Northern Ireland Assembly Monday 15 October 2007 Executive Business: Private Members’ Business: Oral Answers to Questions: Private Members’ Business: The Assembly met at 12.00 noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Speaker: Last Monday, Mr Attwood raised a point of order about the absence of a ministerial statement on a matter that he described as being “of heightened public interest”. I undertook to report back to the Assembly after discussing the matter with the Business Committee. Although I understand that Members may feel frustrated, I stress that I cannot direct a member of the Executive to make a statement to the Assembly. That decision is for the Executive or the individual Minister concerned. I am also aware that the Committee on Procedures is considering the possibility of allowing written statements. I await with interest the Committee’s decision on that. In the meantime, however, I assure Members that I have encouraged — and will continue to encourage — the Executive to ensure that Ministers make statements to the House on important matters. I will continue to accommodate Ministers’ requests when at all possible. Therefore, no breach of Standing Orders has occurred. Mr Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker — Mr Speaker: I understand that the Member is anxious to respond, but I propose first to deal with another point of order that was raised in the House last week. During last Tuesday’s debate on the Irish language, Mr Alban Maginness raised a point of order asking me to rule on the issue of a Member’s leaving and returning to the Chamber during debate, and, specifically, whether that was a discourtesy to the Assembly. I have alerted the Business Committee previously to certain standards relating to the attendance of Members who wish to take part in debates. Those standards include: attending for, and making references to, earlier contributions; remaining in the Chamber for at least two further contributions after their own; and returning to the Chamber to hear the winding-up speeches. I have also said that Members should, during their own speeches, provide an explanation to the House if they find that they are unable to meet those standards. Having considered the request from Mr Alban Maginness, I do not intend to take any further action on the specific incident that gave rise to his query. However, all Members should act in an orderly manner at all times, both towards one another and to the Speaker and Deputy Speakers. Members should take care not to obstruct the business of the Assembly or challenge the authority of the Speaker, and I remind Members that Standing Order 60 allows the Speaker to take action if Members choose to behave inappropriately. Although I am grateful to Mr Alban Maginness for raising the issue, I hope that we will not have to return to this matter soon. Mr Attwood, you indicated that you wish to raise a point of order. Mr Attwood: Thank you for the attention that you have paid to this matter, Mr Speaker. I welcome that you have said today that, where appropriate, you would encourage Ministers to make statements. On a point of order, given that there is no procedure for written statements only as a means of communicating with Members of the House, is it in order for Ministers to use a note to Members as an alternative to a statement, when such a note is, in content, character, nature and in all other circumstances, the equivalent to statements that are covered by the Standing Orders of the House? The minute — as it was described — that was forwarded to MLAs last week through their pigeonholes was a statement in character, nature, content and in all ways. Mr Speaker: I hear what the Member says. However, Standing Orders are clear. It was not a statement to the House — and that is the issue. It is for individual Ministers to decide whether to send letters or notes. I have said to the Business Committee and to the House continually that it is not for the Speaker to direct Ministers or the Executive on when they should bring ministerial statements to the House. Standing Orders cover ministerial statements only when they are brought to the House. Draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Dodds): I beg to move That the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 be approved. I seek the Assembly’s approval of this statutory rule, which introduces a technical amendment to the operation of the Northern Ireland renewables obligation (NIRO). The amendment is necessary to maintain the effective operation of the NIRO in the single electricity market for the island of Ireland. Therefore, there is the need for the Order to be in place by 1 November 2007, which is the go-live date for the single electricity market. This statutory rule is being made under powers contained in the Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which prescribes that the Order must be laid in draft for approval by affirmative legislation of the Assembly. Nonetheless, although there is a statutory requirement for this detailed legislative procedure, I should explain at the outset that this particular statutory rule is purely technical: it involves no change to existing policy; it has no cross-cutting elements, and it is non-controversial. I will now outline why the amendment is needed and also give some background to the renewables obligation, because it is a complex mechanism to comprehend for anyone who is not closely associated with its operation. NIRO is the main plank in our renewables policy. Since its introduction in 2005, it has supported the development of renewable sources of electricity generation in Northern Ireland as we progress towards our target of 12% for the proportion of our electricity that is to come from such sources by 2012. To date, the success of NIRO has been evident in the 60% increase in planning applications for wind farms during its first year of operation and the fact that we now have 1,000 MW of wind capacity in the planning process. NIRO provides a financial incentive to eligible generators and renewables developers through a system of certificates known as NIROCs, which are awarded for each megawatt-hour of their output that is consumed in Northern Ireland. Those certificates are, in turn, needed by electricity suppliers to demonstrate that the proportion of their sales specified in the NIRO legislation for any particular year can be accounted for by renewables generation. Otherwise, they must pay a buyout fee to meet their obligation under NIRO. NIROCs, therefore, have a tradable value, which is typically in the region of £40 to £50 and which provides an additional revenue stream to generators of green electricity. NIRO operates in tandem with similar obligations in Great Britain in a single United Kingdom-wide market for these renewables obligation certificates. That provides a viable market for such certificates and ensures the effective operation of NIRO. Moreover, the fact that the mechanism is enshrined in legislation provides certainty for investors and developers alike. The introduction of the single market in electricity, and, specifically, the all-island wholesale pool into which all generators with a capacity of over 10 MW of electricity must sell out, will introduce complications for the operation of NIRO. That is because electricity is purchased from the pool by suppliers across Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and it will, therefore, be difficult for our renewables generators to confirm that they are meeting NIRO criteria and that their output is consumed in Northern Ireland. The provisions of the statutory rule before the Assembly are intended to address that issue. They augment the existing criteria specified in article 16 of the Renewables Obligation Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 to take account of electricity sold through the single market. Specifically, they will enable generators who sell electricity into the single electricity market pool to comply with the criterion relating to supply in Northern Ireland by entering into a bilateral agreement, referred to in the draft Order as a “relevant arrangement”, with a Northern Ireland supplier. That “relevant arrangement” will account for equivalent amounts of electricity being sold into the pool by the generators and purchased from the pool and sold to customers in Northern Ireland by the supplier. I am sure that Members will be grateful if I do not give a line-by-line explanation of the draft Order, but I am happy to provide any clarification needed in response to Members’ questions. The Order will ensure that generators of renewable electricity — both existing generators and new developers — will be able to access the financial benefits of NIRO under the new single-market arrangements. Fundamentally, it will ensure that Northern Ireland’s renewables policy remains robust and effective after the introduction of the new arrangements on 1 November. I want to refer briefly to the other small technical amendment in this statutory rule. Members will note that article 3 of the draft Order amends references to “the Company” in the 2007 Order from “Northern Ireland Electricity plc” to “NIE Energy Ltd”. That reflects the structural changes being made to NIE’s business in order to comply with article 15 of the European directive concerning common rules for corporate restructure, which, in the case of NIE, will separate its supply activities from its distribution activities. 12.15 pm The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr P Maskey): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. The Committee considered proposals relating to the operation of the Northern Ireland renewables obligation (NIRO) within the single electricity market on 22 May 2007, and then again on 26 June 2007. NIRO is the main policy mechanism to promote the development of renewable sources of electricity, and it plays a critical role in ensuring the continuing viability of renewable generating stations such as wind farms. The Committee has considered the necessity of the Order in maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of NIRO within the single electricity market that is due to be introduced to the island of Ireland on 1 November 2007. Following consideration of the proposals for NIRO, the Committee subsequently considered the Order on 18 September and recommends that it be affirmed by the Assembly. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Gallagher: I have a few points to make, and I will take them in the order in which the Minister dealt with them. He mentioned the number of planning applications that are in the system; I am sure that many Members will agree with me that applications for wind farms and other forms of renewable electricity are spending far too many years in that planning system. There are a great many obstacles there to be overcome. Given the importance of achieving the targets that have been referred to — and, in my view, we should be aiming to exceed those targets — there must be a more streamlined system for dealing with planning applications. They certainly need to be dealt with in a shorter time frame than at present. My reason for making that point is that there is massive investment behind each of those applications, and the investors are unlikely to hang around for three or four years while our planners take the applications through the system. They can go to other countries in Europe — and, indeed, outside Europe — and have their plans dealt with in months, or certainly within one year. The Minister referred to bilateral arrangements between companies — no doubt they are helpful to those involved. However, this problem goes beyond such arrangements. As far as the island of Ireland is concerned, with the single energy market coming in on 1 November 2007, there must be an arrangement between the two Governments to facilitate and promote the development of alternatives. The current mechanism allows for the NIROCs to be tradable, but they are only tradable in Northern Ireland and the UK. Given the potential in the north-west of this island, and particularly in Ulster and Connaught, for the promotion of wind farms, there should be a mechanism that allows those certificates to be traded across the border. I call on the Minister to consult with the Irish Government about putting such a mechanism in place. I understand that, even if it were in place, there would be a problem as far as the Irish Government are concerned, because they have no equivalent of the NIROC system. I understand that their system is known by the acronym REFIT, which stands for the Renewable Energy Feed-In Tariff scheme. There is a challenge there for the Governments, and it is time that they got down to the work of harmonising the two markets and removing the restrictions to which I have referred. This island is the second-best wind resource in Europe and has the potential to produce much more electricity. The two Governments should be developing that potential. I welcome the creation of a viable market, but I want to see a viable all-Ireland market as well, so that renewables can be sourced and traded on either side of the border. In that way, we will be taking steps to ensure that we achieve our targets. Mr Neeson: I very much welcome the development of the single electricity market, and I look forward to proposals for the creation of a single natural-gas market. I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he assure me that he and his Department will co-operate with other Executive Departments on increasing the development of renewable energy sources in Northern Ireland? Secondly, will he update the Assembly on the progress made on the wave-power experiment in Strangford Lough? Mr Newton: I thank the Minister for his statement. This is an important piece of legislation, and progress in this area will be welcomed by householders and the business community across the board. It is an example of co-operation with another state that will bring benefit to our people and, in the longer term especially, to the manufacturing industry, which is under great pressure. The Minister will be fully aware that over the past years there has been a lobby for competitive supplies of all forms of energy in Northern Ireland, particularly the supply of electricity, and that there has been a strong feeling that more could have been done to bring unit costs more in line with those in other parts of the United Kingdom. I note that the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 imposes a compulsion on all electricity suppliers who are licensed under the Electricity (Single Wholesale Market)(Northern Ireland) Order 2007 to supply customers in Northern Ireland with specific amounts of electricity from renewable sources and, indeed, that targets have been set. That is to be welcomed. It is a step forward and will be welcomed by everyone; in particular, by those who are concerned about the environment. I suppose that we all should share that concern. It is a very technical piece of legislation; however, the salient facts are easily understood. Suppliers must meet a legal requirement to account for a specific amount, and an increasing proportion, of their electricity being supplied from renewable sources. That cannot be a bad thing. Alternatively, they must pay a buy-out fee that is proportionate to any shortfall. They must also provide evidence of compliance by presenting renewable obligation certificates from generators of renewable energy for each megawatt hour of eligible output. In welcoming the Minister’s statement, I am pleased that, in general, it is another indication of the Assembly working, and I hope that the benefits of the legislation may soon be seen across all sections of the Northern Ireland community. Mr Storey: I support the motion, and I concur with the comments made by the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone Mr Gallagher about the number of applications for wind farms that are currently in the system. Some have a particular importance and relevance for my own constituency of North Antrim. I concur also with the remarks of my colleague the Member for East Belfast Mr Newton with regard to the provision of this benefit to the Northern Ireland economy. Although the Minister rightly said that the amendment introduced by Statutory Rule in the House today is technical, it gives Members an opportunity to focus their minds on the importance of encouraging the use of renewable energy sources such as wind, water, solar power and biomass. I take this opportunity also to remind the Minister and the House of the ongoing concerns in my constituency with regard to the particular problem that we have under the ground — lignite. I reassure the Minister that those concerns are still there, and in the light of the importance that is given to documentation with regard to renewables, I trust that that lignite will remain firmly under the ground for the rest of our generation and will never be exploited as a fossil fuel. That being the case, I welcome the Minister’s announcement. He referred to the target of 12% of electricity from renewable sources by 2012. That is just five years away, so it is important that we give that target the priority that it deserves. I welcome the proposed amendment to The Renewables Obligation Order (Northern Ireland) 2007, even though it will be a technical amendment. The single electricity market is imminent, so it is only right and proper that, under the renewables obligation, our renewable generators get the credit for supplying energy to Northern Ireland consumers. Can the Minister indicate the likely financial loss to the renewables industry if the current position is not rectified as proposed? Moreover, I should appreciate it if the Minister were to clarify whether a wind farm in the Irish Republic would qualify for a certificate if it were linked directly to the Northern Ireland grid. The single electricity market has had negative press in recent days. Does the Minister agree that it has the potential to transform the electricity market in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that it could open up new and exciting possibilities for a regional European market that involves the rest of the United Kingdom and countries such as France? In conclusion, I should appreciate it if the Minister were to agree that such a competitive market potentially has the dynamic to deliver considerable benefits to Northern Ireland’s electricity consumers. Mr Dodds: I am grateful to all Members who contributed to the debate for their consideration of this draft Statutory Rule. I am pleased to note the broad support for its provisions. The draft Order is technical, and it deals with a complicated area, but Members touched on important points. I shall try to deal with particular points that Members raised, but if I am unable to do so now, I shall respond in writing to Members in greater detail. Mr Gallagher raised the matter of the planning context and the need to streamline decisions. As he will be aware, those responsibilities fall primarily to the Department of the Environment. However, I assure him that my Department will work closely at official level with the Department of the Environment, because, from our perspective, we wish to process those matters as quickly as possible. Moreover, Mr Gallagher mentioned the harmonisation of renewable support mechanisms for Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. There have been indications that the Irish Republic will follow Northern Ireland down the renewables obligation route. As was mentioned, the Irish Republic decided to introduce a feed-in tariff as its principal support mechanism. Attempts to make financial support in one jurisdiction available to generators in another would be fraught with complications. Harmonisation of the existing renewable-energy support schemes in Northern Ireland and the Republic presents practical difficulties that would take considerable time to address. As I mentioned, different schemes operate in the two jurisdictions. The Irish Republic operates a feed-in tariff, while NIRO is linked to the renewables obligation in Great Britain. Moreover, separate state-aid approvals would require separate renegotiation with the European Union. Therefore, major problems exist with the kind of approach that Mr Gallagher outlined. Mr Neeson spoke positively about the single electricity market, and I welcome his comments. I shall deal with the more general issues that he raised in a moment. In particular, he mentioned the project for Strangford Lough, and I know that that topic has been raised on several occasions. The proposal for a marine-current turbine would put the lough at the leading edge of tidal-stream technology. If the turbine is successfully installed, the project will be a renewables exemplar for the world, providing 1 MW of marine-based electricity to the Northern Ireland grid. 12.30 pm Plans to install the turbine in August 2007 had to be aborted because of technical difficulties that were outside the developer’s control. I am informed that any revised installation date will have to take account of seasonal and environmental issues as well as the availability of the necessary installation equipment. I am grateful to Robin Newton for his contribution and for his positive remarks about the single electricity market. Although that issue is not being debated, it is relevant in the context of the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007. Several Members, including Mervyn Storey, have already — and rightly — described the benefits that the single electricity market brings to Northern Ireland. That market is a good classic example of the sort of economic co-operation that works for the mutual benefit of business and domestic electricity consumers in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. It makes sense to co-operate in that area. Under a wider EU policy aim, of which the single electricity market forms a part, not only will the electricity markets in Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic be linked eventually, but they will be connected to the market in Great Britain and, ultimately, to that in France. That will create further benefits for domestic and business consumers across a much wider area, thereby representing a positive development for our consumers. An independent cost-benefit analysis has estimated that those links will create overall net benefits that are worth £103 million over 10 years. Those benefits, most of which will go to consumers, will be split between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. The new market has the potential to deliver additional dynamic benefits of £135 million to £170 million across the island over 10 years to facilitate the creation of more competitive and wholesale retail markets. Those are important points, especially given that some comments have been made about the introduction of a policy that sometimes focuses on increases in tariffs. It is important to bear in mind that the overall effect of the introduction of the new arrangements will lead to downward pressure on prices in the medium to long term. As Mervyn Storey tends to do assiduously on behalf of his constituents, he also mentioned lignite. It is no surprise that he chose to mention that subject again today. May I put his mind and, no doubt, those of his constituents to rest by making it clear that my Department’s policy focus remains on increasing the use of renewable energy rather than on the exploitation of alternative fossil fuel sources. The Geological Survey of Northern Ireland has proposed a three-year extension to the moratorium on lignite. People will welcome that move as a positive step, and I know that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment discussed the issue recently. Mr Storey also mentioned the potential financial loss if the draft Order did not amend NIRO. If we do not approve the draft Order today, a failure to provide for NIRO within the single electricity market could lead to an annual loss to the existing renewables industry of around £9 million. Therefore, although the draft Order is technical in nature, it has an important effect. Members also asked what would happen if generators in the Irish Republic were granted renewable obligation certificates. As I have said, the Irish Republic operates a separate grant-based support scheme for its indigenous renewable generation, and NIRO precludes generating stations that are located outside Northern Ireland from being eligible for renewable obligation certificates. I conclude by restating the importance of the draft Order to ensuring the effectiveness of NIRO in the new single-market arrangements. It is imperative that Northern Ireland develops increased sources of renewable energy as we seek to play our part in addressing climate change and making our energy supply more secure. The draft Order will ensure that our renewables policy remains robust and effective in the new electricity-market arrangements. I am delighted to be able to introduce this important piece of Executive legislation. Members on all sides of the House will be delighted to know that we are discussing legislation, albeit technical and complex legislation. Nevertheless, it is important, effective legislation that will — and does — make a difference for the people whom we represent. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the draft Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 be approved. Bill of Rights Forum Membership 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 a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Two amendments have been received and are published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of each amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for a winding-up speech. Miss McIlveen: I beg to move That this Assembly acknowledges that the unionist community has been largely excluded from the human rights process in Northern Ireland and under-represented within the human rights sector, resulting in the Bill of Rights Forum having a clear imbalance in the composition of its membership; believes that without the support of all sections of our community any Bill of Rights process is fundamentally flawed; and calls upon the Secretary of State to address these problems urgently, by ensuring processes that will facilitate better engagement with the unionist community and ensuring that the membership of the Bill of Rights Forum is more reflective of all the people of Northern Ireland. Throughout history, those of the unionist tradition have had no difficulties with the issue of human rights in general; we need only look at the Bill of Rights, which was enacted in 1689 as a result of the activities of King James II. That piece of legislation is so good that the Republic of Ireland decided to retain it under the Statute Law Revision Act 2007. Indeed, it remains in force in the United Kingdom. In fact, it formed the basis of that most vaunted piece of legislation, the US Bill of Rights, which was produced in 1789. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair) In addition to the Bill of Rights, we also have the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. The rights that are espoused are protected and enforced by an independent judiciary. Given that those two fundamental pieces of legislation are in place, I wonder why we need a Bill of Rights Forum at all. The answer is, of course, contained in the Belfast Agreement, in which a: “new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission…will be invited to consult and to advise on the scope for defining, in Westminster legislation, rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, drawing as appropriate on international instruments and experience. These additional rights to reflect the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem, and — taken together with the ECHR — to constitute a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.” The Bill of Rights Forum’s role is to formulate recommendations to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) as it fulfils its statutory duty in providing advice to the Secretary of State on a future bill of rights for Northern Ireland. I am sure that Members will agree that those are noble enough sentiments. However, surely bodies that are set up to protect the rights of the people of Northern Ireland should be reflective of those people. In the first incarnation of the NIHRC, a unionist with a capital “u” could not have been found about the place. However, one would have found: Tom Donnelly of the SDLP; Angela Hegarty, a former vice-chairperson of the SDLP; Francis McGuinness of Trócaire; and Ms Patricia Kelly of the Children’s Law Centre. Patricia Kelly was on the board of the Centre for Research and Documentation in west Belfast. That body was co-founded by Caitríona Ruane, the Minister of Education and expert in South American human rights, and it is renowned for its publication of republican literature. Selection for the NIHRC was intended, naturally, to portray community balance: instead, it was reflective of a sector that has been skewed against unionists. Some efforts have gone into rectifying the situation in the present incarnation of the NIHRC, but the mistakes are once again evident in the Bill of Rights Forum. Even though the forum comprises three representatives each from the DUP, UUP, SDLP and Sinn Féin respectively and two representatives from the Alliance Party — which is not indicative of the electoral wishes of the people of Northern Ireland — it is completed by 14 unelected representatives. I say “representatives”, but in the majority of cases, there is no accountability. Two unelected representatives are from the Churches: one from the Roman Catholic Church, and one from the Irish Council of Churches, which has amongst its membership representatives from congregations as diverse as the Russian Orthodox Church, the Rock of Ages Cherubim and Seraphim Church, the Antiochian Orthodox Church in Ireland, the Church of Ireland and the Presbyterian Church. The evangelical Churches in Northern Ireland do not have the benefit of a voice on the forum. Of the 102,221 other Christian-related church attendees who took part in the 2001 census, approximately 95,000 have no say. The alternate to Annie Campbell, as women’s representative on the forum, is Margaret Ward — a widely published author of numerous books about militant Irish nationalist women. It does not take an incredible stretch of the imagination to appreciate her political leanings: they are a little more red than pink. She is director of the women’s resource and development agency, and is co-convenor, along with Sorcha McKenna, of the children and young people and women’s working group. Children are represented by Patricia Kelly. I have no difficulty with republican children being represented, but unionist children must also have a champion. The human rights sector is represented by Aideen Gilmore of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ), who is also convener of the working group for the preamble and interpretation. Kieran McEvoy sits on the working group for civil and political rights, and Maggie Beirne sits on the working group for economic and social rights. The CAJ is no friend of unionism, and that is clear from its recent report ‘Equality in Northern Ireland: the rhetoric and the reality’. It styles itself as an independent, cross-community, human rights organisation, but its documents reek of anti-unionism and anti-Britishness. The CAJ does not sit on the working group for criminal justice and victims, but its appointed legal advisers are Mary O’Rawe and Linda Moore who have been published by the CAJ. Mary O’Rawe has appeared as a member of the CAJ before the House of Commons along with previous NIHRC chief commissioner, Brice Dickson — hardly anything to enhance unionist confidence. Mr Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you make a ruling on whether it is appropriate for a Member to list people’s names — [Interruption.] Mr Campbell: That is not a point of order. Mr Attwood: It is a point of order, and I ask the Member to hear me out. Is it in order for a Member to list a series of people’s names in the House for the record, associate those people with the CAJ and subsequently refer to them as producing documents that “reek of anti-unionism and anti-Britishness”? Is it in order to associate individuals with that sort of partisan and narrow comment? Is it not out of order that those people are named in such a way? Mr Deputy Speaker: The simple answer to your question, Mr Attwood, is that it is in order to do so: it is part and parcel of political cut and thrust, and that is why Members have limited privilege in the House. Mr Attwood: It may well be cut and thrust between political parties and politicians, but to visit those sorts of comments upon individuals who are carrying out their functions in the public world — I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker — is out of order and inappropriate for the House. Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Attwood, I have made a ruling. It is perfectly in order. Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was merely setting the scene and putting my comments into context. 12.45 pm Amazingly, at a time when Northern Ireland seeks a bill of rights to: “reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland” the Loyal Orders are not given their voice in any of the working groups, let alone in the forum itself. Instead, they have been given the token status of observer. What is more particular to Northern Ireland than our marching culture? The Orange Order has around 75,000 members. On the other side of the coin, Mr Hanway, the representative of the Travelling community, speaks for 7,100 Travellers, according to the 2001 census. Over the years, Northern Ireland’s human rights sector has been hijacked for political purposes by anti-unionists. People who would not have been elected are given equal, and sometimes greater, status than those who have been mandated by the electorate of Northern Ireland. The NIHRC was meant to reflect the community make-up but does not, and neither does the Bill of Rights Forum. Valid issues were raised in ‘The Irish News’ last week, when it was claimed that the bill of rights was in danger of becoming “a left-wing wish list”. That is little wonder, with the panel of communists, Marxists and socialists that has been assembled. I echo the representations made by the CBI to the NIHRC that: “additional rights should only be included where there is clear evidence that the ECHR does not cater adequately for the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland.” The Loyal Orders and the evangelical churches do not have a voice. Political representatives on the forum do not correlate with the views of the voting public, and the politics of Members who have been nominated to act for women, children and human rights are patently, and unequivocally, anti-unionist. The power to deal with that rests with the Secretary of State. Those issues, raised by the DUP since the first meeting of the forum, have yet to be adequately addressed. There will be no confidence in the forum unless there is a balance. The Assembly needs to send out a message to the Secretary of State that for a bill of rights for Northern Ireland to reflect the principles of mutual respect and parity of esteem for the identity and ethos of both communities, the body charged with advising the NIHRC must itself reflect those principles. I ask Members to support the motion. Mr A Maginness: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after “Assembly” and insert “believes that a successful bill of rights process requires the input and support of all sections of our community; welcomes the cross-party, cross-community and cross-sectoral participation in the Bill of Rights Forum; acknowledges that additional resources have been granted to enable greater outreach to priority groups, including the unionist community; and wishes the forum well in all its endeavours.” This is a very important debate, and a good opportunity to place on record the work of the forum to date and its noble objective to reach agreement on additional rights for people living in Northern Ireland. For most of Northern Ireland’s history, certainly since the 1920s and through the Troubles, we have not had a rights-based society, and it is important for us to build one. We have had a society based on security considerations instead of rights. Now, we see a transformation into a rights-based society in which we are all winners, and a bill of rights will strengthen the safeguards and develop that culture of rights for all of us. Throughout the world, the human rights culture arose from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the genesis for which was the Second World War and the horrific crimes committed by the Nazis and others. So horrible was the experience of people who lived through that war that they were determined to eradicate such horrors, in so far as they could. That is why we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the European Convention on Human Rights is reflective. It is important for all of us to remember that. We are dealing with something that is of great value and worth to our society, and which has shaped and formed many political systems throughout the world, particularly here in Ireland, Britain and throughout Europe. It is important that Members support human rights. Human rights are not partisan, but reflect universal rights throughout the world. In trying to create a bill of rights, we are attempting to help everyone in our society. The bill of rights arises from the Belfast Agreement, and the forum arises from the St Andrews Agreement. It is important that all Members remember that, and to bear in mind that those who seek to criticise that process are criticising what was agreed at St Andrews. The terms of reference for the forum are reflective of the original terms of reference in the Good Friday Agreement: that rights that are supplementary to the European Convention of Human Rights should be devised for the circumstances of Northern Ireland. The forum has been set that task. That is an important task and it will ultimately advise the NIHRC, which will present the bill of rights to Westminster, where, hopefully, it will be enacted through legislation. That is an important exercise. There has been criticism that that exercise has been biased in some way. I cannot understand that. The terms of reference and the make-up of the forum show that it is clearly representative of the whole of society. It has 14 political representatives who represent all the main strands of political opinion in Northern Ireland, and that could not be fairer or more proportionate. The non-political representation reflects a vast cross section of our society, taking in the trade unions, the employers, the Churches, the human rights non-governmental organisation (NGO) sector, and the community and voluntary sectors. How much more representative could one get? I have heard criticisms of individuals and, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have said that it is in order for Members to criticise people. However, it is not necessary for a Member to name individuals in that process. That is wrong because those individuals do not have an opportunity to respond, and it is wrong to personalise such matters. Those are good organisations. For example, the Committee on the Administration of Justice is a long-standing organisation that has done good and effective work in a wide range of justice and human rights issues. It has won international accolade — Mr Weir: The Member has mentioned the Committee on the Administration of Justice, which has, apparently, done good work. Is that a different Committee on the Administration of Justice to the one that is commonly known? Mr McCartney: Where is the point of order? Mr Weir: If the Member listened, he would know that that was an intervention, not a point of order. Is that a different CAJ to the one that the rest of us know? Mr A Maginness: I do not understand the criticisms of the CAJ, which has been recognised by serious international bodies as an outstanding model of an NGO in this field. Members may laugh and sneer as much as they want, but that is the reality. The CAJ goes about its work seriously and professionally — not in a partisan fashion. That also applies to many of the other organisations that have been criticised today. The Bill of Rights Forum was constructed to reflect the totality of society. If there are deficiencies, people are free to present their points of view. Recently, the forum, under the able chairmanship of Chris Sidoti, received an additional £100,000 of Government funding in order to engage in outreach work and to appoint outreach workers — the thing that Members have criticised it for lacking. The forum has that capacity, has been given that money and will carry out that work. The criticisms of it are misplaced. The forum engages in valuable work. It is tedious, painstaking and difficult to reach consensus on such difficult issues. It is of value to every Member of the House and everybody in the community. The least that we can do is to show support for the forum’s good work. It is serious work, its members are serious, and political criticism of those people is extremely unfair. I believe that they would totally reject such criticisms. Members of the Bill of Rights Forum have a sincere and open agenda. They come from different sectors and, of course, they have individual political — and other — points of view. However, they are united in a consensus to achieve the best possible bill of rights for everyone in Northern Ireland. Members should support them. Ms Anderson: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “acknowledges” and insert “that the involvement of all people in the process leading to a bill of rights is vital; and that the absence of real participation and representation from within any sector would make the achievement of a bill of rights more difficult.” Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom seasamh i gcoinne an mholta agus ar son an leasaithe. I speak against the motion and in favour of amendment No 2. I welcome the debate and thank Gregory and Michelle for tabling the motion and for getting it on the Order Paper. Go raibh míle maith agat. Sinn Féin is content to support the SDLP amendment. The proposal for a bill of rights goes to the heart of the historic process in which we are engaged. The heart is as much in the process as it is in the end product, and the process must achieve the real, inclusive participation of each and every sector of society. It is important for any sector that feels excluded from the process to action a remedy, and Members must ensure the greatest possible participation in order to make real the notion of democracy as a dynamic, ongoing, persistent and two-way dialogue between the Government and the governed. As the DUP is aware, the NIO conducted a consultation process on the remit and composition of the round-table forum. Despite the fact that many, including Sinn Féin, wished to have a more balanced forum, the final product strikes an adequate representative balance. Furthermore, the DUP agreed to the establishment of the Bill of Rights Forum at St Andrews. All parties in the forum have made the point that the observer facility must be used to address some of the gaps. The forum has many observers at its meetings, including organisations such as the WAVE victims’ group and the Loyal Orders. I hope that Irish speakers and the GAA will also attend soon. Overall, the members of the forum comprise an even balance of representatives from political and civic society. Every forum member has agreed that, in addition to the forum’s outreach programme, members have a wider responsibility to engage their constituencies and sectors so that they act as conduits for engaging the public in the bill of rights debate. 1.00 pm Many of the organisations represented on the forum deal with the rights of elderly people, disabled people, women and children, to name but a few. Those cross-cutting rights affect substantial sections of the population, regardless of religious or political affiliation. Therefore, it would be entirely wrong to suggest that sectors of the forum are partisan; they represent society as a whole. Shame on Michelle McIlveen; she has tarnished the names of groups that work hard for the people in our communities. The special circumstances of our histories in the North necessitated the right to define, by participation, all the people in that discourse. The forum has identified many groups to which it must reach out, including those in the unionist and nationalist communities as well as those that do not identify with either community. We have the opportunity to influence the drawing up of a bill of rights that enshrines, and rests on, the core values of humanity, human dignity, equality, freedom, non-racism and non-sexism. We must promote genuine agreement across political divides that human rights are for all. They are not a zero-sum game to be played out between conflicting partisan interests. We are not looking for an equal, negotiated balance between sides in a conflict; we are looking to the greater principles that underpin our humanity and can enable us to build a future that is not marred by unacceptable histories of conflict and division. The fundamental issue, on which all this is based, is the participative process. Hence, the forum must employ outreach workers because, while sections of our community are excluded — or feel excluded — we are confined to the straitjacket of seeing this huge adventure as a zero-sum game. The disconnection between the forum and the communities was discussed at length at the bill of rights conference in Derry over the weekend. All delegates agreed that the issue required urgent attention and that outreach workers must be employed as soon as possible. However, from the outset, the crucial measure of the forum’s success — the very basis of its legitimacy — is that the majority of people, whatever their race, religion, ethnicity, political or community affiliation, can say that the bill of rights is theirs. If the bill of rights is to achieve ongoing dialogue between the governed and the Government, we must be committed to the transformation of society. We have the opportunity to do that now. We must clearly negotiate the inseparable and inextricable link between civic/political rights and social/economic rights. The bill of rights must provide and deliver a remedy, or its legitimacy and people’s trust in its participating groups will vanish. People justifiably expect that the peace process and the power-sharing Executive will vindicate rights. They await education, training, apprenticeships and good jobs for all, housing — and affordable housing at that — that will enable all people to live in safety, peace and stability, without fear, and that will allow everyone to develop their full capabilities. A bill of rights must protect the disadvantaged, such as the 82-year-old woman, known only as YL, who had Alzheimer’s disease and who was evicted from a private care home in England, which was carrying out a public function. Such cases could happen here, but they must not be allowed to, and a bill of rights could prevent them from happening. We must recognise that minorities must be protected from the majority, especially in a democracy in which minorities can always be outvoted and majorities remain indifferent. The involvement of all people and organisations, such as the Anti-Poverty Network, which is concerned about poverty wherever it resonates, is crucial. The absence of participation in representation from any sector makes the achievement of a bill of rights more difficult. It takes courage. We must protect the freedom of expression of those whose opinions we find most obnoxious and respect the religious beliefs of those whose moral philosophy conflicts with our own most deeply held convictions. Our bill of rights should become a beacon to Ireland, Europe and the world. It should be worthy of what has been described as one of the great triumphs of the human spirit — the power-sharing Executive that has been established here. It is vital that all the people are involved in the process that leads to a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights Forum is clear that additional work is needed to engage with many groups, including those who may potentially mistrust the concept of human rights. It is not simply a case of one community that is identified as not having engaged fully in the consultation process undertaken by the Human Rights Commission. The forum has agreed to target outreach efforts at engaging others too, such as the disabled, children, and those living in rural communities and TSN areas. It is wrong to single out one community or group above all others. The bill of rights needs to be the people’s document, and we, in this Assembly, must lend our support to the facilitation of a process that will make it possible to better engage all the people, resulting in nothing less than rights for all. Go raibh míle maith agat. Mr Kennedy: I am pleased to participate in what is private Members’ motion number 69 in the lifetime of this Assembly. I say that by way of context because the Ulster Unionist Party has advocated a bill of rights for a long time. As far back as 1972 our party proposed the introduction of: “a precise and comprehensive Bill of Rights.” Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, we urged that the European Convention on Human Rights be incorporated into United Kingdom law to protect fundamental rights and liberties. In 1998, we supported the drafting of rights, supplemental to the European Convention on Human Rights, addressing the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland — described as: “the principles of mutual respect for the identity and ethos of both communities and parity of esteem”. We recently reiterated our support for a bill of rights through the Preparation for Government Committee’s ‘Report on Rights, Safeguards, Equality Issues and Victims’. It is on that basis that the Ulster Unionist Party is committed to participation in the Bill of Rights Forum. The Ulster Unionist Party understands the sentiments behind the DUP motion and the two amendments. The motion, in particular, recognises unionist concern at how the bill of rights process has extended far beyond the remit and mandate provided by the Belfast Agreement. If the forum is to work properly, and if the bill of rights process is to be effective, it will be important that the concerns expressed during this debate are heard and responded to. The SDLP amendment urges the forum to proceed by consensus in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, stating that: “a successful Bill of Rights process requires the input and support of all sections of our community”. That word “support” is vital. Support from across the political spectrum and the entire community will be essential if the process is to have a successful outcome. That, in turn, means that it will be essential that the bill of rights retains the support and confidence of the majority of the unionist community. The Ulster Unionist Party is gravely concerned at some of the proposals that have been suggested for inclusion in a bill of rights — proposals that were not the original intention of the Belfast Agreement. The agreement talks of supplementary rights to the Human Rights Act, to address the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. The purpose of such supplementary rights is to address the tensions and grievances in our divided society. That aim is modest, but it is still incredibly significant. In that context, it is worth noting that extensive socio-economic rights were never part of the mandate given by the agreement. The DUP motion and the amendments share the concern to ensure consensus on the forum. I trust that a careful note will be taken of the concerns expressed during this debate. Without consensus, the forum will fail, and any bill of rights proposals will become a cause of great division. Although it has some sympathy with the SDLP amendment, the Ulster Unionist Party will support the motion in order to express its grave concern at aspects of the bill of rights process. The debate is not about names and backgrounds but about policy and ideology. One hopes that Miss McIlveen does not, at an early stage, find herself in the company of forum members, given that she did not have a good word to say about many of them. Nonetheless, there is a real debate to take place on policy and ideology, and on what the Belfast Agreement intended for Northern Ireland by: “rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights”. That is the real debate. Dr Farry: I speak both as a member of the Northern Ireland Bill of Rights Forum and as its supporter. In trying to find a degree of consensus between politicians and civil society that can form the basis of a way forward, the forum provides an important function in the long-running discussion over a bill of rights. Mr Kennedy said that the Ulster Unionist Party’s involvement with a bill of rights goes back to 1972. I will go a decade better: we have been discussing a bill of rights for Northern Ireland since as far back as 1962, when the then Liberal MP for Queen’s University, Sheelagh Murnaghan, proposed a motion on the subject in this Chamber. More than 40 years on, we are still discussing the subject. It is important that we bring that discussion to a close as soon as possible. In supporting a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, I speak as a liberal, not as a socialist, communist or Marxist. It is important to recognise that there is support for the concept of a bill of rights for Northern Ireland right across society. Opinion poll research shows that there is support for it among all sections of the community. I was planning to recognise some of the DUP’s concerns and give it some reassurance, and I will still try to do that. However, I must say that I found the approach that the DUP took — of listing names — to be totally inappropriate and fundamentally counterproductive. It does not reflect well on those who tabled the motion. Historically, the unionist section of the community has lacked engagement with the bill of rights process. We all recognise that, and the forum has taken that fact on board. Affirmative action to address that deficit is planned in the months to come. We must recognise that the forum is a combination of civil society and political representatives. It has not been set up to represent the political balance of power that exists in the Assembly. Furthermore, it is a fundamental mistake to try to place party political labelling on any member who sits on the forum as a representative of civil society. Those members are not there to represent a political point of view but to represent their sector in what is an important debate. There is an issue surrounding how representative of civil society the forum is. All Members will recognise that to try to represent the complexity of civil society in a body of manageable size is an impossible task. I have no doubt that mistakes have been made in that respect. However, the challenge of trying to create a purely representative body is an impossible one. Consider the Churches. Given the religious diversity that exists in Northern Ireland, all the places that are allotted to civil society would be filled by representatives of Churches. To represent the vast number of Christian Churches in Northern Ireland would in itself be an impossible task, without trying to ensure representation from other faith groups, as well as non-faith groups, that we now have in Northern Ireland society. The forum serves a purpose in that it allows a critical mass of views to be placed on the table. The fear that unionists have — if I understand the basis of their argument — is that they see a situation arising in which most, or all, of civil society will line up with the representatives of nationalism and push the two unionist parties into a corner. That outcome would then be at odds with the majority of political opinion in society, as represented by the most recent Assembly election results. Those fears are unfounded for two reasons. The practical reality — if not quite the legal reality — is that the Assembly would have to endorse any draft Northern Ireland bill of rights. If it were not so endorsed, there would be fundamental problems in implementing it. Given their position in the Assembly, unionists must take some comfort from that fact. 1.15 pm Members must recognise that there are voices within the Bill of Rights Forum who will take a responsible attitude to avoid a situation where two parties are cornered on outcome after outcome. It would be a disaster for the Bill of Rights Forum if that pattern of voting emerged, and action would need to be taken quickly to address that fundamental imbalance. There is value in the partnership approach to political and civil society working together. It is incumbent on the members of the Bill of Rights Forum to be mindful to ensure that their recommendations will have the power to influence the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, to get the support of the Assembly and to persuade the British Government. We have a very important task in front of us, and provided that we reflect universality, and international standards and conventions, no one in Northern Ireland has anything to fear. Rather, a proper bill of rights that addresses the circumstances of Northern Ireland is something to look forward to. Mr McCausland: I am one of the DUP representatives on the Bill of Rights Forum, and I support the motion, which states that: “this Assembly acknowledges that the unionist community has been largely excluded from the human rights process in Northern Ireland”. When looking back over the years, Members will find that that is the case. Back in the early 1970s, the Association for Legal Justice was set up as an entirely nationalist organisation, and it was followed by the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the Children’s Law Centre. Dermot Nesbitt made a point at one of the meetings of the Bill of Rights Forum, with which I concur on the basis of personal experience. When unionist concerns are brought to those groups the letters are not answered, as Dermot put it, or ideas that were put into the melting pot somehow fall out of the system, are ignored and forgotten. It is clear that the unionist community has been largely excluded from the human rights process and the human rights sector in Northern Ireland. I turn now to the next part of the motion, which says that unionists are: “under-represented within the human rights sector, resulting in the Bill of Rights Forum having a clear imbalance in the composition of its membership”. The DUP representatives raised that point at the first meeting of the Bill of Rights Forum when we highlighted the exclusion of representatives from the victims sector, the Loyal Orders and the smaller evangelical churches. Nine months later, nothing has been done about those concerns. Mr A Maginness: The Orange Order is an observer to the Bill of Rights Forum, and any other organisation can become an observer easily. Mr McCausland: The point that Alban makes is entirely correct. I proposed that a number of organisations should be given observer status, but the key point is that an observer does not have a vote. An observer is allowed to come and view the process, but is excluded from being part of the process. Mr A Maginness: Will the Member take a further intervention? Mr McCausland: No, I do not have time to take a further point as I have too much left to cover. Let us get down to the core issue regarding the elements that make up the Bill of Rights Forum. My colleague Michelle McIlveen has already mentioned Paddy Kelly of the Children’s Law Centre, a good friend of Caitríona Ruane’s. It becomes obvious that there is an issue when the women’s sector is represented by Margaret Ward and Annie Campbell. There should be representatives from the Townswomen’s Guild, the Presbyterian Women’s Association, the Mothers’ Unions, or the Women’s Orange Order, for example. Who do we get? We get Annie Campbell and Margaret Ward. It is wide of the mark to say that the current representatives are from civic society and are non-political. Take the example of Margaret Ward. I could do the same with a whole series of representatives, but I will tease out the history of that individual. Margaret Ward started off as a member of the People’s Democracy and was a founder member of the Socialist Women’s Group in October 1975, which was one of the key foundation organisations of the women’s rights movement — the other was the Women’s Rights Movement itself, which was set up largely by the Communist Party. However, let us stick with Margaret for a moment. As one of the founders of the Socialist Women’s Group, she said that it was made up of women from various places such as the People’s Democracy, the Revolutionary Marxist Group and the Irish Workers’ Group — obviously a broad spectrum. [Interruption.] No, the Women’s Institute did not quite make it that day. That is the sort of organisation from which Margaret Ward came. She explained that it was a Trotskyite group, to which women came from all those organisations. She, and others, went on to say that the organisation tried to link women’s oppression, partition and the imperialist domination of Ireland. There would not have been many unionists in that organisation. Clearly, it did not represent a broad spectrum of views. The other organisation was the women’s rights movement, which was set up by Lynda Edgerton-Walker, who is a member of the Communist Party, and another communist, Ann Hope — the same Ann Hope who is also a Human Rights Commission observer at the Bill of Rights Forum. I could mention a few more such people. However, the point has been well and truly made. When those points were made by my colleague Miss McIlveen, Alex Attwood and Alban Maginness squirmed and Sinn Féin Members laughed. However, the facts speak for themselves. It was an embarrassed laugh and squirm from those Members. If there is to be a Bill of Rights Forum, it must be reflective of Northern Ireland society. Mr Maginness mentioned outreach — outreach is aimed at those who are on the outside. A basic human rights requirement in any society, if it is to sign up to international human rights standards, is the right to participation. The current membership of the Bill of Rights Forum denies that to large sections of society, including the Women’s Institute, the Townswomen’s Guild and others — the sort of ordinary women who are represented by Michelle McIlveen. Mr Weir: Like the last two Members, I want to state that I am a member of the Bill of Rights Forum. I must also make an even greater confession: I agree with at least one comment that Martina Anderson made when moving her amendment. She said that the end result should be that every citizen of Northern Ireland is able to say that the bill of rights belongs to him or her. That is the point of the DUP’s motion: my party wants a bill of rights that is supported by everyone across Northern Ireland. However, if a system is created in which there is not a level playing field and one community feels that it has not been given proper representation, an inclusive buy-in will not be achieved. For all the great words of the parties opposite in regard to their amendments, the problem is that, essentially, those amendments do not acknowledge the elephant in the room, which is the composition of the Bill of Rights Forum and, indeed, the process that has been put in place. Much has been said about the political composition of the forum. The 14 political representatives do not reflect the electoral strengths of the political parties. The DUP has 36 representatives in the Assembly — one third of overall representation — but has just one more place in the forum than the Alliance Party, which has merely seven seats in the Assembly. If it were simply a question of the number of faces around the table, that would not matter. However, any voting systems that have been discussed have been on the basis that every member of the forum — irrespective of whether they are elected representatives, or what party they may come from — has exactly the same vote. Consequently, the DUP’s three votes will only outnumber the Alliance Party’s by one, despite the fact that it has over five times the political strength of that party. That does not create the necessary degree of political balance. Mr A Maginness: I understand the Member’s argument. However, the real substance of the forum’s procedures is that agreement is by consensus, not by totting up votes. Even if there were disproportionate votes, ultimately it would not matter. Mr Weir: It would not matter, if absolute consensus were the only method by which a motion could be passed. However, there exists a loose model of sufficient consensus, in which several members can object to a motion, but it can still be passed. Dr Farry voiced his concern that members could gang up against the two unionist parties, yet when the proposition was made, with the support of the DUP and the Ulster Unionists, that sufficient consensus should require the support of the political wings of both communities — that, if either the unionist community or the nationalist community was opposed to something, it would not pass — we found ourselves completely outvoted by everyone. Six unionist hands went up — and not one other hand went up on the other side. The vast majority of the forum went against us, with the honourable exception of a couple of independents, who abstained on the issue. Few faces around that table were sympathetic to the unionist position. There were not too many people who — Dr Farry: Does the Member recognise that the forum has deferred the final discussion on voting mechanisms to the end of the process, given the concerns that have been raised? Would he also accept that the Alliance Party did take unionist concerns on board at the meeting in July, and suggested that discussion be deferred, having recognised a fundamental problem? Mr Weir: That issue came to head only when a solution was going to be imposed upon us, and the unionist parties were on the point of walking out of the forum. It was the imminent collapse of the forum that caused some, at least, to back off. When looking around that table, there were not too many people on whom I could be overly reliant if I were looking for votes in relation to that matter. Outreach is grand, but it does not give one a place at the table or a vote in the final say. Unfortunately, we are going to be faced with a forum that is likely — unless corrective action is taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland — to produce a report that is so off beam that it is sheer madness. A representative of one of the Churches complained of loneliness because of the weight of opposition to the views of that Church — that demonstrates that things have gone badly wrong. Members of that forum are aiming to repeal trade union laws of the 1980s. How is that particular to the circumstances of Northern Ireland? The type of agenda that is being pushed may be particular to the circumstances of 1960’s Cuba, but it is not particular to Northern Ireland in the late 2000s. With the best will in the world, some degree of corrective action must be taken, and a level playing field created, so that the voice of unionists, the voice of victims, and the voice of the Loyal Orders is heard. Is there any issue that is more particular to the circumstances of Northern Ireland than the cultural matters that surround the Loyal Orders? However, those people are excluded, and there is a raft of other people on the forum who are not representative. Unless those changes are made, we are going to waste an awful lot of time. That is not acceptable. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr Elliott: I thank the Members who proposed the motion. The Ulster Unionist Party has worked hard to ensure that the rights that are afforded to the people of Northern Ireland have always been in their best interests, in the context of the Union and the wider United Kingdom. For example, since 1998, we have continued to support consideration of the scope for rights that are supplemental to the Human Rights Act 1998, and which address the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. However, we are always mindful of the need to maintain our position in the confines of British rights that are afforded to all citizens throughout the United Kingdom. We are committed to ensuring that everyone in Northern Ireland shares in our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom — meaning that all are guaranteed fundamental rights and liberties. That commitment shapes our approach to any ideas about a bill of rights. Rights are not just for nationalism; they are not just for Roman Catholicism; and they are not just for unionism — they are for everyone, and that is why I want everyone to be equal. The forum does not exist to provide an opportunity for individuals to write a Programme for Government. The forum’s aim should be to address the potential need for some supplementary rights in Northern Ireland for all communities, and parity of esteem for everyone — given our special circumstances, which are sometimes described as the principles of mutual respect for identity and ethos. Northern Ireland’s position as a member of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, subject to the Human Rights Act 1998, has been ratified by the people of Northern Ireland. There is no need to have a separate bill of rights to replace that which has been accepted in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, we are not ignorant of the differences that have existed in this part of the kingdom for the past 40 years; therefore, we recognise the need for discretion in matters that concern our country. That is why we continue to support the scope for supplementary rights and support the forum’s role in addressing those rights. 1.30 pm It is rich to hear some people in the Province talk about human rights, especially as over the past 40 years, the murderous attacks that many of them have waged against the people of this Province have destroyed the basic human right to life. Although the motion is concerned with membership of the forum, that is not the most crucial issue. Rather, it is more important that the forum reaches decisions by consensus. Making any decision without proper consensus will lead only to division. I have no doubt that to draw up a bill of rights for Northern Ireland without consensus would lead to division. It would drive a wedge through our society at a time when people are trying to work together. We should not be forced together — people have too often attempted to do that. Only now are communities beginning to work together, and, in many areas, they are working together for the first time in over 40 years. Without consensus, a bill of rights would not only be a divisive element in a process that strives for cohesion, it would create a vacuum into which would return the distrust and hatred that has plagued our society for far too long. The Bill of Rights Forum needs to be mindful of the mandate that the people of Northern Ireland have given to it. Through that mandate, the forum has the power to make decisions that should be beneficial to everyone in Northern Ireland. Dialogue and consultation have been guiding principles throughout the Province. I urge people to remember that any Northern Ireland-specific rights that supplement those in the Human Rights Act 1998 must be comparable to and compatible with any emerging broader UK framework, including, for example, the British bill of rights and duties that the UK Government suggested recently. If the forum can keep to its mandate, pursue its goals with consensus in mind, and remember the broader scope for movement that exists in the rights issue in the United Kingdom, a positive outcome may be reached. However, if it does not take that approach, there can be no such outcome. Mr Attwood: Miss McIlveen has done herself a disservice this morning. Members from across the Chamber have noted that, in previous debates, she has been at times thorough, and, at other times, thoughtful. However, this morning she was neither. I trust that she might reflect on her comments, which ill serve the debate on a bill of rights and proper party debate in the Chamber. I disagree with her fundamental point. She said that she endorsed the CBI’s views on the proposals for a bill of rights. I presume that she endorsed those views on behalf of her party. As I understand it, the CBI has essentially said that it will sign up to little beyond that which is contained in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the Human Rights Act 1998. In that regard, we are missing a beat. If we do not, through the Bill of Rights Forum and the processes that are involved with that, reach a conclusion that relies not just on the individual and civil liberties that are outlined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, and if we do not embrace the other international conventions, especially those that the UN has advanced, we will be doing another disservice to the people of the North. Mr Kennedy remarked on the 69 motions that have been debated in the House. If we analyse those, it is clear that, time after time, they have addressed issues that involve income, health, housing and education. Indeed, they have addressed the full range of social and economic inequalities that exist in the North. If we adopt the approach of the CBI or the DUP, whereby issues that involve the economic and social entitlement and rights of the citizens in the North would not form part of the bill of rights, the Assembly, the Bill of Rights Forum, and, more crucially, the people of the North, will have missed an important strategic opportunity. I ask the DUP to consider that point of substance in any further contributions that it might make to the debate on a Bill of Rights Forum. In 2000, when Mary Robinson was in the North in her role as UN high commissioner on human rights, she said that our human rights proposals were the part of the political process in which the people of the world were most interested. That is a measure of the importance of the Bill of Rights Forum and the architecture around human rights that was created further to the Good Friday Agreement. As evidence that people are watching the North to see what we might or might not do, one only has to look back to the summer of 2007, when the DUP — rightly — went to a Scandinavian country to give advice to the people and parties of Iraq about lessons that could be learned, in their objective circumstances, given what we have endured over the past 40 to 50 years. Mr Campbell: Scandinavia really is in the north. Mr Attwood: I do not know whether that was an intervention. I will certainly give way to the Member. The point is that there is something worth sharing. Mary Robinson said that the work being done by the people of Northern Ireland, through the parties and others, on human rights’ entitlements was most worth sharing. For those reasons, I suggest that the Bill of Rights Forum should have an impetus to have the maximum human rights protections available, rather than that which John Reid suggested when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in which the British Government would listen only to proposals of a minimal rather than more general nature. In the wake of this debate, some of those who are involved in the forum process must carry out a strategic reassessment of its real requirements. I do not really understand the motivation behind the motion. Is it to beat up on the Bill of Rights Forum process because of a perceived — and sometimes real — lack of proportion about its overall membership, or is the DUP positioning an obstacle in the way of political development in the North? Is this an attempt by the DUP to put down markers in order to bring about gridlock in the politics of the North in six months’ time, in the event that no consensus has been reached on the Bill of Rights Forum process? Mr Hamilton: I am a member of the Bill of Rights forum, as unpopular as that declaration might be on the unionist Benches. Protestants and unionists do not fear rights; indeed, as the proposer of the motion said, going back to the bill of rights of 1689, which was a key element of the Williamite settlement, it was people of Protestant and Ulster stock who helped to form and pen the Declaration of Independence and subsequent Bill of Rights in the United States. Indeed, the solemn league and covenant of 1912 could rightly be described as a rights-based document. Rights are part and parcel of Protestant and unionist history and heritage. Unionists, however, became detached — or more accurately, dislodged — from the rights process. That was understandable in Northern Ireland, as Tom Elliott mentioned. It was sickening for many unionists to hear the clamour for rights coming most loudly and frequently from those who denied basic rights to people in our country. It was nauseating to hear how barristers or solicitors who defended terrorists or suspected terrorists were referred to as human rights lawyers. That caused great unease in the unionist community. That disconnection has led to under-representation in the human rights sector, and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has been used as an example to demonstrate that. Membership of the Bill of Rights Forum is not fully or truly reflective of Northern Ireland society, and there is a clear under-representation of the unionist community. Perhaps in spite of that, however, unionists are participating in good faith in the process, but everyone involved must accept that, given the political realities of Northern Ireland, unionists must not only be part of the process but have ownership of it and agree to its outcomes. As mentioned by other Members, the forum’s aim is to advise the Human Rights Commission on what should be included in a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. It has been argued that such a bill is required because of the particular circumstances of our recent past. I agree with the concerns expressed by Danny Kennedy that the discussion has concentrated extensively on economic and social rights. That perhaps reflects the membership of the Bill of Rights Forum. I will concentrate briefly on two particular aspects of our past that are inalienable when it comes to rights. If any aspects are particular to the circumstances of Northern Ireland, they are those of culture, including parading, and of victims. Quite appallingly, there are no representatives on the forum who can discuss the rights of the cultural sector or of innocent victims. Indeed, at last Friday’s forum meeting in Londonderry, the convenor of the group that is dealing with victims’ rights, the Very Reverend Dr Samuel Hutchinson, said that one of the problems faced by the working group was that there was no representative from the victims’ group sector on the forum. The forum comprises representatives from a wide range of sectors in civil society, including women, sexual orientation, the Travelling community, children and ethnic minorities. However, there is nobody from the loyal orders or innocent victims’ groups. If issues such as cultural rights and victims’ rights are to be addressed, there should be representation from those quarters in the forum. Although the Catholic Church and the Irish Council of Churches are represented on the forum, that does not reflect the broad swathe of Churches in Northern Ireland, particularly the evangelical Churches, which represent a growing sector in Northern Ireland. The Caleb Foundation, the Orange Order and the Ulster-Scots Heritage Council have observer status in the forum. However, they only have that status at the insistence of the DUP; and I am quite appalled at the suggestion by Alban Maginness that those groups should be happy to have second-class status in the forum, without either a vote or a voice. Those comments were not missed on the unionist side of the House. I welcome the further investment of £100,000 by the Secretary of State into outreach work, including work in the unionist community. However, there would be no need for that outreach work if those groups were properly represented in the forum. The bill of rights cannot get off the ground and be a success without unionist support. Mr Shannon: I support the motion. There can be no doubt to any impartial person of the fact that the unionist population has been severely under-represented in the formation of the Bill of Rights Forum. The ethos of many unionists when faced with a difficult situation has always been to get up and get on with it. There was no need to run to higher authorities; you took the knock on the chin and you dealt with it. However, that ethos has left the unionist people far behind in the realm of human rights and in dire need of representation to ensure that a fair deal is reached by all. Nevertheless, I have no desire to have my words twisted and misconstrued into saying that I do not believe that rights should be enshrined in some form. When I listen to Americans recite the Declaration of Independence, I hear words that everyone would agree to and accept: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” For that reason, I make it clear from the outset that I do believe that rights should be enshrined. However, the manner in which that is approached is delicate; and thus far the entire community has not been shown to have played an equal part. One need not look any further than the composition of the forum, as my colleague Mr Hamilton has outlined, to see how unequal that has been and the undeniable irony of the fact that the forum’s remit is to process ideas on real equality for all. The imbalance in the forum has been made clear by the omission of certain bodies, the most glaringly obvious being the Orange Order. The Orange Order has well over 75,000 members and many other affiliates throughout the Province. As such, it represents a substantial proportion of the overall number of people and their opinions in the Province. However, the Orange Order has no real say or voting rights in the forum — merely the tokenism of lip service and observation. Given that one of the main human-rights issues in the Province is the right to march and celebrate one’s cultural identity, that is grossly unfair. 1.45 pm The ethos of the Orange institution is concerned with the defence of the civil and religious liberties of all, including those of us who are Protestants. However, it apparently has no place in a forum on rights and equality. That is one of the biggest forms of hypocrisy and inequality pertaining unashamedly in the very forum that is supposed to advocate human rights and be a mouthpiece for change. It is little wonder that the people of the Province have no faith in it. Such inconsistencies make the unionist people — and all right-thinking, open-minded people — of the Province sceptical about the true purpose of the Bill of Rights Forum, and human-rights processes as a whole. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission backed up the unfair decree on 50:50 recruitment to the PSNI, which is perhaps the most disgusting and discriminatory such policy ever to have been introduced in a so-called modern country. It is easy to see why some people shy away from anything that smacks of human rights. If a policy does not address human rights for all, it is of no use to anyone. How can 50:50 recruitment overrule the right to equal opportunity for jobs and other human rights? The manner in which the people of the Province were forced to accept that is nothing short of scandalous: there is no redress, no option and no excuse. That policy sends out the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against a majority. Until those at the highest level of Government accept that that is happening, there can be no change and no true equality in Northern Ireland. Before she jumps up, I see that my colleague wants to come in at this point, so I will give way to her. Mrs I Robinson: My intervention does, at least, have the advantage of giving Mr Shannon an extra minute to speak. Does the Member agree that measures in connection with a bill of rights have had a more detrimental than positive impact on our community? Mr Shannon: I wholeheartedly agree, and that is why the motion is being discussed in the Chamber today. This matter must be urgently addressed. Whether the Members on the opposite side of the Chamber like it or not, unionists are currently the poor relations in the world of human rights, and that cannot continue. That issue must be addressed now, starting with a more even composition of the forum’s membership. A form of positive discrimination has been operating for far too long, and the Secretary of State must step in and rectify that inequality, which is rife, and create an even playing field for everyone. I urge the House to ensure that a message demanding equality is sent to the Secretary of State and, ultimately, to the people of the Province. There must be an end to discrimination, whether against a minority or in the form of positive discrimination against the majority. The first step would be a proper, representative forum. I urge all Members, including those on the far side of the Chamber who have made statements today, to support the DUP’s clear motion. Mr G Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I speak as a Member for North Belfast on this important issue. Níl mé ag labhairt sa phlé seo mar Aire, ach mar ball ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. The bill of rights was central to the Good Friday Agreement and was reinforced by the St Andrews Agreement, whereby all parties agreed to establish a forum to facilitate the development of an appropriate bill of rights. After the attacks that have been made on many of its members during the debate, it must be said that the Bill of Rights Forum has benefited massively from the impartiality of the world-renowned human-rights expert, Chris Sidoti. He has acted impartially throughout and has repeatedly stated his wish to create a bill of rights on which everyone can agree. The forum has also benefited considerably from the input and the contribution of groups that represent disadvantaged sections of society, such as women, children, elderly people and disabled people. Representations have also been made by social partners and the human-rights sector. The forum has expanded its workload by employing recognised human-rights experts who act as legal advisers to its seven working groups. They come from Britain and Ireland, and the forum has also benefited from the advice of EU and UN human-rights experts in developing its recommended draft bill of human rights. No one should feel threatened by the concept of human rights. A bill of rights would guarantee the fundamental human rights of those living on the Shankill Road and the Falls Road, in Derry, in Larne, or anywhere else. A strong bill of rights would create a win-win situation in which all sections of our community, especially the two main traditions, would gain. The forum has been clear that additional work is needed to engage with many groups, including those that potentially mistrust the concept of human rights. A LeasCheann Comhairle, all parties in the forum have consistently argued for a robust consultation process and have always supported efforts to engage with members of the unionist and loyalist communities. The forum has engaged those groups that wish to play a more substantial role to attend with observer status and to submit documents expressing their views on all the issues. That provides a mechanism for effective input to groups that do not sit on the forum directly. It has to be said, because of the attacks that have been made, that the representatives of civil society are selected on the basis of the internal procedures of the groups concerned, and not on the basis of religious or political affiliations. They are there to represent their constituencies. A great disservice has been done today to all those who are involved to suggest that they do not represent everyone in society whose lives they seek to improve, whether that is through working for a bill of rights for older people, for all children and young people, for all workers or for all who are disabled. They did not adopt, and have not adopted, party political lines. I was disappointed at the personal attacks that were made by the proposer of the motion. I know that you have made a ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, but that was a disgrace. It was followed by Nelson McCausland, who also launched into a series of personal attacks. I have a forlorn hope that Gregory Campbell will not go further and abuse the House by naming and defaming people in his winding-up speech. The history of the bill of rights is closely associated with the conclusion — Mr McCausland: Will the Member give way? Mr G Kelly: No. — of periods of conflict. The main body of human rights law in Europe and in the UN came immediately after the conclusion of the Second World War. In South Africa and other post-colonial societies, democratic Governments have moved to guarantee the rights of individuals through strong, world-class bills of rights enshrined in their constitutions. It has become confusing today whether the DUP, in particular, is against the make-up of the forum or the bill of rights itself. The DUP Members who have spoken simply want to introduce the unionist veto, which they will not do. They want to get back to the good old days of unionist domination, but we are well past that. I support the SLDP amendment; I am willing to give way on that. Mr Deputy Speaker: I call Dolores Kelly to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Mrs D Kelly: I welcome Sinn Féin’s support for the SDLP amendment. I join with others in expressing my disappointment at the way in which members of the Bill of Rights Forum have been slagged off, in particular by the DUP. Alban Maginness and I represent the SDLP in the Bill of Rights Forum. I will come to the unionist motion on exclusion later. Some Members had concerns about socio-economic rights. My colleague Alex Attwood pointed out that socio-economic rights are, by and large, much of the work that the Assembly has addressed in the last 68 items of private Members’ business. Indeed, whether the bill of rights that we ultimately advise on for the North of Ireland contains specific mention of socio-economic rights is irrelevant, given that international case law has increasingly shown that the bill of rights in terms of socio-economic rights has largely been interpreted under other rights, such as the right to family life and the right to a private life. Therefore, if we examine in greater detail what is happening in Europe, we will see that many of those rights, including the right to health and education, are already enshrined and are being acted upon and informing decisions of Government. Some Members addressed the issue of unionist participation and mentioned, in particular, a number of individuals, as opposed to their organisations. Do the unionist parties seriously expect us all to believe that the trade unions do not represent people who are also unionists; that Disability Action Northern Ireland does not represent people who are unionists; that the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities does not represent people who vote for unionist candidates in an election; and that Age Concern does not have members who are unionists? The debate has been mischievous, and one wonders if the unionist parties’ attitude to participation — particularly that of the DUP — is constructive or obstructive. The Alliance Party sought to reassure the DUP and clearly set out its long commitment to a bill of rights. [Interruption.] Did somebody speak? The Alliance Party clearly explained why limiting numbers on the forum is a necessity. We are all made up of several identities. Some Members spoke of an elephant in the room. Is there not an elephant in the room when certain Members fail to declare certain aspects of their identities — such as those who are members of the Loyal Orders, members of evangelical churches, and members of the Caleb Foundation? If there is going to be an honest debate, all Members must be honest. The bill of rights outreach strategy is soon to begin, and a clear commitment has been given that will include all those minority groups that, thus far, have felt excluded from the debate. Other groups may still wish their views to be represented, and it could be argued that, with regard to identity, such organisations as the GAA are not represented; however, there has to be a limit if the forum is to be effective. The SDLP amendment clearly concerns consensus. We will learn later, and there will be questions about why the Assembly holds so many of these debates instead of advancing legislative timetables. The Assembly is not discussing a programme of Government or an Executive programme. The credentials of other Members were mentioned. I welcome the Ulster Unionist Party’s more mature participation in the debate. Others — most recently, Jim Shannon — stated that 1689 was a key date for the protection of civil and religious liberties. If I recall my history lessons, the penal laws were introduced not long after 1689. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr Campbell: The debate could legitimately be described as having been worthwhile and energetic. Michelle McIlveen outlined the background of members of the forum and, along with others in my party, had criticism levelled at her that was totally unwarranted. If the DUP had criticised the forum in vague terms — by simply stipulating that certain people represented X and Y — what would the criticism have been? People would have asked which members of the forum represented those views. Now the House knows who they are, and the views that they have expressed. Several Members mentioned the elephant-in-the-room analogy; and in winding-up amendment No 1, Dolores Kelly talked of the need to be honest. That is absolutely right. On occasions such as this, it appears that nationalists and republicans attempt to get into mitigation rather than own up to the facts. 2.00 pm Are the facts as follows: the Bill of Rights Forum does not adequately represent our community? The answer is either yes or no. If it does not, as we argue — and I do not think that any rational thinking person can dispute that — we can move on from that point. However, if Members on the other side of the Chamber constantly mitigate that fact and try to argue that there is a reason for it and state that unionists do not want certain rights enshrined in Northern Ireland, they miss the elephant in the room. They need to see that. Honesty, according to Mrs Kelly, is what we need, and we must sign up to honesty. Martina Anderson, in her reference to the amendment, talked about groups that feel excluded. One may feel excluded if one is excluded. There is more to that than simply feeling excluded. If one is not included in a proportional sense, one has been excluded. It is not a matter of simply feeling or perceiving exclusion; it is the fact that one is excluded that matters. Stephen Farry gave an exposition of the long tradition in his party, and in the liberal wing, of support for a bill of rights. That is quite right, but we wait to see arrival at the point when the Bill of Rights Forum will agree on its voting mechanism. It appears that those who talk about a consensus in the forum but have not been able to agree a voting mechanism hold a somewhat different view of consensus to the rest of us. Peter Weir indicated that the amendments failed to acknowledge reality, and he too referred to the elephant in the room. Alex Attwood talked about the economic issues that he wished to see addressed. All of us in Northern Ireland society would like to see those issues addressed. However, we must ask ourselves whether a bill of rights, as currently envisaged by many in the nationalist and republican parties, is likely to achieve that objective. It appears that that is not likely, from what we are being told. Simon Hamilton and Nelson McCausland referred to the historical support in the Protestant community for human-rights issues. Nelson McCausland mentioned the intrinsic bias towards republicanism of many of the women who sit on the forum. Although some Members complained that that matter was even mentioned, I did not hear any resistance to that being a factual statement. That is what should concentrate people’s minds. Jim Shannon concentrated on the relevant matter of 50:50 recruitment to the police. Those Members who passionately advocate a bill of rights should agree that one of the first things that the forum must address is to state that it is 100% united in wishing to get rid of, at the earliest opportunity, the discriminatory recruitment procedures in respect of the police in Northern Ireland. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Campbell: Those who advocate a bill of rights are against that; they are in favour of discrimination because that discrimination is against our community. In some instances, people seem to state that that is all right; that it does not matter; and that it is of secondary consideration. Gerry Kelly spoke about what he regarded as personal attacks on the forum’s membership. That is quite erroneous. Unfortunately, Mr Kelly mentioned going back to the days of unionist domination. No one wants to go back to domination by anyone, unionists or republicans — or by RPG-7 rocket launchers. The day of that type of domination is over, and we are not going back to that either. Dolores Kelly, in her winding-up speech, and in coming to the conclusion of her remarks, indicated that a consensus was needed. That is a positive contribution. Among all the negative comments that have been made by those who spuriously say that they are in favour of a bill of rights, that was a positive comment: a consensus is required. Are we likely to reach consensus in the direction in which some people appear to be going? I think not. Do we want a rights-based agenda that is some form of leftist charter aimed at constantly thwarting effective delivery mechanisms for people — in the name of those very people? Conversely, do we want to adopt a minimalist approach whereby people will know that their rights are being protected, no matter what community they come from or sector they belong to, so that we can take Northern Ireland forward in a way in which the whole of our community can rest assured that a bill of rights has been achieved through the consensus and endorsement of all participants? Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I put the question on amendment No 1, I advise Members that if amendment No 1 is made, amendment No 2 will fall, and I will proceed to put the question on the motion, as amended. Question put That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 47. AYES Mr Adams, Ms Anderson, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Doherty, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mr Gallagher, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maginness, Mr P Maskey, Ms J McCann, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Mr Neeson, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane, Mr B Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Attwood and Mr Gallagher. NOES Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Sir Reg Empey, Mrs Foster, Mr Gardiner, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Dr W McCrea, Mr McFarland, Mr McGimpsey, Miss McIlveen, Mr McNarry, Mr McQuillan, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson. Tellers for the Noes: Mr McQuillan and Mr G Robinson Question accordingly negatived. Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and negatived. Main Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly acknowledges that the unionist community has been largely excluded from the human rights process in Northern Ireland and under-represented within the human rights sector, resulting in the Bill of Rights Forum having a clear imbalance in the composition of its membership; believes that without the support of all sections of our community any Bill of Rights process is fundamentally flawed; and calls upon the Secretary of State to address these problems urgently, by ensuring processes that will facilitate better engagement with the unionist community and ensuring that the membership of the Bill of Rights Forum is more reflective of all the people of Northern Ireland. The Deputy Speaker: Members will be aware that Question Time begins at 2.30 pm. The Assembly will therefore suspend for seven minutes. The sitting was suspended at 2.23 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Education Glastry College 2.30 pm 1. Mr Shannon asked the Minister of Education to give her assessment of the current state of negotiations regarding the site for the new build at Glastry College; and to detail the anticipated start date for the work.[R] (AQO 436/08) The Minister of Education (Ms Ruane): Go raibh maith agat. I am pleased that Glastry College is to get a newbuild, the cost of which is estimated overall at £12·6 million. I understand that those who are most closely involved with the school may be impatient about the pace of progress. However, I recognise that the procurement of a new school building can be a complex issue. I understand that negotiations between the South Eastern Education and Library Board and the landowner of the site have been concluded and that a sale price has been agreed between the two parties. Negotiations between the board and Land and Property Services on the vendor’s professional fees remain to be concluded. The board has advised that it expects work on the site to start in autumn 2008. Mr Shannon: I wish to declare an interest as a member of the board of governors of Glastry College. I thank the Minister for her comments and for her confirmation of the newbuild for Glastry College. However, I wonder whether she will confirm two points. First, has the board sought planning permission? The Minister said that a price had been agreed between the board and the landowner, and that is good news. Is that the case? I understand that there may be doubt about that. Secondly, will the start date of the build definitely be autumn 2008? Ms Ruane: The acquisition of the site must be completed. The South Eastern Education and Library Board is confident that all negotiations will be concluded in the near future and that the acquisition of the site will be completed in the current financial year. Once the site is purchased, work on planning permission will begin. In answer to the second question, the board advises me that the start date is autumn 2008. I know that work was to begin earlier, but there were some delays in negotiating the vendor’s fees. Mr O’Loan: What action is the Minister taking to expedite the current backlog of capital schemes that have already been approved? Ms Ruane: As the Member knows, different organisations draw up proposals. We are working with the Strategic Investment Board to ensure that once any proposals are lodged, the build in question will be completed as quickly as possible. I am aware of the slow pace of the process where planning and other matters are concerned. The Executive need to look at those matters because they have an impact on Departments other than mine. However, I understand the frustration about the slow pace of builds that groups such as the boards, CCMS (Council for Catholic Maintained Schools), and Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta have proposed. Teacher Induction Year 2. Mr Ross asked the Minister of Education to provide an update on her recent meeting with her Scottish counterpart to discuss the introduction of a teacher induction year in Northern Ireland. (AQO 430/08) Ms Ruane: A provisional date of 12 December has been arranged for a meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning in Scotland to discuss a range of educational matters. I will let the Member know the outcome of our discussions at the earliest opportunity. Mr Ross: Given that the issue was raised in the Assembly in June, it is disappointing that the Minister has still not got round to meeting with her Scottish counterpart or even telephoning her or corresponding with her. Will the Minister update the House on the latest figures that detail the numbers of graduates who qualified in July and in the previous July but who still do not have a permanent full-time teaching post? Ms Ruane: We have made contact with the Scottish Cabinet Secretary, and a date for a meeting has been set. Members will appreciate that recent times have been busy. If, for example, I had been in Scotland during the classroom assistants’ dispute — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Ms Ruane: I do not have the figures for last July, but I can get them for the Member. However, I have the figures for the number of teachers who are on the substitute teachers register: in June, 5,400 teachers were on that register. That includes not only young teachers, but those of all ages who wish to be employed as substitute teachers and those who no longer wish to be full-time teachers. Of 5,400 teachers who registered in June, 1,747 are under 30 years of age. It is important to note that many of the teachers on the register are not actively seeking full-time employment. DETI employment statistics for June 2007, for claimants seeking employment as teachers, are as follows: 240 unemployed teachers; 68 teachers aged under 30 and unemployed for fewer than 26 weeks; and four teachers aged under 30 and unemployed for 26 weeks. As for the number of teachers on the substitute register who are available for work tomorrow, a free registration service is available to substitute teachers of all ages who are recognised as eligible to teach in grant-aided schools and who are registered with the General Teaching Council. Those teachers may specify how little, or how much, substitute teaching they wish to do, how far they are willing to travel, and the school in which they wish to teach. After my meeting with the Scottish Minister for Education, I will update the Member. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Ford: Given that the number of teachers who qualify each year exceeds the number of available posts, how can the Minister guarantee a permanent job for teachers who have undertaken a teacher-induction programme? Has she discussed the number of student teachers with her colleague the Minister for Employment and Learning? Ms Ruane: Pupil numbers have declined from almost 347,000 in 2001-02 to almost 333,000 in 2005-06. During the same period, the full-time equivalent teacher count has dropped by just over 1,000. In the next five years, numbers will continue to fall. Demography and falling numbers are a huge problem for the system, and that further decline will obviously have a significant impact on the number of newly qualified teachers that are required in the coming years. I am sympathetic to the plight of newly qualified teachers and I hope that they will be successful in obtaining permanent teaching posts; however, I ask them to be creative and flexible in the choices that they make to determine their career paths. There are subjects with too many teachers and others in which teachers are in short supply. For example, more maths, science and Irish teachers are — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Ms Ruane: I shall repeat that. For example, more maths, science and Irish teachers are required. Irish teachers are required because of a growing demand for Irish. In the past three years, my Department has reduced the number of students entering initial-teacher education by more than 20% — from 880 in 2004-05, to 699 in 2007-08. As part of the annual initial teacher-education-intake approval process, we will carefully consider the number of teacher positions that will be available in future years. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minister agree that, according to figures contained in a written answer to a question that I asked, it is unacceptable that 3,871 teachers on the substitute roll have never had full-time employment in education? Does she agree that we have suffered emigration for long enough in this country, and why, as a so-called republican Minister, did she suggest to me in a written answer that young teachers take an bád bán, the emigration boat, to England, Scotland and Wales to gain employment? Ms Ruane: First, at the risk of repeating myself, in June 2007, there were 5,400 teachers on the substitute teachers register. DETI unemployment statistics for June 2007, for claimants who were seeking to teach, show 240 unemployed teachers; 68 teachers under the age of 30 and unemployed for fewer than 26 weeks; and four teachers under the age of 30 and unemployed for 26 weeks. Of course I regret that many people go to England, Scotland and Wales. Although, it is good for young people to travel and gain experience of other countries and other parts of the world, I would prefer that — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Ms Ruane: I would prefer that opportunities existed for those teachers at home in the North of Ireland. I will also be — [Interruption.] Mr McNarry: Guarantee one year. Some Members: Northern |