential persists in public-sector employment in the North. However, when we probe the headline figures, we discover that deeper differentials exist that are over and above that top-line differential. In the two standard occupational categories where 73% of civil servants are employed, the Catholic community is under-represented by 8%. At the same time, however, that statistic is offset by over-representation of the Catholic community in other categories where, based on the overall numbers in the North, the Protestant community is under-represented. Given that responsibility for the Northern Ireland Civil Service lies with the Assembly, surely we should address such under-representation. The motion deliberately refers to economically inactive households. That problem is becoming more acute: the percentage of economically inactive households in the North is more than 25% greater than that in England, Scotland or Wales. Therefore, we can see the contradiction in that record numbers of people are in work in the North, and unemployment is at a record low, but, compared to Britain, we still have the highest — and growing — number of economically inactive households. When we examine those figures in more detail, we discover that over the past five or six years, the percentage of such households in the Catholic community — about 19% — has remained stable. That is a big problem. At the same time, the percentage of economically inactive households — meaning that no one in the household, either child or parent, is working — on the Protestant side of the community has increased from 14% to 16%. Since the restoration of the Assembly a few months ago, housing has clearly been of great concern to Members. The figures in the CAJ report create an acute impetus for the Department of Finance and Personnel to acknowledge in the current Budget negotiations the need to increase significantly the housing budget. Waiting lists for both communities have increased significantly over the past few years — again, more acutely on the Catholic side, by 30%, but, at the same time, by 19% on the Protestant side. At the same time, people on waiting lists to be rehoused are waiting for an unacceptable length of time. Again, it is higher on the Catholic side, at around 13 months, but Protestants still have to wait for nine months. Government policy on all of this, including anti-poverty policies such as TSN, reveals the following points. I want to read into the record what a CAJ briefing note says on this: “Of the top 20 poorest areas in Northern Ireland, only one, Ballymacarrett, is outside North and West Belfast or Derry. Of the top 50 most deprived areas in Northern Ireland, only seven are outside North and West Belfast, or Derry … In relation to community breakdown, of the top 20 poorest areas in Northern Ireland, 13 are overwhelmingly Catholic and 7 Protestant.” Whatever side of the community we may come from, it should be a matter of deep and common concern that those statistics reveal what they do about Protestant and Catholic disadvantage. Yes, disadvantage, for historical and other reasons, is more acute on the Catholic side of the community, and those differentials must be addressed; nonetheless, it is a common problem. 10.45 am What should we do? The SDLP proposes that, first, the House should support the motion, at least because, in doing so, it will put on record its concern and create a benchmark for the issue of inequality in the North. Secondly, we should acknowledge that, whatever progress has been made in recent years, inequality still endures and is deeply embedded — acutely so in parts of the Catholic community but also in parts of the Protestant community. We should appreciate what the CAJ says about a stable and cohesive society’s having as its bedrock the issue of equality. We should acknowledge that the Equality Commission, which, under previous leaderships and in its predecessor form, was an engine for change, has become a body in which a management culture around equality operates, rather than a change culture. Let us devise specific policies that address the early-years strategy, especially in those areas where people have low educational attainment. Low educational attainment is pretty acute in parts of my constituency, including on the Shankill. Let us introduce the single equality Bill, because legislation has always been an engine for change and part of the architecture for the future. My colleagues will speak about other proposals, but I urge Members to support the motion so that we will be able say to the people of the North that, on the issue of equality, we are prepared to be judged and to judge ourselves. Mr Deputy Speaker: I call Mr Danny Kennedy, the Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Mr Kennedy: I will not be speaking as the Chairperson of the Committee, Mr Deputy Speaker. Whether that affects the pecking order in which Members are called to speak, I am not sure. I am open to your guidance, but I am happy to speak. Mr Deputy Speaker: Go on ahead. Mr Kennedy: The essence of the SDLP motion is the CAJ report’s contention that, despite historically high levels of employment, the community differential in economic activity in Northern Ireland should be interpreted to mean inequality between the two main communities. The SDLP obviously agrees with that assertion. No reasonable person can deny that economic inactivity is a matter of grave economic and social concern. However, my opinion, and that of the Ulster Unionist Party, is that to view the challenge that we face simply by considering supposed inequalities that exist between the two main communities is to ignore some fundamental realities of the nature of economic activity. If we were to do that, the Executive could be distracted from addressing the real, substantive issues that contribute to economic inactivity. It is vital to note that, although high levels of economic inactivity persist in Northern Ireland, they do so in the context of historically high levels of employment and significant levels of migration from other parts of the European Union. Even the CAJ notes that the existing legislative framework has promoted equality of opportunity in recruitment and employment. Alongside that, labour-market demands mean that Northern Ireland has required significant levels of migration. According to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Northern Ireland has experienced — proportionately — slightly higher levels of migration from the EU accession states than has the rest of the United Kingdom. As such, levels of economic inactivity are incredibly difficult to explain merely in inequality terms. Employment opportunities are significantly more abundant in Northern Ireland today than they were a decade ago. Fair employment practices have addressed past concerns, so it would be a huge mistake to interpret the challenge of economic inactivity by using the language and concepts of past debates. Northern Ireland has the highest rate of economic inactivity of any of the 12 UK regions — 27·1% compared with a UK average of 21%. However, that bald statistic is misleading. Other UK regions share similar challenges in respect of economic inactivity. Wales has an economic inactivity rate of 24·1%; the north-east of England, 25·7%. In common with Northern Ireland, those regions are well aware that their levels of economic inactivity are significantly above the UK average. The issue is also a matter of much debate and comment in those regions. To view the challenges that Northern Ireland faces in tackling economic inactivity through a sectarian prism is to miss the point entirely. To rely exclusively on a CAJ report to influence policy on this matter is, again, to miss the point entirely. In common with other UK regions, we have unacceptably high levels of economic inactivity, which undermines our economic prosperity and our social cohesion. However, Northern Ireland is not unique in facing such challenges — there is a wider UK context. The Executive have a responsibility to secure equality of opportunity for all in Northern Ireland. The securing of a strong economy and a strong society requires that all, irrespective of background, have the opportunity to contribute to economic prosperity and to the well-being of our community. There is also a responsibility on all to respond to those opportunities, to seek gainful employment, and to contribute to the common good. The debate on Northern Ireland’s levels of economic inactivity is, therefore, one that we must and should have. However, it should not be couched in the terms of the old divisions. That is the fundamental flaw in the motion, and that is why the Ulster Unionist Party will oppose it. This debate must take place in the context of the economic and social challenges faced by many regions of the United Kingdom, and by the entire United Kingdom. Mr Spratt: The report of the Committee on the Administration of Justice is fundamentally and terminally flawed, and it should not form the basis for decision-making on the part of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. On reading chapter 1 of the report, it becomes apparent that its authors believe that unionists have been opposed to equality for years. Unfortunately, that fallacy sets the tone for the rest of the report. The overriding theme of discrimination against Roman Catholics is totally inaccurate, and any notion that the Roman Catholic community was — and still is — downtrodden is not accepted by Members on this side of the House. If we are to debate discrimination in this Chamber, there are some stark examples of discrimination against the Protestant community that are well worth highlighting. It is clear that Protestants are under-represented in the Civil Service as a whole, particularly in the Child Support Agency and in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, where Protestants represent only 34% of the workforce. That is to name but a few examples. If we are to discuss equality and discrimination, let us put all the facts on the table. Let us see what proactive measures are being implemented to attract Protestants into jobs in areas in which they are disproportionately under-represented. Let us discuss the discrimination against young Protestants who want to join, and pursue a career in, the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Members must remember that the imbalance in the ranks of the police was not created by anything other than a murderous terrorist campaign against the RUC, its members, and the families of those members, and by a campaign of intimidation against young Catholics and their families in order to prevent them from joining the ranks of the RUC. In common with the Member for West Belfast who proposed the motion, Mr Attwood, I am concerned about the number of inactive Protestant and Catholic households in Northern Ireland. However, we do not need to take the CAJ report into consideration when seeking to address that problem. As an Assembly, we have a duty to every member of Northern Ireland’s population, regardless of religion, to ensure that opportunities exist to allow those who are seeking employment to find a suitable avenue into the workforce. The Assembly has a duty to the entire Northern Ireland population, regardless of religion, to ensure that those seeking employment can find suitable avenues back into the workforce. We have a duty to those in most need in the Province. We are well aware of what is required, so we do not need this report, with its many flaws, as a guide to tackling economic inactivity. If we are to tackle inequality, let us tackle it together, and without recourse to a biased and jaundiced report such as that from the CAJ. I oppose the motion. Ms Anderson: Ba mhaith liom labhairt ar son an rúin seo. I support the motion. Inactivity rates are at the core of the North’s economic problems, and they encapsulate the essence of our difficulties, and their solutions. Investment to secure prosperity cannot be separated from investment to address inactivity rates and impoverishment in our communities — the two are structurally and intrinsically interlinked. Some 272,000 economically inactive people live in the North of Ireland — 147,000 are Catholics and 126,000 are Protestants. Therefore, a huge number of people is excluded from all that we consider must constitute equality of life. People are stuck in a vicious, generational spiral of poor housing, poor health, poor education opportunities and poor social lives. The phrase “economically inactive” means that people — indeed, whole families — are unemployed but not categorised in total unemployment figures. Many of them are students, carers, those who look after the family home, or those who are sick or disabled. We all know them. As the CAJ report notes, some of those people would like to work — at least 40,000 of the hidden unemployed — but there are no jobs available for them. When calculated as a societal loss, were those 40,000 people who want to work to gain employment at an average of £12,000 a year — I would want them to earn more — that would represent an increase in income to society of almost £500 million. That does not take account of savings accrued in benefit payments, a conservative estimate of which would be about £300 million. The total would, therefore, be £800 million. We all know streets in which economic changes meant that everyone had work, yet now they have none. Shipbuilding, textile and engineering industries have collapsed as a result of global changes. With that, whole industries on which local economies were built have gone, leaving behind incomprehension, despair, bitterness, anger and, ultimately, hopelessness. In the west of the Bann, which includes the city of Derry in my constituency, only 63% of Catholics and 72% of Protestants across the region are engaged actively. There are pockets in which levels of inactivity are higher. However, even those appalling statistics disguise the real story. Derry’s resident employment rate is around 10% lower than anywhere else in the North. Only slightly more than 50% of working-age people — half of Derry’s working-age residents — are in employment. The waste is criminal. The CAJ report reviewed some of the policies that have been in place during the past 15 years — New Deal; the action plan in the anti-poverty strategy; and the NIO’s ‘A Shared Future’ — and explained why those have utterly failed to have an impact on inactivity rates. The report also enables us to learn from those mistakes and suggests policies that will be successful. If we want to deliver economic growth while reversing rates of inactivity, we must target specific areas of disadvantage through investment and procurement policies in which the impact is measured through equality impact assessments (EQIAs) in order to meet the social needs of the people who live there. Under equality legislation, there are legal and statutory obligations on the public sector to do just that. We must change current patterns. We have come a long way since the Assembly of 2002, when the leading parties in the Executive did not ensure that the Programme for Government was subject to an EQIA. They did not ensure that economic prosperity would also tackle disadvantage; they did not ensure the proper application of equality and TSN principles to funding allocations in the Budget. Fortunately, intelligent political leadership now prevails. 11.00 am This Executive will make a difference. This Executive will consider how the equality impact of spending £16 billion on investment can change the awful reality that is experienced by too many people in places such as my own constituency of Foyle. Mr Deputy Speaker: Will the Member please bring her remarks to a close? Ms Anderson: I say to Members of the SDLP and the UUP that Sinn Féin will not be found wanting. Mr McCarthy: The Alliance Party is grateful to Alex Attwood for tabling today’s motion and for drawing the CAJ report to the attention of the Assembly. Inequality — and, indeed, the perception of inequality — leads inevitably to a sense of injustice, which, in turn, feeds anger, bitterness and, sometimes, hate. Building a peaceful society in Northern Ireland is predicated on building one that is scrupulously fair and is seen to be so. The report’s authors do not argue against the widespread perception that direct discrimination is now at a low level, but they do argue — with some force — that structural inequalities are still a serious problem for society in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that, on virtually every indicator, Catholics are more likely to suffer disadvantage than Protestants. It is legitimate to debate whether inequality is a historical legacy that is in the process of disappearing or is a persistent gap that will not go away without concerted action. The fact that, despite a period of record economic growth, so many of those inequalities have persisted — albeit at a reduced level — would indicate that the latter is the case. As long as inequality exists, it is the duty of any civilised society to root it out and see that it comes to an end, once and for all. However, the report falls down badly in its assertion that the persistence of inequalities demands that we move away from objective need being the sole criterion for the allocation of public money. If we move away from objective need, that raises the spectre of people being refused help that they desperately need simply because they fail to come from the targeted background or do not live in the “correct” area. Poverty is no respecter of background, and discrimination has no place in this society. Indeed, the report makes strong arguments — rightly — against the creation of a task force on Protestant working-class communities. The report notes that the problems faced by those communities are not different fundamentally from those faced by working-class Catholic communities. Therefore, the authors are right to argue against sectarianising poverty in this case, which makes me wonder why they want to sectarianise it in other areas. Over time, a robust targeting of resources according to objective need must eradicate inequalities, but only if the programmes in question work. In that respect, the report is seriously flawed; for example, the authors examine New Deal and use it as an argument as to why objective need does not reduce inequality. However, New Deal has been shown to be fairly ineffective for people of all backgrounds throughout the UK — Catholic and Protestant, black and white, men and women. If social programmes are to be used to reduce inequalities, they must work in the first place. I commend the authors’ focus on economic inactivity, which could be described as Northern Ireland’s “dirty little economic secret”. Northern Ireland’s economic in activity rates are the highest in the UK, and, as the report notes, they are not improving. Mr B McCrea: Will the Member give way? Mr McCarthy: No, I want to finish. We desperately need to move away from new Labour’s failed policies and look at countries where much more active labour-market policies, aimed at the economically inactive, have borne fruit. Denmark is the obvious model. What can the Danish example teach us about tackling poverty, whether in Shantallow or Shankill? Another flaw in the report is its rubbishing of the shared future agenda and, in particular, the failure to spot its relationship to housing inequalities. North Belfast is highlighted in the report as having particularly serious inequalities in housing allocation. The appalling waiting times faced by housing applicants from Catholic backgrounds are a direct consequence of many areas of north Belfast’s neither feeling nor being safe for Catholics to live in — Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr McCarthy, your time is up. Mr Shannon: Having read parts of the aforementioned report, I have to agree with Alex Attwood that there is cause for concern. However, my concern flows from the severely tainted nature of the report, which makes no pretence of being unbiased. As I worked my way through the report, I did not see a reflection of the way forward for Northern Ireland — a way to address employment issues properly, or to help those who wish to find work and jobs that they like. I did, however, see a throwback to the Northern Ireland where religion and community background were blamed for every problem. The fact that unemployment is down and Northern Ireland is more economically stable than it has been in many years has no place in this report, which seeks to blame the position of certain sectors of the community on religion, and not on the ability and desire to have work and to seek work. It cannot be disputed that there are a large number of people in the community who have a desire to work, but who cannot find work — for example, men laid off from factories at the age of 50 and who have limited skills. Undoubtedly they have the desire to work, but they find it difficult to get anyone to hire them. DEL (Department for Employment and Learning) and DETI (Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment) should provide opportunities for training in new skills and confidence in the skills that exist but need to be stretched. That help should not be restricted to the sector of the community that may have had less cause for retraining in that year. It must go, rightly, to the people who need it, regardless of their creed or persuasion. Alex Attwood referred to deprivation in north Belfast. North Belfast has not cornered the market in deprivation. In parts of the area that I represent — Newtownards and the Strangford constituency — places such as Scrabo estate, West Winds estate and parts of Portaferry, which Kieran McCarthy and I represent with a different hat, have a level of deprivation as high as that in north Belfast. We deserve the same focus. That needs to be put on the record in this Chamber. I could stand here and read out the statistics in the report, which are undoubtedly thought-provoking. There are general ideas in the report that should be implemented. However, to say that the report should be put into practice in its entirety will not put Northern Ireland in a stronger position. It will trail us back to what we have struggled to come away from — a society where we are tied to one community or another, with an inability to assess any situation without bringing in bias or unfairness. The DUP wants equality for all, and it has put that on record. This report does not address unemployment in Northern Ireland. It bandies about age-old excuses, and that kind of pot-stirring has no place in the Province today. We undoubtedly have higher unemployment than we would like, but is that down to the religion of those applying for jobs? Of course, if applying to the PSNI, it is down to religion. A large proportion of the people whom I represent cannot seem to get jobs in the police force, even though they have the ability, qualifications and experience. Mr B McCrea: Would it interest the Member to know, with regard to the supposed jobs that we are looking for and this 50:50 recruitment in policing, that although 30% of people are Catholic males and 30% are Protestant males, only 13% of Catholic women apply? If they are looking for jobs, why do they not apply and try to get themselves out of this economic morass? Mr Shannon: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. He is absolutely right. I have nothing against a person of whatever religion applying for a job — we should all have the same opportunities to get a job. We must implement a strategy that creates a way forward, not one that looks to the past and offers no real hope. One of my boyhood heroes was Winston Churchill. He said: “Continuous effort, not strength or intelligence, is the key to unlocking our potential.” The report does not advocate that approach; it merely plays a blame game. As such, I cannot support a report that offers no real fairness to the people of Northern Ireland, either Protestant or Roman Catholic. I oppose the motion. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, and I thank Mr Attwood for securing this important and welcome debate. The CAJ must be commended on the work that it has put into the report and for the fact that it has given recommendations on how to address the problems that we are experiencing. I encourage unionism not simply to dismiss the report but to welcome it and to play a part in the research that must be carried out into past discrimination. Unionists may not agree with everything in the report, but they should be part and parcel of a process that leads to the production of other reports so that a complete picture can be drawn. If unionists want to contest arguments in the report, that is fair enough; they should do so and challenges should be made, but they must also come up with alternatives. However, we must accept that the report has identified some projects that the Government have put forward to alleviate the situation — although others would say “mask”. The New Deal programme is one such project. Like new Labour, it is based on a spin policy that has been designed to cover up matters and to create an impression of low unemployment, when, at the end of the day, it has created no real jobs and effected no change. Very often, much of the work and money involved has been wasted. I regret to say that a lot of the European money has likewise been wasted. With no strategy in place to ensure that European money is used to create long-term jobs and commitments, it has sometimes become a case of going round the same old houses. It is noticeable from economic activity tables that there is a high level of economic inactivity west of the Bann — some 59% or 60%. It is clear from the breakdown by constituency and council area that that is where the inactivity is to be found. I commend those who have created economic activity themselves — those local entrepreneurs who have done it on their own. They created jobs because they realised that there would be no Government jobs west of the Bann, no encouragement from any agencies to create employment west of the Bann, and no inward investment west of the Bann. Local unemployed people and local entrepreneurs created the jobs themselves, and, as a result, some of the best businesses in the world today are located west of the Bann — for example, Powerscreen International plc, which is owned by TEREX. Some 80% of the world’s quarrying machinery is manufactured west of the Bann. Therefore, out of that situation came initiative. At the same time, Government continually financed the big industries east of the Bann — the shipyard and so on — but those have failed to deliver. Thus, there is a clear imbalance in investment east and west of the Bann. From a unionist perspective, it may not be nice to hear that the discrimination west of the Bann affected not just Catholics, but everyone who lived there. It just happened to be that the majority of people who lived west of the Bann were Catholics; therefore, they suffered most. Unfortunately, unionists accepted that discrimination because it was mainly Catholics who suffered and they did not raise their voices. I welcome the fact that Members such as Gregory Campbell are now discussing discrimination west of the Bann and that they accept that situation. Hopefully, we can now instigate change in order that the east/west divide will no longer be a topic for discussion. I encourage Invest NI to examine how entrepreneurs west of the Bann have helped themselves, and how those efforts could be supported. 11.15 am Mr Shannon accepted some of the report’s concerns, and the intent of Mr Attwood’s motion. I encourage Mr Shannon to add his concerns to those expressed in the report so that we can begin to tackle this problem collectively. There is no reason why this matter should divide us. We should unite to eradicate discrimination and inequality across the board, no matter where it is happening. We have the facilities to do that: we have the Assembly in which to debate the matter, and there is a climate of economic growth in which we can tackle the problem. Let us come together and, instead of dividing the House, say collectively that we welcome the report. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Campbell: This is an important topic, but part of the problem with the report is the nature of its authors. The Committee for the Administration of Justice is not exactly a non-partisan body, and its various reports down the years on a variety of subjects have demonstrated that. However, I shall begin by mentioning a couple of issues on which, I imagine, there is broad consensus. Statistics indicate that unemployment in Northern Ireland is at an all-time low. There are regional variations but, overall, the country is experiencing significantly higher levels of employment, and consequently, lower levels of unemployment, than has been the case historically. That is good, and is to be welcomed. However, we must attract the highest possible quality of employment into Northern Ireland, and I know that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and others are concentrating on that. We have many part-time employees, particularly women, who are in jobs from which they want to move on. I imagine that there is consensus on that matter. The CAJ report does not address that matter, other than in passing. To cut to the chase, I have noticed that one or two Members — Mr Newton: Will the Member give way? Mr Campbell: Yes, before I cut to the chase. [Laughter.] Mr Newton: In a press statement about equality that was published on the Sinn Féin website, Martina Anderson makes disgraceful remarks about the work of civil servants, by stating: “There would appear to be an army of civil servants there who are opposed to any change in the status quo. They seem to have worked damn hard over the decades to maintain inequalities and to preserve their own privileged position.” Is that not a disgraceful attack on civil servants in general, who are unable to respond in the political arena to challenge such statements? Mr Campbell: I thank the Member for those comments, and I will deal shortly — again — with the inaccuracies of the Member whom he mentioned. The bulk of the CAJ report deals with the issue of employment in Northern Ireland. Almost two thirds of the Province’s workforce is employed in the public sector. We must ensure that private-sector investment creates more jobs in order to complement the number of jobs in the public sector. However, the CAJ and the SDLP, in what I might describe as a Back-Bench motion to keep the backwoodsmen happy, to use language from last week, are contending that there is an overall problem that is changing only slowly. If the CAJ report and the SDLP motion purport to consider overall employment patterns, they exclude and ignore what is happening in 2007. Discrimination in police recruitment is happening now, and Robin Newton mentioned the situation in the Civil Service. A picture is emerging, but I have been raising these issues for decades, along with others. Currently, there are 300 civil servants in the higher echelons of the Civil Service, where Catholic disadvantage is reducing year on year. Therefore the problem is minimal and is almost about to disappear. The Civil Service employs 30,000 in the general service grades — the largest number by any employer, anywhere in the country. Where is the disadvantage? It is among the Protestant community, and that must be addressed. That is where the problem is and no amount of waffle, statements or rhetoric will address it. Last week, I met the Minister of Finance and Personnel in an attempt to address the matter and I am hopeful that a remedy can be found for the situation, in which large numbers in both communities — particularly the community that I and my party represent — need higher-quality employment. My community has been disadvantaged, not for six months, but for years. Those people, with all the other communities, need to see the problem and the issue resolved. Unfortunately, CAJ does not appear to be capable of understanding that. Nor does the SDLP’s motion grasp that reality. Given the comments that have been attributed to Martina Anderson, I do not expect Sinn Féin to grasp it either. Mr Deputy Speaker: Please draw your remarks to a close. Mr Campbell: The motion does not face up to the reality of the emerging picture; therefore, the DUP opposes it. Mr Elliott: I am disappointed that the Ulster Unionist Party amendment was not accepted. I welcome the comments made by Mr Molloy. If I heard him correctly, he indicated that there was discrimination against the Protestant population in parts of Northern Ireland. If he wishes to clarify that, I am willing to hear him. Equality is an issue that raises its head in various arenas. On many occasions in the House I have addressed the issue of equality for agriculture and rural communities. The importance of the word “equality” in the life of everyone in Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. The report published by the Committee on the Administration of Justice — and I support Mr Campbell’s comments about that organisation — has several negatives; however, I accept that there are some positives. The report, which addresses the previous 30 years here, shows that the legislative measures adopted during that time have made some headway into the sectarian headcount that takes place in some types of employment. Furthermore, the report notes that ending political and religious discrimination at the point of recruitment has, in general, been effective. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey shows that 90% of people now prefer a mixed workplace. That is an increase of almost 10% from 2000. The positive aspects of the report and the survey results show that, after coming out of the dark days of the Troubles, Northern Ireland is making progress in economic diversity. I am sure that a report 30 years from now will further reflect the integration of communities, as Northern Ireland becomes, hopefully, a more normal society. I agree that the number of economically inactive people living in Northern Ireland is frightening. From March to May 2006, there were 538,000, the majority of whom were female. The main reason given for economic inactivity among both Protestants and Roman Catholics was sickness and disability and nothing to do with religion. It is important that economic evolution is part of the process of moving forward socially and economically. Although the phrase “economic inactivity” includes adults who, for whatever reason, are not seeking work; children below the age of 16, and those who are beyond pension age, the majority of the figures quoted usually refer to the working-age population alone. We must seek to encourage those who can work to do so, and, as more jobs arrive in Northern Ireland, we must capitalise on the opportunities that will open up. We must work with those agencies that help people to find employment and we must seek to develop opportunities for Protestant and Roman Catholic students. Too many of them are leaving home to work on mainland GB or in the Republic of Ireland and are not returning due to the lack of jobs. Interestingly, a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Bath shows that Protestant countries have higher employment rates than non-Protestant countries. The study claims that that is due to the Protestant work ethic, which makes subjects work hard, even when they do not want to work. I do not know whether that is relevant, but Dr Horst Feldmann from the University of Bath stated: “the most likely reason for the impact of Protestantism on employment was the legacy of the commitment to work cultivated through the early Protestant church.” He went on to say: “In its early days, Protestantism promoted the virtue of hard and diligent work among its adherents who judged one another by conformity to this standard.” Mr O’Loan: The Committee on the Administration of Justice’s report is an important summary of the state of equality in Northern Ireland, and I praise committee members for the important work that they have done over the years. There are four key summary points in the report: first, that there has been real progress on equality in the labour market but that structural inequalities remain; secondly, that there is still a large group of economically inactive people and that Catholics are significantly over-represented in that group; thirdly, that there are sectors of deprivation remaining, particularly in relation to housing and deprived residential areas, and that that deprivation still affects Catholics in particular; and fourthly, that the report is critical of the policy approach in ‘A Shared Future’, and argues that it is not equality-based and is, therefore, ineffective. That is the main point. I will not repeat the information that Alex Attwood provided on employment and on those who are economically inactive, but there are important conclusions to be taken from what he said. The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 and the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 are significant legislative remedies. The SDLP was instrumental in achieving those pieces of legislation, which are based on compulsory religious monitoring and affirmative action. Those pieces of legislation have done the business, in that they have essentially eliminated discrimination from the employing process. We have achieved balance in the public and private sectors in relation to the numbers of Catholics and Protestants who are employed. However, the report states that there are structural imbalances within that overall balance. Those are important indicators that our community is still divided. We must examine that closely as part of the debate. The report tackles three Government measures that address poverty, social exclusion and social cohesion. Those measures are: targeting social need, the task force on Protestant working-class communities, and ‘A Shared Future’. The report refers to a mythology around Protestant working-class areas — and there is some validity in the reference to mythology. Alex Attwood cited the facts. The report contains a lot of factual information, from which it draws conclusions. I have no difficulty with people disagreeing with those conclusions — I disagree with some of them — but the facts cannot be ignored. For some Members, the less their arguments are based on facts, the louder their voices become. If those people do not attend to the facts that are included in the report, they do not deserve to be taken seriously in a debate on equality. 11.30 am I have no objection to affirmative action in Protestant working-class areas, but it must be directed towards real need and not be politically driven. For example, there is evidence of educational underachievement in Protestant working-class areas — it is proper and necessary to address that. When referring to Protestant working-class areas, it is essential that the scourge of loyalist paramilitarism is mentioned. All Members should unite to state that threats, violence and criminality must be removed. All Members must support that, and there should be no sideswipes at the Minister for Social Development, who is working effectively to achieve that. The debate about the concepts of equality and a shared future, and their merits, is very important. Some Members advocate equality and reject the concept of a shared future. We could attempt to create a society in which — on the surface — there is equality in each community, but no social cohesion. I am convinced that that would not work. The concepts of equality and a shared future are essential, and should both be supported by all Members. It is on that point that I disagree with the conclusions of the report. Mr B McCrea: The motion is not only wrong in principle, but also in its approach and analysis of the facts. Declan O’Loan has just stated that he does not have a problem with people’s reaching different conclusions than those of the report. However, certain Members are being selective. The report states that there have been vast improvements on perceived discrimination in employment. However, as Gregory Campbell mentioned, there is no attempt to address such inequalities in the Health Service. The report deals with the important issue of housing. Yesterday, Alex Attwood’s colleague the Minister for Social Development told the House that the Housing Executive was a professional organisation. The Housing Executive’s response to the CAJ report referred to issues such as the: “lack of understanding/acknowledgment of complexities of housing markets; failure to acknowledge the political sensitivities of providing housing services in a divided community; failure to acknowledge the need for additional resources to support an adequate new build programme; failure to recognise the substantial investment in areas of high demand.” Who are the Members on the SDLP Benches going to support: Alex Attwood or Margaret Ritchie? Mr Attwood: I do not know whether the Member was in the House when I proposed the motion. If he was, he will recall that I stated that waiting times for the Catholic and Protestant communities are unacceptably high — although higher in the Catholic community. I also said that waiting lists have grown in recent years by 35% for the Catholic community and 19% for the Protestant community. I argued that those figures should provide an impetus, during the current Budget negotiations, for the Government to ensure that significantly more money is allocated for housing. What is the problem with that? Mr B McCrea: I was in the House to hear the Member’s speech, as I was for all the subsequent contributions. Mr Attwood is being selective in the information that he is using. Are Members aware of a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, ‘Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland’, which comments on the number of economically inactive people? It states that 7% of the adult population in Northern Ireland were injured during the Troubles, and 36% had a close friend or close relative injured or killed. The report states that those facts account for the differentials in economic inactivity with regard to sickness, mental health and disability living allowance. That is why there is economic inactivity. One may talk about legacy issues and their effect on young people, but the real problem — and we have talked about it in relation to other issues — is that 14% of young people in some areas do not pass any GCSEs. Five per cent of those young people do not get any qualifications at all, and 35% of eleven-year-olds do not even reach level 4 in Key Stage 2; that percentage is twice as high as elsewhere. The real problem does not relate to some type of pseudo-inequality but to education. Mrs D Kelly: Will the Member give way? Mr B McCrea: I do not get another extra minute, Dolores, so please be quick. Mrs D Kelly: Regardless of the reasons for economic inactivity, does the Member recognise that we are in a state of economic inactivity that must be dealt with? Mr B McCrea: The SDLP is drawing the wrong conclusions from the wrong facts, based on a shoddy piece of academic work, and if the questions are wrong, it is unlikely that the answers will be right. That is why the Ulster Unionist Party opposes the motion. It is utter tripe to talk about inequality when the facts stack up against it. The facts do not fit the argument, so Mr Attwood changes them and carries on regardless. We have faced huge challenges, and we must now deal with improvements in educational attainment. One might ask why some people do not take up employment? Why will the 40,000 supposedly economically inactive people who would like a job not take a job? Is it because almost 40% of all female jobs are part-time positions, or is it because women are 37% more likely to earn a low wage than men? If the differentials are not right, it is difficult to encourage people out to work. It is not our job to conduct a witch-hunt and ask what is fair, what is unfair or what is right or wrong. The Assembly must explain to people that they have to be responsible for their own actions. We must get those communities sorted out. Duncan Morrow, the chief executive of the Community Relations Council, said that once a community becomes synonymous with rioting and other bad images, it is not surprising that its people — including its skilled people — leave and that it is unable to attract inward investment. I urge the Members opposite to stop going after this red herring: start concentrating on the real issues. If those Members leave those issues aside, this side of the House will support them. The SDLP has brought up an emotive red herring, which is why the Ulster Unionist Party rejects the motion. The Deputy First Minister (Mr M McGuinness): I thank Members who contributed to the debate. All contributions were valuable, regardless of what side of the argument Members were on. One of the most important contributions came from Jim Shannon, who argued that deprivation and inequality exist in many housing estates and areas throughout the state. He went on to state powerfully that he and the DUP wanted equality for all. It was significant that, during the debate, not one Member argued that inequality was a good thing. That represents important common ground on which the Assembly and the Executive can, and must, build. Equality is an important issue for the Assembly and for society. Inequalities exist, and we must strive to achieve the goal of eliminating all forms of inequality. ‘Equality in Northern Ireland: The Rhetoric and the Reality’, produced by the CAJ, is a thorough and detailed report that deals with a wide range of complex issues. The report is already a year old, but the issues it raises still need to be considered. The CAJ report draws heavily on officially published sources of information, and it properly points out that some progress has been achieved in all sections of society over the past 30 years. It also usefully highlights some of the persistent inequalities that affect both communities, particularly the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. In the time available today, it is not possible to deal with all the areas covered in the report. However, that is not to say that a further detailed consideration is not merited — indeed, over the coming weeks and months, the conclusions of the report will require a full examination. Given the focus of today’s debate, I will concentrate specifically on the issues around economic inactivity among Catholic and Protestant households. Among the key questions that we should ask ourselves are: what is the level of economic activity in households here, and, more importantly perhaps, what are we doing to address that perennial issue? Although the motion focuses specifically on economic inactivity, it cannot be considered fully without also considering employment and unemployment, given that economic inactivity and economic activity are two sides of the same coin. Obviously, to reduce one, the other has to be increased. That places a mighty responsibility on the Executive proactively to change the existing patterns of social disadvantage by using increased prosperity and economic growth to tackle poverty. As my Executive colleague the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Nigel Dodds, put it in the Chamber on 10 September, we should be raising the economy so that everyone can benefit: “paying absolute regard to the particular challenges and disadvantages that affect particular areas, whether in the west, the north-west, the south or certain parts of Belfast.” — [Official Report, Vol 23, No 5, p223, col 1]. Economic inactivity is due to a wide range of factors. The North has a high proportion of students and people looking after the home, who are counted as being economically inactive. The Assembly needs to consider measures that will allow those with caring responsibilities that are limiting their ability to utilise education, training and quality employment to share in the growing economy. It is important to note that education is necessary for increased economic growth and prosperity. The fact that there is a high percentage of full-time students is not in itself an unwelcome statistic. Of course, the proportion of economically inactive citizens able to take up employment could well increase if the conditions enabling them to enter the labour market were more favourable. That is the challenge for all of us today — to use information to develop new and innovative measures that will address existing patterns of socio-economic disadvantage based on tackling the objective needs of those worst affected. One of the main official sources of information on economic inactivity is the labour force survey. The latest seasonally adjusted estimate for May to July 2007 is that there are 290,000 economically inactive people of working age in the North, representing 27·1% of the working-age population. That remains significantly higher than the current rate in England, Scotland and Wales, which is around 21·2%. None of us can fail to acknowledge the exact scale of the challenge that lies ahead. Seasonally adjusted estimates show that there are around 760,000 people in employment, and the unemployment rate, at 4·5%, is among the lowest of all the regions, as Gregory Campbell correctly said. However, it is important to note that some observers, including the CAJ, have argued that current calculations of the unemployment rate can create a false impression by failing to take account of the hidden unemployment of those who are, for example, on various Government schemes. The latest available data for 2005 from the labour force survey religion report shows that one in three Catholics and one in four Protestants are economically inactive. The labour force survey is a detailed, complex and objectively compiled statistical assessment that provides a factual overview of the status of the economy in the North. I remind all Members that the report has been published by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and can be accessed on the Department’s website. 11.45 am A wide range of policy responses will be required to tackle the problem of economic disadvantage. We know that the economically inactive do not form a static group. Indeed, more people join the labour market who are classed as economically inactive than those who are classed as unemployed or those who are classed as seeking work. By the same account, the latest available conclusions about the New Deal, as outlined by the Department for Employment and Learning’s statistical bulletin for April 1998 to June 2007, demonstrate that less than one third of 18- to 24-year-olds and just 20% of over-25-year-olds moved off the scheme into unsubsidised employment during the past decade. We should draw the efficiency and effectiveness of programmes such as New Deal to the attention of the Executive. Lessons can, of course, be learnt from public-procurement research, which indicates that Government procurement can play an active and effective role in tackling patterns of socio-economic disadvantage. Working-age economic activity is defined as people who are either in work or on jobseeker’s allowance. By that definition, about 67% of Catholics and 76% of Protestants are economically active. The official unemployment figures show that 6% of Catholics and 3% of Protestants are unemployed. The top 20 areas of greatest deprivation straddle both the Shankill and the Falls. Those patterns of disadvantage, which affect both communities to various degrees, will require real and meaningful strategies to ensure that the Executive’s commitment to tackling poverty and addressing social need is fulfilled. Mr McNarry: Will the Deputy First Minister give way? The Deputy First Minister: I am not sure whether I can give way during my response. Mr McNarry: Is he willing to give way? The Deputy First Minister: I am. Mr McNarry: I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. Will he clarify that he is speaking to the motion on behalf of both himself and the First Minister? Does he agree that it is time that all Ministers who are responding to motions give a clear indication as to where the Executive stand on the issue that is under debate? I say that with due respect to the Deputy First Minister; everything that he is saying today is interesting and reportable, and will be well read in the Hansard report. Nevertheless, we debate motions without a clear indication from the Executive as to where they stand on issues. It would be most helpful for Members if they had clarity on those matters. The Deputy First Minister: Everyone knows and understands that when Ian Paisley or I speak to a motion such as this, we both speak for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). Therefore, I am speaking for the First Minister in this debate. I hope that my contribution to the debate will give a clear indication of how we, as an Executive, intend to move forward and deal with the vital issues that concern the whole of our community. The problem of disadvantage is even more acute for women and people with disabilities. Typically, the economic inactivity rates for women are higher than those for men. Both Catholic and Protestant women experience the highest economic inactivity rates, at 42% and 29% respectively. We must look specifically at the barriers that face women in the area of socio-economic disadvantage, because if we do not, the gap will continue to widen to the detriment of us all. The barriers in accessing the labour market for people with disabilities are reflected in the fact that the majority of disabled people of working age — 66% — are economically inactive. About 14% of households, or one in seven, have no working adults. Clearly, the policy responses to that type of endemic socio-economic disadvantage will require a range of factors to be carefully considered. As we all know, the Assembly does not have tax and benefit policy levers at its disposal that could influence the labour market. However, where inward investment, anti-poverty, equality, infrastructure, childcare, transport, tourism, housing, health, education and welfare-to-work policies are concerned, we have the opportunity to make things better for those who face the greatest disadvantage. At a time when the potential for economic growth is at its greatest, it is crucial that we use the economy to tackle inequality and use prosperity to end poverty. Alex Attwood raised several issues during the debate, one of which was housing differentials. Although there are inequalities in housing — just as there are inequalities across society generally — the key issue is whether those inequalities are a result of discrimination or other factors, and which of those other factors are in our control. The new-build strategic guidelines, which affect the availability of social housing, are the subject of a separate equality impact assessment, which will take account of religious differentials. Targeted strategies have directed resources towards key areas of housing stress and have promoted housing in north and west Belfast, Derry and other areas. Alex Attwood and Gregory Campbell raised the issue of community differentials in the Civil Service. Catholic representation has steadily improved at Senior Civil Service level and is close to balancing with comparable parts of the workforce. Balance should be reached by the time of the next review. We also recognise that progress must be made to address the under-representation of Protestants at administrative and junior management grades. That is a priority, and affirmative action has, and continues, to be taken. We have, for example, commissioned research into why there have been low application rates for males and Protestants. Danny Kennedy spoke in the debate, although not in his capacity as Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. In due course, I will welcome the views of that Committee on the important contribution from the CAJ. Danny also spoke of the need for opportunities. I agree; however, currently, those opportunities cannot be accessed by all sections of the population. We must ensure that they can. Even with net inward migration, unemployment levels continue to fall. However, significant numbers of people still face social exclusion. Jimmy Spratt raised the subject of the CAJ report and suggested that the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister should not base its policies on it. In order to develop policies to tackle inequality, we must take account of as wide a range of evidence as possible, including that of the Equality Commission. Francie Molloy highlighted the lack of investment in the north-west. Although accepting that regional economic imbalances must be addressed, Members must acknowledge that, in the past five years, 50% of all Invest NI assistance was offered to locations in areas of economic disadvantage, as designated by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Those areas take in 30% of the population. Inward investment must continue to be directed towards areas with the greatest objective need. Declan O’Loan asked why I am pursuing the shared-future agenda at the expense of equality. OFMDFM is committed to moving society forward in order to make a real difference to the lives of ordinary people by promoting equality, human rights and good relations and by tackling social need. That is a complex and multi-faceted matter, which is affected by many factors, and which requires a wide range of departmental initiatives and responses. OFMDFM remains focused on the need to end patterns of disadvantage, wherever they exist. The Executive’s work is informed by a wide range of internal and external sources of data, independent analysis and challenges, and we welcome the contribution that the report makes to that debate. Mrs D Kelly: The motion states: “That this Assembly notes with concern the report by the Committee on the Administration of Justice ‘Equality in Northern Ireland: the rhetoric and the reality’; believes that the numbers of economically inactive Catholic and Protestant households is of particular concern.” What is wrong with that declaration as a motion, or as a fact that Members should recognise? Is the issue really that the unionist parties have difficulty with, and cannot accept, the credentials of the authors of the report rather than its findings? A Member: That is speculation. Mrs D Kelly: That is anything but speculation, and many Members have made that clear. Mr McCrea referred to the data and statistics that were used to compile the report. All data in the report came from the Government — from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, OFMDFM and DETI. If Members rubbish the report because of the statistics, they rubbish all those Government agencies that provided such data. Mr B McCrea: As the Member’s colleague Mr O’Loan pointed out, the problem was not with the facts but with the conclusions. If the report states that there is no real problem with recruitment, why go on about it? The Member says that there is an issue about housing, yet the Minister for Social Development told the House yesterday that the Housing Executive is a good organisation. The proposer of the motion has a problem with both matters. Why rely on a flawed report? That is illogical. Mrs D Kelly: Some of the Member’s conclusions are somewhat illogical, and he must have read the report through tinted glasses. As for the housing debate, the Minister made it clear that she wants to tackle housing for all. A difficulty with equality in housing provision in the North is the failure to share common ground and space on which to build new housing. That difficulty will continue until we learn to live together. The House should show greater leadership in tackling those inequalities. I am glad that the Deputy First Minister contributed to the debate; he made it very clear to the House that he spoke on behalf of the First Minister and welcomed the CAJ report. I welcome some of the statistics that were mentioned by Martina Anderson and Francie Molloy. No one is disputing the fact that people who lived west of the Bann, whether Catholic or Protestant, were discriminated against. Indeed, at Westminster, a former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party recognised the discrimination that existed during 80 years of unionist rule, which affected unionist and Catholic communities. Martina Anderson not only mentioned statistics but tried to lay some of the blame on the former Assembly. The former Assembly had little opportunity to deal with inequality because of the stop-go nature of politics, and it was held to ransom by paramilitaries — most notably by the IRA’s failure to decommission. The report sets out clear challenges and recommends actions on the way to deal with economic inequality. For example, the latest statistics on New Deal — a direct rule scheme that is still exists — show that 18% of Protestants over the age of 25 moved into sustained, unsubsidised employment after completing the programme. The corresponding figure for Catholics is 13%. The equivalent figures for New Deal for 18- to 24-year-olds are 25% for Protestants and 21% for Catholics. Why are the Executive continuing to fund New Deal under the Programme for Government? Why do we not seek a much more effective strategy to tackle economic activity? What is wrong with that conclusion in the report? ‘Lifetime Opportunities: Government’s Anti-Poverty and Social Inclusion Strategy’ states: “since the introduction in 1998 of the New Deal programme, unemployment in the main New Deal groups (i.e. 18-24 age group and 25+) has reduced. Additional provision is also available through New Deal 50+, New Deal for Lone Parents, New Deal for Disabled People, New Deal for Partners and New Deal for Musicians … An additional package of support measures for Lone Parents will be piloted in 4 areas in NI from January 2007 with resources obtained through the Skills and Science Fund. Again, using resources from this Fund, mandatory participation for those aged 50+ in New Deal 25+ is being piloted so as to provide additional assistance for individuals in this age group to enable them to enter/re-enter the labour market.” Why, therefore, are we even considering mandatory participation in a programme that is not delivering for those most in need? That is setting people up to fail. Basil McCrea asked why people are not applying for jobs. If he took the opportunity to speak to some of his constituents, he would find that many women are unable to take up jobs because of the lack of affordable childcare. People also lack the skills development and self-confidence that is required to get them to interview stage. 12.00 noon Look at the anti-poverty strategy. Another finding of the report is that that strategy aims: “To target 75% of first time inward investment projects towards disadvantaged areas, to ensure that all areas can benefit from sustainable economic growth and high value added employment.” If the target is 75%, what is the current level? The current level is 75%. Why are we continuing to set a target that has already been achieved? Why are we not setting much more challenging targets for economic growth through investment? The target must be set much higher, and agencies and others have to be taken out of the comfort zone. Mr Gregory Campbell claimed that the report made no reference to public-sector differentials. Chapter 2 of the report is totally focused on that particular aspect, specifically referring to the under-representation of Protestants on Derry City Council and in the health and education sectors generally. Mr McCarthy claimed that the CAJ report wanted to move away from objective need. In fact, the whole premise of the report is that we need to act on the basis of objective need. It is also clear that the authors of the report are saying that New Deal is failing both communities. The report sets clear challenges for the future. Although the Deputy First Minister has clearly stated how committed both he and the First Minister are to promoting equality and a shared future, the time has come — some six months later — for decisions to be taken. Decisions have to be made, and the Executive and the Ministers must take responsibility and take the lead in embedding anti-poverty and shared future policies, and in tackling economic inactivity and delivering on social inclusion for all the people. Mr McNarry: That is a — [Interruption.] [Laughter.] Mrs D Kelly:Do you think so? I have not finished with you yet. I was just checking that the Members opposite were still awake; it had gone silent for a while. There is no reason why this report cannot be adopted by the Assembly. Some Members may not like the messengers, but that does not mean that the message is wrong. There are clear challenges, and also guidance that the Executive can follow in the coming weeks and months. The SDLP welcomes the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister’s acceptance of the report. I look forward to hearing, at the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, how the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are going to deliver on some of their commitments in the forthcoming Programme for Government and the interim Budget. Question put, The Assembly divided: Ayes 40; Noes 43. AYES Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Doherty, Mr Durkan, Ms Gildernew, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Ms Lo, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McKay, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane, Mr B Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Mrs M Bradley and Mr Burns. NOES Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson. Tellers for the Noes: Mr Elliott and Mr McQuillan. Question accordingly negatived. 12.15 pm Mr McNarry: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Party Whips were informed at 11.50 am that the Minister of the Environment’s statement on the Titanic Quarter, which had been scheduled for 12.30 pm, has been put back until 2.00 pm. I must express my appreciation for the advance notice. I am sure that the Minister has good reason to postpone her statement. However, to do so plays havoc with Members’ schedules, particularly on a Tuesday, when Committees are in session. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that you raise the matter with the Speaker on the basis of respect for the workings of the House and its Members. Mr Deputy Speaker: I have noted the Member’s comments. He may wish to raise the matter with the Business Committee, which, as Members will be aware, has arranged to meet immediately upon the lunchtime suspension. I, therefore, propose, by leave of the House, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Members should note that that is a change from the indicative timings that were issued. The sitting will resume at 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 12.18 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — 2.00 pm Planning Application for Development at the Titanic Quarter, Belfast The Minister of the Environment (Mrs Foster): I am delighted to announce that outline planning permission is to be granted for phase 2 of the Titanic Quarter development. I am particularly pleased that a major planning application was processed in such a timely and efficient manner. The application was received at the turn of the year, validated in January, and has now been approved. That was possible because extensive pre-application discussions took place between the Planning Service and the co-promoter, Titanic Quarter Ltd and Belfast Harbour Commissioners. That work ensured that a good-quality application was submitted, and that it included the necessary environmental information. In addition, throughout the processing of the application, my planners and the developer were in continual contact to ensure that issues were dealt with as they arose. That demonstrates, once again, that when an applicant submits a high-quality proposal, and works with the Planning Service, a timely result can be produced. I congratulate all those who were involved in both the private and public sectors and, in particular, my own planners in the Belfast divisional planning office and strategic projects unit, who all worked together to make this result possible. The proposed development is the largest application that has ever been dealt with by the Planning Service. It will provide approximately 3 million sq ft of new floor space in the centre of Belfast. It is a mixed-use development that will provide some 2,000 residential units, including both social and affordable housing. The development will include a mix of employment, leisure and tourism uses, with the latter centred on the Titanic signature project, which will showcase Belfast’s maritime and industrial heritage. The development of the 16·5 hectare site, including the restoration of the Titanic and Olympic slipways, represents a further step in the development of the city. A new quarter is being created close to the city centre that will not only be a source of employment, but will represent a very attractive living environment. As such, the project will be a means of drawing people back to live in the city and help to halt the decline in Belfast’s residential population. The development will provide a significant contribution to the economy and the building industry, and will deliver long-term economic benefits to the whole of Northern Ireland. Today’s announcement is a further indication that Northern Ireland really is leaving its troubled past behind and is now very much open for business. Mr Weir: I congratulate the Minister on her statement, which is good news for Northern Ireland in general, and for Belfast, in particular. There have been worries, in the past — and accusations — that, sometimes, important planning decisions have been held up for a long time. The timely nature of the Minister’s announcement, and the relatively quick time in which the project has been turned around does credit to the Department of the Environment. Can the Minister offer assurances that other such announcements will be dealt with in a timely fashion? Mrs Foster: I hope that today’s announcement is indicative of the way in which my Department and I, with our strategic unit, will progress. The planning application for phase 2 of the Titanic Quarter was the largest planning application ever submitted to the Planning Service. We hope to send a strong signal to potential investors in Northern Ireland that we can deal with applications of that magnitude, that we are capable and fit for purpose, and that we want to work closely with developers. I wish to pay tribute to the developers because they engaged for a number of months with the Planning Service before submitting their application. The quality of that application meant that it could be dealt with very quickly. Mr Ford: I add my congratulations to those of Mr Weir. This is extremely good news for people throughout Northern Ireland. I have two questions for the Minister. First, she emphasised the timescale within which the application has been approved. However, can we be sure that, with 2012 being both an Olympics year and the centenary of the Titanic, we will maximise the tourism benefit of the scheme by that date? Secondly, in the context of the 2,000 residential units, will she work with the Minister for Social Development to ensure that the affordable and social housing is integrated, both geographically in the site and socially among the different groups in the community? Mrs Foster: I thank the Member for his questions. In response to the latter, I am happy to work with the Minister for Social Development; indeed, she has already made approaches to me about the matter of social housing. This is an outline planning application, and therefore the reserved-matters application will follow. I am quite happy to work with the Social Development Minister in that regard. As for the 2012 Olympics, my Department has shown that it is ready to play its part by the way in which it has turned this matter around. I hope that other Departments will follow suit. Of course, we all await the outcome of the bid for lottery funding, which we hope will be successful. Mr Wells: Does the Minister agree that this is excellent news? The project is a classic brownfield-site development, involving the reuse of existing resources. Will she also accept that the announcement represents a remarkable achievement by strategic projects division, in that a complex application has been brought through the system at amazing speed? No doubt, announcements over the coming weeks will lead to a flood of planning applications. Will the Minister assure the House that she will continue to use that unit so that important regeneration projects of a regional scale will be brought through the system as quickly as possible to ensure that Northern Ireland remains at the forefront in attracting inward investment? Mrs Foster: Those regional projects are precisely the type of scheme in which I want the strategic projects division to be involved. That will send out a clear signal to potential investors that Northern Ireland is ready and open for business. I take on board the Member’s comments about the reuse of a brownfield site. The project is innovative, and I hope that Members will have a chance to look at the plans. I also have some very good graphics of what is planned for the Titanic Quarter. This is a very exiting time for that area, and for the whole of Northern Ireland. Mr P Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle, agus comhghairdeachas don Aire. I thank the Minister for her statement. I commend the work that the Planning Service has done on the development in conjunction with Titanic Quarter Ltd and Belfast Harbour Commissioners. Will the Minister assure the House that the Planning Service will act in the same manner in respect of developments in other parts of the city of Belfast, including the greater Castle Street area and other areas close to the north and west Belfast gateways, which, hopefully, will be included in the Belfast master plan? Will the Minister also assure us that Belfast city centre is not being moved eastwards to the detriment of its current centre? We do not want to see the current city centre on the fringes of a great Titanic Quarter. Mrs Foster: I am happy to tell the Member, who I know is also a Member of another place, that part of the good work of the planning application was the partnership approach that was adopted. Belfast City Council has been very much involved with, and supportive of, the planning application. That was most encouraging to the Planning Service and to the private-sector partners. As for other developments in the city of Belfast, I think that I know to which one the Member refers. I ask him to take the opportunity to write to me about it. I understand, from my limited knowledge of that application, that it is a matter that cross-cuts with DSD (Department for Social Development). I am happy to look at that matter, if the Member wants to raise it with me. Mr McKay: I welcome the fact that the application has been processed in a timely and efficient manner; it shows that the matter has been approached professionally. Will the Minister assure the House that the same openness, transparency and professionalism will be shown in dealing with all planning applications, particularly the one in respect of the Giant’s Causeway visitors’ centre? Mrs Foster: I wondered how long it would take for the visitors’ centre to be mentioned — I have not been disappointed. Article 31 applications are now subject to that procedure, and I intend for all those applications to come before the House. Similarly, when I have made up my mind on the Giant’s Causeway application, I will appear before the House. Sustainable Development and Climate Change Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for this debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech. Mr B Wilson: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises sustainable development, in general, and climate change, in particular, as central to its considerations in all relevant areas of government, including opportunities to use local economic and technological innovation strategies to place Northern Ireland at the forefront of the emerging green economy in Europe. The Assembly has both a responsibility and an opportunity to introduce measures to address climate change. We must ensure that this part of the UK plays its part in meeting the challenge set out in the Stern Report, which suggested that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) Our objectives must be to facilitate Northern Ireland’s transition to a low-carbon economy and to create a region that is resilient in the face of three of the most serious global issues: the environmental challenge; the energy security challenge; and the economic challenges and opportunities that climate change, energy security and a low-carbon economy present. The Green Party’s vision for a low-carbon economy extends across all Departments. Every sector and every citizen can understand it, embrace it and contribute to that vision. It is essential that the Executive introduce a climate change Bill in response to the UK’s draft climate change Bill, which was published in March 2007. A regional Bill would set out Northern Ireland’s plans to integrate fully energy security, climate change and sustainable development into every Department’s responsibility. The Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) would oversee that. My party supports the establishment, under the auspices of the Sustainable Development Commission, of a high-level climate change and energy task force, with NGO participation, to advise OFMDFM on the contents of any regional climate change Bill and to monitor progress across sectors that include the Government estate, procurement, and staff transport schemes. The Green Party proposes a minimum of 60% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050, and that should include provision for annual targets and reports on performance and the measures taken. Moreover, we call for the introduction of a carbon-trading scheme across the Northern Ireland Civil Service. Such a scheme would ration the ability to pollute. Individual officers and sections would be forced to cap and trade permits if they wished to exceed annual allocations. That would assist the public sector in reaching its goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2015. Sustainable development does not simply involve environmental considerations. It has profound economic and social impacts and opportunities, and those must be taken into account. Northern Ireland has a growing economy that has changed from heavy industry to service industries. Energy consumption, especially of natural gas, is rising. We are at the end of a very long natural-gas pipeline, and both security of supply and cost make us vulnerable. Northern Ireland is one of the most car-dependent regions not only in the UK but in Europe. Electricity generation is predominantly fossil fuel-based. However, Northern Ireland, together with the rest of Ireland and Scotland, has some of the best potential for renewable energy development, particularly from on- and offshore wind and wave energy. The Executive need to show leadership in tackling climate change and ensuring energy security through the use of renewables, as the coalition Governments in the Republic and in Scotland have done; members of the Green Party and the Scottish Green Party have played a leading role. 2.15 pm Mr S Wilson: I noticed the Member’s comments about renewable energy. Does he not accept, however, that some of the greatest opponents of wind farms are members of the Green Party? They object to such farms being set up offshore, for example, because of the effects that they have on wildlife. On the one hand, the Green Party claims to promote renewable energy, but when such projects are proposed, its members are the first to jump up and down. Mr B Wilson: I take the Member’s point. Some members of the Green Party take that attitude, but officially, and as far as I am concerned, the more important priority is to create energy security through renewables. Unfortunately, our planning system does not seem to be responding to the challenges and opportunities that the development of an indigenous renewable energy industry affords. Some wind-farm planning applications have been waiting for approval for up to four years. That is unacceptable, and I ask the Minister of the Environment to expedite those applications. Given the seriousness and urgency of the need to respond to climate change and to ensure energy security, the planning process needs to facilitate, rather than hinder, the development of renewable energies such as wind and biomass. Planning guidance should be drawn up to facilitate and encourage the greater deployment of renewable energy. The Executive can help to develop the use of renewable energy in other ways. For example, research and development on renewable energy should be at the heart of both universities so that they become centres of excellence. Initiatives such as Queen’s University’s institute for a sustainable world, which has a strong focus on renewable energy, should be welcomed. We should consider introducing an integrated all-Ireland energy policy based on renewables. The developing single market in electricity should be structured in such a way as to allow renewable energy sources to integrate fully. The 2020 vision study, which is currently being managed by Action Renewables, will review the renewable energy potential of the two electricity networks and consider how that can be developed in the coming decade. We should also support those in Northern Ireland who carry out pioneering work in renewable energy: Thermomax in North Down provides tubes for solar heating; Copeland provides scroll compressors for most of the heat pumps that are sold in Europe; Newmills Hydro makes hydro turbines and exports them across the world; and B9 Energy Services is the third-largest wind-farm company in the world. Harland and Wolff is a leader in tidal energy and wind turbines. Those companies are under threat from competition in the Far East and will need to continue to put efforts into research and development in order to maintain their position as world leaders, and we should help them to do so. We should also be looking at newbuilds to encourage developers and home builders to make greater use of renewable energy. New homes should be constructed to the highest energy efficiency standards, with renewable energy integrated to provide heat and power where possible. We can learn from the recent initiatives in the Republic — my party colleagues John Gormley and Eamon Ryan recently introduced legislation that requires greater energy efficiency in newbuilds. Similar green building regulations need to be implemented in Northern Ireland. We should also ensure that Government and the Assembly take the lead on a programme of renewable energy installations on the Government estate. The Northern Ireland Executive must walk the talk on renewable energy. The SIB (Strategic Investment Board) is spending billions of pounds on buildings such as schools and other public facilities that will be around for the next 50 to 100 years. Now is the time to ensure that the SIB’s board includes experts and champions of sustainable development and low-carbon technologies, most notably those in the building sector. The scale of the public sector in Northern Ireland is such that change exerts a massive influence on supply chains through staff and families in the region. Significant opportunities exist for Northern Ireland to champion the UK’s sustainable procurement programme in the public sector and to act as a location for experimentation. The implementation plan for our local sustainable development strategy requires integration, regular monitoring, and clear targets across Government as a whole. Climate change is a key theme throughout the UK and Northern Ireland sustainable development strategies, and tackling it provides a practical way in which to make sustainable development real. Although Government must take a lead on sustainable development and tackling climate change, they cannot do everything. The business and the community and voluntary sectors have an important role to play. For example, the Government and the voluntary sectors have a partnership role to fulfil in advising local councils and Government bodies on the implementation of sustainable development programmes. In conclusion, the Green Party calls for the entire Executive to take ownership of the energy-security and climate-change agendas and of response mechanisms. It is a popular Green saying that we do not inherit the earth from our parents but borrow it from our children. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we must move quickly if we are to provide clear leadership on sustainable development in Northern Ireland and make the transition to a low-carbon society. Mr McGlone: I beg to move the following amendment: After “Europe”, insert “; calls for the full implementation of ‘First Steps, the Sustainable Development Strategy for Northern Ireland’; and calls on the Executive to ensure that environmental commitments on sustainable development and tackling climate change are mainstreamed in the Programme for Government”. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank and pay tribute to Mr Wilson, both for tabling the motion and for his comprehensive contribution. Climate change and the need to grow in a sustainable way are two of the most immediate global challenges that we face. The intention of the amendment, which I believe supports the motion, is to ensure that urgent action be taken to mainstream the principles of sustainable development and the need to tackle climate change throughout Government. The best way in which to ensure that that happens is for all relevant Departments to have dedicated commitments in the Programme for Government. We should build on the good initiatives that we have in the North, such as the environment and renewable energy fund, in order to establish the North as a leader in green energy. Sustainable development has been defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That principle is at the core of the SDLP’s thinking and ideology. Sustainable development is a big idea that is underwritten by our biggest ambitions. It is a concept, the realisation of which will require from all people, at all levels, the most fundamental of social, economic, environmental and cultural shifts. The challenge of sustainable development provides us with fundamental choices. We must choose between embracing the ideals of sustainable development and rejecting them; between respecting what we have, what we want and what we owe to others and refusing to meet our responsibilities; and between closing the gap between rich and poor and widening it further, which would destabilise this world and further disadvantage so many of its citizens. We must set about transforming sustainable development from being honourable in its intentions to tangible in its achievements. The sustainable development strategy, ‘First Steps towards Sustainability’, was launched under direct rule in May 2006. It provides a way forward, but we have many questions to ask of it. What are the roles of the departmental sustainable development champions? How many times have they met? What achievements have there been? How close are the Government to meeting their targets? Are we educating our young people on sustainable development? How are the principles of sustainable development getting through to people on the ground? Effective implementation and leadership from Government are needed so that the principles of sustainable development can be enshrined in all aspects of Government policy-making and factored into the choices that we make daily. The wider community must be engaged in order to ensure that local businesses, local government, the voluntary sector, and the public all play their part. Meaningful sustainable development actions and targets must be monitored and met. Cross-departmental working is required on all those issues. Government must take the lead in promoting sustainable development in all their strategies, but particularly in their transport and energy strategies. In fact, where better to mainstream sustainable development than in the Programme for Government? As we see from media reports, evidence of man-made contributions to climate change is everywhere — the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Average worldwide temperatures have risen by more than 0·6°C in the past century. Around the North, sea levels are rising to the extent that they are now about 10 cm higher than they were in 1990. If there is a failure to act, the consequences of climate change will be devastating locally and catastrophic globally. Sustainable development and combating climate change are not merely about meeting global commitments but about ensuring that a viable planet remains for future generations — a point that Mr Wilson made most articulately. Therefore, the Government must ensure that the concepts that I have outlined are deeply enshrined in policy-making, and the best way for that to be done is through the Programme for Government. Alas, a LeasCheann Comhairle, we live way beyond our environmental means. I ask the House for its support. Moliam an leasú. The Chairperson of the Committee for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (Mr Kennedy): I am pleased to speak in a debate that provides a welcome opportunity to highlight the importance of sustainable development. In 2006, the Secretary of State published ‘A Sustainable Development Strategy for Northern Ireland: First Steps Towards Sustainability’ and ‘A Positive Step: Northern Ireland: A Sustainable Development Implementation Plan’. My Committee has an interest in the subject because, since the summer of 2006, the economic policy unit in OFMDFM has been responsible for taking the lead on the co-ordination of a cross-cutting policy on sustainable development. To date, the Committee’s engagement with OFMDFM has focused on work to produce a set of sustainable development indicators. I will concentrate my remarks on those indicators, because the Executive will use them when they report publicly on progress towards sustainable development in Northern Ireland. The Committee welcomes the proposal to produce a clear set of indicators that will enable actions to be monitored and information to be made widely available on how good, or not, progress is towards the targets. Many of the proposed indicators will facilitate a comparison with the indicators used to measure sustainable development in the UK. That will enable any progress to be benchmarked against that of the UK. The wide range of indicators covers areas such as: community relations; economic well-being; the sustainability of rural communities; the amount of waste sent to landfill sites; water consumption; greenhouse gas emissions; air quality; and biodiversity. That holistic approach, which reflects the fact that sustainable development is about more than purely environmental issues and concerns, is appropriate and necessary. That is backed up by the fact that OFMDFM, rather than the Department of the Environment, now has responsibility to support the strategic oversight of the implementation of the strategy. When the Committee examined the proposed indicators, it considered information on the Northern Ireland sustainable development position since 2001-02, and the picture is not good. Most indicators show either no improvement or a worsening of the position. Significant actions and improvement are required in order for Northern Ireland to become more sustainable. Some areas have improved: for example, the amount of municipal waste going to landfill sites has decreased by 10% since 2001; the recycling and composting of waste has more than doubled; and air quality is generally good, and it is improving. In other areas, the picture is bleak. There has been little change in the use of different modes of transport. The Northern Ireland population’s heavy reliance on private cars for travel has clear implications for longer-term sustainability. The amount of fossil fuels being used to create energy has not changed much. Fewer rivers are of good biological quality now than in 2000. Although the population of common wild birds is increasing, many rare bird species are in decline. Although some 35% of the population live in rural communities, rural residents — and particularly pensioners — often live in greater poverty and have to travel much further to avail of essential services such as dentists, doctors and clinics. 2.30 pm Also of concern is the fact that although a percentage of the population is aware of the phrase “Reduce, reuse, recycle”, awareness of the concept of sustainable development and what individuals can do to make a difference is low. Although it is necessary to have in place strategies, action plans, indicators and monitoring arrangements, they are a means to an end — action is what is important. My Committee will closely monitor OFMDFM’s performance on both the delivery of the action points for which it is responsible and its support for the overall implementation and communication of the sustainable development strategy. The other statutory Committees also have an important role to play with regard to their Departments, and we have written to them to encourage them to put monitoring arrangements in place. We broadly support the motion. Mr Moutray: I support the motion and the amendment. The global surface temperatures in 11 of the past 12 years have been among the warmest since the mid-1800s. Over the past 50 years, the rate of warming has been nearly twice that of the previous 100 years, and man bears a great responsibility for a proportion of that. There is far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere nowadays. Carbon dioxide does not dissipate quickly; it remains in the atmosphere for about five decades. There is also more water. However, that is not the case everywhere. While there has been more precipitation in parts of North America, South America, northern Europe and elsewhere, places such as the Mediterranean and southern Africa have become drier. The sea level is rising. Indeed, geological observations suggest that the rise in the sea level over the past 2,000 years was less than that occurring at present. If the sea level continues to rise at the current rate, places such as the Maldives, 99% of which is 1·5 m above sea level, will disappear. Glaciers are melting, and the Arctic is warming. More and more animal species face the threat of extinction. Those facts cannot be ignored. The reason why man-made greenhouse effects are such a problem is that, in the long term, the earth must remove energy at the same rate that it receives energy from the sun. A thicker blanket of greenhouse gases serves to reduce the earth’s ability to do that, which results in a warming of the climate. The ramifications are stark, and among them are the long-term risk of higher temperatures and a warmer atmosphere retaining more water, resulting in heavier rain, higher winds and less drinking water. Higher temperatures will also mean that disease-carrying insects will have a much wider distribution area, as the recent bluetongue scare demonstrated. I know that other Members will want to mention other relevant facts about this matter, so I will move on to sustainability. Sustainable development has been described as development that is designed to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Future vulnerability depends not only on climate change, but on the type of development that is pursued. Sustainable development can reduce the world’s vulnerability. However, if we are to improve seasonal climate forecasts, food security, freshwater supplies and famine alerts, early action is necessary — not talk, resolutions and good intentions. To delay is to put us all at further risk. Mr McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the debate, and I thank Brian Wilson for bringing the motion to the House. I support the motion and the amendment. Sinn Féin recognises that sustainable development represents social progress for everyone, high stable levels of economic growth and employment, effective protection of the environment and prudent use of natural resources. To achieve that end, we must also be mindful of the need to conserve biological diversity, and such diversity must be fully integrated into our policy-making. Climate change must remain at the top of the political agenda. As it is a key theme throughout the sustainable development strategy, there is a clear need for climate change targets to be broken down for Departments and public authorities in such a way that they are left in no doubt as to their roles and responsibilities. In addition, monitoring and assessment will be vital if we are to ensure that Departments and public authorities take sustainable development seriously and that the targets that have been set out are met. Sustainable development should be a cross-cutting theme in the Programme for Government. My party believes that the Executive should develop a separate Bill that sets statutory targets informed by Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment research. The Bill should include a mechanism for reporting to the Executive and the Assembly. Furthermore, the Department of the Environment should be encouraged to explore the development of an all-Ireland approach to climate change. Sinn Féin believes in the setting of carbon-reduction targets. However, those targets should await the results of, and be informed by, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s research. Although carbon emissions have been decreasing elsewhere, they have been increasing here. We need to understand why that has happened and how we can deal with those increases. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment must break the link between economic development and greenhouse gas emissions, and fulfil its commitment to meet that challenge. The stated aim of the sustainable development strategy is to establish a set of overarching indicators against which socio-economic and environmental progress can be measured. If we are to make real progress in measuring sustainable development, the strategy must include indicators for employment, workless households, child poverty, pensioner poverty, education, health, inequality and social justice. It is clear, therefore, that sustainable development is not only a green issue but is much broader than that. Social development also plays a large part in assisting sustainable development. Our current way of life is simply not sustainable, and if we do not address the problem now, the well-being and quality of life of the next generation will suffer greatly. The sooner that we wake up to that reality, the better. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr Shannon: Global warming is a fact — that is our starting point. The oft-heard joke about the weather in Northern Ireland is that we could do with some global warming, but the issue affects Northern Ireland as much as it does any other place. Mention was made across the Chamber about the rising sea level. I heard a figure of 9 cm being mentioned, but my information is that it is closer to 10 cm, and continuously rising. I am lucky in that I live on a hill at the edge of Strangford Lough. I am not building a boat, nor do I own one. In 2005, nine days in December were hotter than any day in the preceding summer. Indeed, we witnessed more changes this summer. There are other seemingly inexplicable events that are all too easily explained. The fact that we do not have scorching weather all the time does not mean that we will not feel the effects of global warming or, more importantly, that we are not adding to the problem. That is not new information to the Assembly. None here will be shocked by the statistics. We already have strategies in place to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to help us begin to rely on renewable energies. A mere 3% of the energy that is used in the Province comes from renewable energy sources. That must increase to 40%, and we have in place the beginnings of works to see that target realised. Northern Ireland has the strongest potential for wind power in the whole of Europe. Although we have begun to explore wind power as a source of energy, we are nowhere near where we could be with it. Mr S Wilson: Will the Member give way? Mr Shannon: I am loath to give way to my colleague, because I suspect that he is full of mischief. Ther er kumpanies whau er makin tha yuis o’ tha available power an hae taking steps in makin guid cleen energy. Yin example o’ sic aa’ firm is Airtricity, whau yuis wun-terbine farms tae mak energy. I signed up the Airtricity maesel fer my constituency oafish in an effirt tae dae whut aa’ cud tae help those kumpanies whau er bein environmentally freenly in helping Norlin Airlan. An in tha en aa’ hae been tha yin tae benefit – as aa’ hae lectic licht an heet whuch is faur cheaper than tha bills aa’ paid oot afore. Followin oan helping oot no only Norlin Airlan environmentally but savin mony as weel. Companies such as Airtricity, which uses wind-turbine farms, are currently making use of the available renewable power and taking strides in producing environmentally clean energy. I signed up to Airtricity in my constituency office in an attempt to support companies that help the environment in Northern Ireland. In the end, I have benefited, because the electricity supplied to me is cheaper than the bills that I paid before. I am helping Northern Ireland on the environmental stage and saving money, which may have something to do with the Ulster Scot in me. Farms in Fermanagh are doing an exemplary job in service provision, and the relevant authorities should do all that they can to grant planning permission to businesses in locations that can provide energy from wind turbines. I know that that desire is shared by my colleague Arlene Foster. Although we must increase our renewable energy output to 40%, it does not all have to be done by wind turbines. My fair constituency of Strangford is at the cutting edge of new technology, while appreciating and making the most of the beauty of Strangford Lough. I am sure that Members are aware of the fact that the world’s largest tidal-current generator is currently being tested in Strangford Lough and that it will have the capacity to generate 1·2 megawatts of energy, which will supply over 1,000 homes with sustainable energy and make the most of our natural capabilities. The test will be carried out for five years and will establish the benefit of the generators, which are submerged some 3 m under the lough and a cable will then run from the generator to a substation. We are all tr |