Northern Ireland Assembly Tuesday 19 November 2007 Private Members’ Business: Ministerial Statement: Executive Committee Business: Committee 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 Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order to ask you whether you intend to hold a reception to celebrate the remarkable performance of the Northern Ireland football team and its supporters in the quest for qualification for the 2008 European Football Championship finals? Mr Speaker: Order, order. That is certainly not an appropriate point of order, but I am sure that the appropriate Minister is listening. Mr Weir: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the debate on the review of public administration on 13 November 2007, the Deputy Speaker rebuked the Minister of the Environment and me for supposed “political point scoring”. Do you intend to investigate the issue? That seems to be a very inappropriate use of language by the Deputy Speaker. Mr Speaker: That issue was brought to my attention immediately after the debate, and I understand that the appropriate Minister has written to me. I assure Members on all sides of the House that the matter will be dealt with. Mr O’Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking a ruling in relation to the debate on Irish-medium club banks that was held on 13 November 2007. During that debate, Mr Dominic Bradley intervened to state that: “during the establishment of the national schools in Ireland … Irish-speaking children were made to wear a bata scoir — a tally stick — around the neck. Each time a child spoke Irish, a notch was cut in the tally stick, and the child was later punished for each notch.” — [Official Report, Vol 25, No 4, p174, col 2]. From the opposite Benches, Mr McNarry was clearly heard to state “Good enough for them”. Is that appropriate language for a Member to use in relation to child punishment? Also, why was that remark not recorded in the Hansard report? Mr Speaker: Fairly soon, I shall turn to several issues regarding this House. I hope that when I have finished, Members will understand where I am coming from and what I am saying to the House. It is a statement, rather than anything else. I wish to make a statement on a number of issues, some of which were raised as points of order during the sittings of 12 and 13 November 2007. I shall begin by making a number of general points. First, let me make it clear that, in my view, Members resort more often than is necessary to raising points of order in the Assembly. Many of these remarks are not points of order at all, and others are raised to oppose or defend points of order that have already been made. In either case, the remarks often refer to matters that could be more appropriately dealt with other than on the Floor of the Chamber, and often to greater effect. That is not to say that Members have not raised valid and helpful points of order: they have, and those are very welcome. However, I appeal to Members to be more understanding when using points of order. I have often said to Members from all sides of the House that I understand that, on occasions, making a point of order is the only time on which a Member can speak on a particular subject. I have been fairly lenient in allowing Members to intervene on serious issues, especially if they make very quick points of order. If, however, all sides of the House abuse that facility, I must deal with the issue in another way. Secondly, too often in recent weeks, a number of Members, in their choice of language, have failed to display the good temper that should characterise proper parliamentary debate. There are seasoned politicians in the Chamber who will say that the moderation of language is the characteristic of any debate. I recognise that this is a debating Chamber, and it is understandable that, on occasions, debates can raise the temper of some Members. However, Members must moderate their language in any future debates. Furthermore, Members should be mindful that points of order — and interventions from this Chair — would be less common were they to behave in that way. With regard to the recent point of order, I said on Monday 12 November that I intended to make a ruling on the phrase “misleading this House”, which was used by Mrs I Robinson during questions to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety on Monday 5 November. I shall do so in a moment. Since that debate, on Tuesday 13 November 2007, Mr P Robinson made a point of order in which he asked me to consider whether breaches of Standing Orders must be dealt with promptly and at the time at which they take place, or can be dealt with retrospectively. In making his point of order, Mr Robinson referred to Erskine May, to which Speakers of this Assembly refer when our Standing Orders and conventions do not provide guidance on matters of order. In one respect, I agree with Mr Robinson. Members should, where possible, raise what they feel to be breaches of order at the time at which they occur, or as soon as possible thereafter. Those matters will be dealt with at the time, or after reflection. However, I will not be drawn into lengthy searches of the Official Reports of previous sittings. Once again, I make the point that were any Member to come to me immediately after a debate with a fairly important point about which he or she feels very strongly, I believe that I have a duty to try to respond to that point. However, if Members are going to come to me days or weeks later, that is a different issue. Nevertheless, neither Erskine May nor our conventions state that it is beyond the Speaker’s authority to rule retrospectively on any matter of order. I reserve the right to deal with matters that come to my attention as I deem appropriate. Finally, Members, I will move on to the use of the phrase “misleading this House” by Mrs Robinson. Although I did not hear it at the time, the remark was recorded in the Official Report. Having reflected on the matter and taken my own counsel on the issue, I believe that the remark was unparliamentary. As I said, I am guided by our own Standing Orders and conventions, and then by Erskine May, which clearly states that the term is unparliamentary. I am aware — and Dr McCrea has raised the issue — of a recent ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons that suggests that the term may not be unparliamentary in certain circumstances. It will be for the authors of Erskine May to decide how that may be reflected in a future edition. In my view, the remark is clearly unparliamentary. I know that Mrs Robinson is not in the House today; I intend to deal with the issue at the next appropriate sitting when she is in the House. Mr S Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not clear from the statement that you have made just what the guidance is to Members. First of all, you said that you will not allow days to pass before you deal with a complaint. However, it appears, in this particular instance, that although, by your own admission, the complaint was not made until nearly a week after the event — which, in my interpretation, is “days” — you have still made a judgement on it. Secondly, in the House of Commons, the Speaker has ruled that the Prime Minister is exempt from being ruled unparliamentary when he uses the term “misleading”. Why has a different attitude been adopted by you in this House? Mr Speaker: I believe that I made myself absolutely clear on this issue. Mrs Robinson’s remark was reported to me directly after Question Time on Monday 5 November. I have said to Members on all sides of the House that if they come to me a week later, two weeks later or three weeks later, I will have to reflect on a different issue. I hope that the Member is not saying that if somebody comes to me directly after a debate to raise a very serious issue, I cannot reflect on it. Surely not. I think that I have made myself quite clear. I am not prepared to take any further points of order, and I intend to move on. If Members read the Hansard report, they will know that I am very clear on this issue. Mr Attwood: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: Is it on the same issue? Mr Attwood: It is not on the same issue. Mr Speaker: OK. Mr Attwood: I am seeking clarification, Mr Speaker. Is your statement not only in response to the matter that has just been referred to — Some Members: Same issue. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Attwood: It is a point of order. Mr Speaker: It is the same point of order, or coming very close to it. Mr Attwood: My question is whether your statement is a response to previous points of order in respect of comments made during the bill of rights debate in the Assembly a number of weeks ago. Can you clarify whether the height of your response to those points of order is what you have just outlined? 12.15 pm Mr Speaker: I have made a general ruling, because several points of order were raised on all sides of the House that were not real points of order. I hope that my ruling lays down a marker and will draw a line under all those issues. I hope that my response is helpful to the Member. Mr Attwood: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I note what you say, but I must raise a number of issues. First, the comments that were made during the debate on the membership of the Bill of Rights Forum were — Mr Speaker: I will not allow the Member to continue. I ask him to take his seat. Today, I have tried to deal generally with points of order that have come to my attention. If I were to deal with every point of order raised, which was not a point of order, we would probably spend a week in the Chamber in an attempt to deal with them all. I hope that all sides of the House appreciate that. I will not allow the Member, or any other Member, to raise a further point of order. I have also noticed in recent weeks that when asked to take their seats, some Members have not done so. In fact, I have had to call to account two Members, if not three, on at least three occasions for their not taking their seats. If that happens in future, I assure the House that those Members will not be called during debate. Petition of Concern: Irish-Medium Club Bank Motion proposed [13 November]: That this Assembly opposes the introduction of a club-bank arrangement for establishing Irish-medium schools in Northern Ireland. — [Miss McIlveen.] Mr Speaker: Order. I remind Members that a valid petition of concern was presented on Tuesday 13 November on the Irish-medium club-bank motion that was being debated on that day. Under Standing Order 27, the vote could not be taken until at least one day had passed. The Business Committee agreed that the vote should be taken as the first item of business today. I also remind Members that another effect of the petition of concern is that the vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 47. AYES Unionist: Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Rev Dr Robert Coulter, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mrs Foster, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr McCausland, Mr McClarty, 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, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Savage, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt, Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr Wells, Mr S Wilson. Tellers for the Ayes: Miss McIlveen and Mr Storey. NOES Nationalist: Mr Adams, Mr Attwood, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Dallat, Mr Doherty, Mr Durkan, Mr Gallagher, Ms Gildernew, Mrs Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mrs McGill, Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McHugh, Mr McKay, Mr McLaughlin, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr O’Loan, Mrs O’Neill, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane. Other: Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Ms Lo, Mrs Long, Mr McCarthy, Mr Neeson. Tellers for the Noes: Mr P J Bradley and Mr Brady Total Votes 93 Total Ayes 46 (49.46%) Nationalist Votes 41 Nationalist Ayes 0 (0.00%) Unionist Votes 46 Unionist Ayes 46 (100.00%) Other Votes 6 Other Ayes 0 (0.00%) Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote). 12.30 pm Mr S Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At about this time last week, a bus that had equipment to screen women for cervical cancer was ordered out of the Markets area of south Belfast by a Sinn Féin election agent. Is it in order to ask that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety makes a statement to the House about the details of that incident and that he describes any alternative arrangements that have been put in place to resume that screening service? Mr Speaker: Order. I must say that that is not an appropriate point of order, no matter how strongly the Member might feel about the matter. Once again, I am sure that the Minister is listening. Mr Paisley Jnr: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The Speaker and, undoubtedly, the whole House will be aware of the two recent brutal attacks against police officers, one of which occurred in Londonderry and the other in Dungannon. Do you believe that it would be appropriate for you, sir, to send a message of support to those officers and their families on behalf of the entire House, thus demonstrating the utter condemnation that the House has for such attacks on our police officers? Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Speaker: I hear what the Member has said. I will reflect on his request; however, I believe that tabling a motion to debate the matter is the appropriate way in which to deal with it. I shall come back to the first issue that I dealt with this afternoon. Members will be aware that I clarified that the manner in which the word “misleading” was used in a debate on 5 November 2007 was unparliamentary. I call on Mrs Robinson to withdraw the remark. Mrs I Robinson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Naturally, I have respect for the high office that you hold. However, your ruling does not allow me to establish the truth, which is that, despite his protestations, our Health Minister did indeed sign off on the draft Budget. Therefore, in order that the truth is not compromised, I will not withdraw my comments. In another place, our Prime Minister used the same word, and the Speaker ruled that the use of that word was not against Erskine May. Following that incident, when a Back Bencher actually accused the Speaker of misleading the House, the use of the word was not ruled out of order. Despite the fact that Members who have since come to you to make the complaint did not do so on the very day that I made my comment, with respect to you, I disagree with your ruling. I cannot and will not withdraw my remark, given that I was trying to establish the truth. Mr Speaker: I advise the Member that as she has not withdrawn the comment, under Standing Order 60, I shall order her to leave the Assembly and its precincts for the rest of the day. Lord Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that in an earlier ruling that you made today, you said that you would deal with this matter at the next sitting of the House at which the Member concerned were present. This sitting is the same as that in which you made your ruling, but you have spoken about what would happen after today. Mr Speaker: No. I will clarify what I said: I said that I would deal with the matter as soon as the Member was present in the House. Lord Morrow: You said, “at the next appropriate sitting”. Mr Speaker: I am dealing with it now. I have asked the Member to withdraw. Mrs I Robinson: Very well, Mr Speaker. Thank you. The Member withdrew from the Chamber. Lord Morrow: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When can we expect you to deal with the issues, which must be dealt with, of other Members, who said nothing worse than what Mrs Robinson said? Mr Speaker: I have already had two Members from another party in my office this morning about those issues. I intend to deal with them. I understand the rule, and there could be an apology on one of those issues. Let me say to Members on all sides of the House that it gives me no satisfaction to stand here this morning and make rulings on some of these issues. In fact, I came to them with a very heavy heart. Members need to understand that. They must understand clearly that I do not fudge issues, and I certainly do not shirk issues. I will take issues on, now and in the future. Let me make it clear that, irrespective of what side of the House an issue comes from, I will deal with it — no matter how difficult it may be. North/South Ministerial Council — Agricultural Sectoral Format Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development that she wishes to make a statement regarding the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in agricultural sectoral format — [Interruption.] Order, Members. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ms Gildernew): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 about the eighth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in the agriculture sector, which was held in Harvey’s Point Country Hotel in Donegal on Friday 9 November. The Executive were represented by the Minister of the Environment, Arlene Foster MLA, and me. The Irish Government were represented by Mary Coughlan TD, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Éamon Ó Cuív TD, Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. This statement has been agreed with Minister Foster. The Council noted progress made since the last meeting in September 2002 and welcomed the opportunity to come together to discuss co-operation in the agriculture sector. The Council also welcomed the mutually beneficial collaborative work undertaken in response to the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, bluetongue and avian influenza in Britain. The Council noted an all-island animal health and welfare strategy paper developed by the North/South animal health and welfare steering group. It agreed that the free movement of animals on the island of Ireland remained the ultimate aim of the animal health and welfare strategy, and that the way forward was through co-operation and the development of complementary policies. It was noted that the animal health and welfare strategy included a list of initial activities for delivering key elements of the strategy and outlines various milestones and deadlines for the coming months. The Council requested officials to oversee progress on those issues and submit further measures to implement the strategy for approval at the next agriculture sectoral meeting. The Council agreed that North-South co-operation on plant health should focus on the status of pests and diseases which threaten the island’s plant health and on co-operation on EU matters. There has been ongoing and continued liaison between the North and the South on, for instance, an outbreak of phytophthora ramorum, or sudden oak death — which affects trees and shrubs — in the North, and brown rot — which affects potatoes — in the South. It was noted that DARD (the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development) is developing a plant health strategy for Northern Ireland which will include a section on North/South co-operation consistent with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’s plant health strategies. The Council also agreed that the work of the North/South pesticide steering group should focus on the production of co-ordinated pesticide usage surveys for grassland and fodder crops and for arable crops. With regard to the common agricultural policy (CAP), the Council agreed that officials from the Departments should remain in close contact on a range of key issues, including the Council of Ministers’ recent adoption of a single common market organisation, the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector and the forthcoming CAP health check. It was noted that future agriculture sectoral meetings would consider and review common challenges and opportunities arising from the EU dimension of agriculture. The Council noted the work of the North/South steering committee on cross-border rural development. The Council agreed that future work should focus on developing maximum co-operation in implementing rural development programmes and policies, including EU programmes, and examine the scope for a common approach on the feasibility of developing cross-border, area-based strategies and rural development research. The Council welcomed the progress achieved as a result of the funding provided by EU Peace programmes and requested that officials submit a report and recommendations to the next meeting on the rural development programme 2007-13 and co-operation projects. It was agreed that the next meeting of the NSMC in agriculture sectoral format would take place in spring 2008. Go raibh míle maith agat. Dr W McCrea (Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development): As Chairman of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Minister is aware of the Committee’s views, and it is important that those views are developed at future Committee meetings. It is accepted that the animal health and welfare strategy is the primary issue. I am pleased that the Minister outlined that that strategy was noted — not approved — at the meeting and that the way forward is through co-operation and the development of complementary policies. As an individual member of the Committee, I welcome the fact that there is co-operation and that complementary policies are being developed. However, as I have said to the Minister on a number of occasions; although I welcome that co-operation, I am glad that that Council noted, rather than approved, the all-Ireland animal health and welfare strategy and that there is co-operation, not convergence. There is anger in the agriculture industry because nothing effective has been decided that will enable the free movement of animals between Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe. The Minister knows that the issue is important, and the industry wants to know when there will be movement on it. Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. An all-island animal health and welfare strategy was discussed at the meeting on Friday 9 November. Therefore, a discussion on the rest of Europe was not part of that meeting. Mr Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement. Regarding the strategy that is in place on North/South co-operation on rural-development issues, is there a list of programmes currently progressing to develop co-operation between the different sectors, particularly concerning agricultural waste? (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair) Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. As I outlined in my statement, officials have been tasked to examine the scope for a common approach to the feasibility of developing cross-border, area-based strategies and rural development research. Therefore, there is a great deal of scope for considering how we can best utilise resources on both sides of the border. Officials will be working to bring forward policies on that matter. Mr Elliott: I thank the Minister for her statement. Far be it from me to support some sort of all-Ireland co-operation. Regarding health checks, will the Minister consider bringing voluntary modulation for farmers in Northern Ireland into line with that in the Republic of Ireland, as their farmers do not have any? Did any discussions take place at the NSMC meeting regarding the recent reports of BSE outbreaks in the Republic of Ireland? Was that issue on the agenda, and if so, were there any conclusions to it? Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. BSE was not discussed at any great length at the meeting; although, obviously, it is part of the working group’s work. We had a lot of ground to cover, and BSE was not dealt with specifically. 12.45 pm Mr P J Bradley: I welcome the Minister’s statement. However, I am obliged to reiterate my party’s commitment to the development of North/South policies on agriculture that will benefit the industry and secure its future. I note that plant health was discussed at the meeting. I have often said in Committee that I am concerned about the adverse effects that a total ban on some selective weed killers and pesticides may have on the quality of our pasture land and cereal crops. With those comments in mind, I ask that plant health be kept on the agenda. The Minister stated: “the way forward is through co-operation and the development of complementary policies.” Will she give the Assembly some examples of the development of such policies? Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. As the Member has pointed out, considerable work is ongoing in the North/South pesticides steering group that will focus on producing co-ordinated pesticide usage surveys for grassland, fodder and arable crops. A considerable body of work has been completed, and research has been shared between North and South. With respect to co-operation and the development of complementary policies, a wide range of groups are covering animal health, epizootic diseases and the free movement of animals. One of the most topical issues is foot-and-mouth disease, and North and South are co-operating with complementary policies which will work well together to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of the island. That is a recent example of how complementary policies are essential if we are to keep out such diseases. Mr Ford: I, too, thank the Minister for her statement, which, I notice, refers to brown rot in potatoes, which is currently active in the South. Will she give us her assessment of the threat to Northern Ireland potato production from that disease? Furthermore, I would refer to the Minister’s remarks in answer to P J Bradley’s question on complementary policies. I am surprised that, after five years, any discussion on agriculture in the NSMC did not mention the largest threat to a major sector of agriculture, North and South — Brazilian beef. Was there was any discussion of that matter? What proposals does she have for dealing with it on a co-operative basis? Ms Gildernew: As regards brown rot, much work has been ongoing between the two Departments since the disease was discovered in the South earlier this year. The plant health strategy for the North sets priorities for maintaining and promoting high levels of health in arable and horticultural plants and produce; protecting the natural environment and local agricultural and horticultural industries from imported pests and diseases; and supporting domestic trade and export. We did our best to ensure that brown rot did not spread. All consignments of potatoes from the South were checked, and there was immediate sharing of information with respect to the disease. The issue of Brazilian beef did not come up at the meeting but was discussed at the press release afterwards. As the Member says, five years of work was surveyed at the meeting, and time was therefore limited. It was a general discussion. We went through all the work that had been done during the past five years and there was not much time to get into the nitty-gritty of any particular issue. However, I see room for further collaboration on all of the issues. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for her statement. My question is on a practical issue. Northern Ireland farmers receive a very poor price for dairy-bred bull calves and, as a result, many are forced to put down those calves at birth because of the lack of markets. Why will the Minister not change the rules in Northern Ireland and make them similar to those in the Irish Republic, which allow exporters to buy calves at local auction markets? That would help the situation that farmers face. Ms Gildernew: As I have said many times in the Chamber, Committee and in other places, I will do all in my power to help the agriculture industry. However, I do not enjoy the same luxury as the Minister in the South, who represents a member state in the European Union and brings that authority with her when she attends EU meetings. There are also financial issues involved in some cases that prevent me from doing some things. I do not have specific details on the issue today. However, I will respond in writing to the Member. I assure Members that I will do everything I can to assist the agriculture industry here. Mr W Clarke: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement and ask her to outline the discussions that she has had about a vaccine being made available in the spring to combat the spread of bluetongue. Ms Gildernew: While bluetongue was mentioned at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting, there was not a specific discussion on the detail of how to deal with it. The steering group, made up of officials from North and South, will deal with that issue. Currently, the EU does not allow vaccination in bluetongue-free areas, so the work that is being done on the basis of the area being bluetongue-free would change if it were unlucky enough to become affected by bluetongue. Officials continue to work on that detail, but it was not discussed at any great length at the meeting. Mr Shannon: In the Minister’s statement, she said that the Council agreed that North/South co-operation on plant health should focus on pests and diseases as well. Has the Minister made approaches on an east-west basis in order to utilise the expertise and knowledge that the UK Government — and DEFRA in particular — have gained, which could be used to the advantage of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, as well as the Republic of Ireland? Will the Minister provide a detailed response on that? Ms Gildernew: My statement dealt with the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council on 9 November. However, I can assure the Member that we work with scientists and experts from many places, including DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), to ensure that we are privy to the most up to date scientific information. Officials from my Department work closely with officials from DEFRA on that issue. As part of today’s business I do not have detailed information to hand, but I am happy to come back to the Member with that. Mr Savage: In her statement, the Minister made reference to the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector and the forthcoming CAP health check. In my Upper Bann constituency, there are many apple orchards. Will the Minister elaborate on the effects that the proposed reforms and the CAP health check will have on them? More importantly, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no detrimental effect to the future of the fruit and vegetable industry in Northern Ireland? Ms Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As I have discussed before with the Member, the issue of top fruit is part of the new single farm payment regime, and there will be benefits for the orchards of which he speaks. Indeed, I live not too far away and know many of the apple producers and processors. There is good news for that sector, and I reiterate the point that I have made many times before: my Department will do everything that it can do to help any sector. Last week, for example, the Agricultural Forum met in my office in Dundonald House, and work is ongoing between officials and the industry to ensure that we can get the best deal possible. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for her statement and her ministerial colleagues, North and South, for the work that was done at the meeting. The Minister indicated that a future sectoral meeting would receive a report on the next round of the EU programme for peace and reconciliation. Will the Minister ensure that that report addresses not only the peace programme, but also the potential for rural development under the whole range of EU programmes in order to identify those measures, specifically according to programme, but also in aggregate terms, on both sides of the border? In that context, would it be in order for the sectoral format to be used to explore the potential to use some of the moneys in the national development plan’s social inclusion pillar to support rural development work, especially, but not only, in border areas? Ms Gildernew: DARD will not have a formal role in the implementation of Peace III; however, following a call from the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB), the rural development division, along with DCRGA in the South, has submitted an expression of interest to SEUPB for a regional programme of activities with the rural community network (RCN) and Irish Rural Link under the building positive relationships at the local level measure. That is currently being assessed by the SEUPB. The programme, which is known as a rural enabler, will deal with issues such as sectarianism and racism in rural areas under the following headings: young people; flags and emblems; housing; interfaces; racism; community relations and community development; and rural institutions. The total estimated cost of the programme of activities is £2·4 million, North and South. Other cross-border opportunities exist. Apart from the North/South Ministerial Council meeting on 9 November, I had a meeting in September with Éamon Ó Cuív in Dromahair, County Leitrim, at which several of those issues were discussed. There is great potential to maximise spend — particularly in border areas — by working closely together. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I also thank the Minister for her statement and for the work that has been done so far in the North/South Ministerial Council. I am particularly grateful for the work that was done at the agricultural sector meeting in Donegal. An all-Ireland approach to an animal health and welfare strategy benefits everyone, despite the difficulties that some people may have with it. Indeed, it benefits every farmer in Ireland as much as everyone else. It is important that an all-Ireland approach, rather than any other, is taken to animal and plant health. Have Ministers — North and South — and scientists considered the impact that global warming will have on plant health in Ireland in the future? Further to that, have they considered the effect that it will have on animal health in coming years? Ms Gildernew: Full co-operation in Ireland on animal and plant health has the potential to help reduce and prevent the spread of disease, to facilitate trade, and to improve the sustainability of farming in the North. The ultimate objective of North/South co-operation should therefore be to facilitate trade by allowing the freer movement of animals on the island and to optimise the animal-health status of Ireland by aligning policies that control animal disease. Careful consideration must also be given to climate change and to other global factors that may affect plant health. Climate change has implications for much of the Department’s work. On Friday 16 November, I visited the marine research vessel, Corystes. Climate change featured in several of the discussions on fish stocks and fishing sustainability that I had with the researchers. All the available scientific evidence must be examined. The steering groups work closely on all those issues, and they share information and scientific knowledge. Mr McCallister: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Given the importance to the fishing industry of the Fisheries Council meeting in December, can the Minister indicate what discussions on fisheries took place at the agricultural sectoral format meeting and what were their outcomes? Ms Gildernew: Fisheries were not discussed at that meeting. As I said, the meeting was a chance to overview the work that has been carried out on animal and plant health and rural development over the past few years. There was no specific discussion on fisheries. However, I hope to meet with Mary Coughlan in the coming days in order to discuss the Fisheries Council meeting. I have also had meetings on the issue with ministerial colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales. In preparation for the December Fisheries Council meeting, we will take part in a video conference today or tomorrow. Although there was no discussion of the issue at last Friday’s meeting, a great deal of work has been done. 1.00 pm Children (Emergency Protection Orders) Bill Further Consideration Stage Mr Deputy Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to the Bill. The Further Consideration Stage of the Children (Emergency Protection Orders) Bill (NIA 6/07) is therefore concluded. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Ad Hoc Committee: Draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2007 Mr Deputy Speaker: I advise Members that there is an error in the Order Paper. The date should read “2008”, not “2007”. Motion made: That, as provided for in Standing Order 48(7), this Assembly appoints an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the proposal for a Draft Criminal Justice Order 2007, referred by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and to submit a report to the Assembly by 28 January 2008. Composition: DUP 3, Sinn Féin 3, UUP 2, SDLP 2, Alliance 1 Quorum: The quorum shall be five members. Procedure: The procedures of the Committee shall be such as the Committee shall determine. — [Ms C Ní Chuilín.] Justice for the Bland Family Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make the winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes to speak. Mr Donaldson: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with deep concern the failure of the Irish Government and Irish Courts to provide justice for Patricia, Sarah, James and Julia Bland, in light of the evidence presented by the family concerning the alleged crimes committed against them by Rory Bland; and calls on the Irish Prime Minister and Minister for Justice to give this case priority attention, so that justice is done and is seen to be done. I welcome the opportunity to move the motion. The House first debated the matter in September 2001. The Bland family has endured 28 years of sorrow, loss and heartbreak stemming from a miscarriage of justice on the part of the Irish state. Six years after our previous debate on the matter, and despite much effort on the family’s part to discuss its plight with the Irish Government, it is still without justice. Once again, the family has asked for our help to highlight its concerns and to bring the matter to the point at which justice is done and is seen to be done. The sorry affair started with Rory Bland allegedly committing the crimes of rape and incest against his youngest daughter, Sarah, when she was a young child. Despite the allegations that were made against him, the Irish courts issued an order that allowed this man to have continued access to his children over two years, during which time he allegedly committed additional crimes against Sarah. A judge then sent Mrs Patricia Bland and her three children, Sarah, James and Julia, into exile in Canada. Due to wrongful court orders, the Bland children could never safely live in the Irish Republic, which is the land of their birth. Sarah’s health was — and continues to be — compromised by her early ordeal and by the length of time that the unresolved situation has affected the entire family. Sarah was only three years of age when the alleged abuse started. She has lived all that time knowing of nothing but the case that hangs over her head. The same applies to her brother and sister. Mrs Patricia Bland, their mother, has spent all those years trying to protect her three children from the dreadful implications of the crimes and the resultant injustices. She was, and is, a mother who is simply trying to protect her children, yet she was actively prevented from doing so by orders emanating from Irish courts, which undermined her position and rendered her children vulnerable and isolated. That ought to be unheard of in a civilised society. Patricia Bland was also wrongfully sued for many years by her husband while her children were young. Unaided by any lawyer in Dublin — in fact, she would say that she was betrayed by some, if not all, of the lawyers involved in the Bland case in Dublin — she has had to battle all the way to keep her family safe. A lengthy legal opinion on this entire case obtained from outside the Republic highlighted that the Bland v Bland case was void from the outset by virtue of the fact that one firm of solicitors acted for both parents — acting in conflict of interest between the parties — and then went on to act for one parent against the other, whom they knew full well to be of unsound mind. Under Irish and British law, neither of those acts is permitted, yet they happened. Those very acts caused a snowball effect of utter chaos for the Bland family. The situation could never be remedied as to do so would have exposed the initial criminal acts and automatically exposed the perpetrators — we have reason to believe that more people than just Rory Bland were involved in those acts. This Irish family with a British mother was failed by every single organ of the state, which meant that the children were not protected under the constitution. Fraud and criminal acts ensued against them, and 13 years of wrongful court action has left the family bereft of their ancestral home and has utterly destroyed three childhoods. The loss to the family runs into millions of pounds. It has often been said that the case could be resolved through judicial means. However, the court process was compromised at every stage, and in such a way as to stymie the possibility of the hoped-for outcome being a remedy. The only remedy that the Irish state has ever given to this family was back in 1983, when they were officially ordered to leave the Republic and never come back. However, that was two years too late for Sarah, who was aged just six at the time. Surely, requiring the victims of this whole sorry episode to leave the country cannot be a proper way to dispense justice. There are many examples in this case of how the Irish state has evaded its responsibility through the manner in which it has responded to the miscarriage of justice faced by the Bland family. I quote from a letter dated 6 August 1999 from the then Irish Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who stated: “You will appreciate the Judiciary are, subject only to the Constitution and the Law, independent in the exercise of their judicial functions, and I am precluded from commenting on or intervening in decisions in individual court cases.” Another useful insight is taken from a letter from the Taoiseach dated 14 April 2004: “The Taoiseach is very conscious of the very serious allegations that are contained in your correspondence. He has forwarded the material to his colleague, Mr Michael McDowell, TD, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for his consideration.” The matter still rests with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and there is still no remedy for this case. A further quote for the House to consider is from another letter from the Taoiseach’s office to my colleague Mr Ian Paisley Jnr dated 28 February 2005, in which it states: “neither I, nor any other political figure, can intervene with regard to a decision of the Courts.” This case is an example of one which has fallen between the pillars of the constitution, and the Irish Government have denied any responsibility in the matter. All they are doing is shifting the Bland case between the Department of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on an annual basis — that has been the case since 1983. Unfortunately, that means that the Irish constitution is being interpreted by the Government in a way that prevents any remedy for the Bland family. The matter simply goes from pillar to post and back again. The failure by the Irish Government to act on the Bland case has raised grave concerns internationally. The Bland family rightly demands that the Taoiseach acknowledge the miscarriage of justice that has occurred in this matter and find a way to deal with the family’s statement of claim that is before the Irish Government. The Bland family also asks that the Irish Government take steps to ensure that no other Irish family is so gravely failed by the state, as has been their experience, and that any reforms arising from the Bland case be rapidly undertaken for the benefit of the citizens of the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that some people will wonder why the Assembly should be considering this case. Well, our neighbours in the Irish Government have failed to deal with the matter in an open and honest way that would give the Bland family some sense of justice for the terrible ordeal that they have suffered. When people come to us out of sheer frustration and desperation, we have a duty to speak up. We have done so in the past here, when wrongs have been done against people in other countries. The Assembly has, rightly, raised its voice on the international stage to mark its concerns, and it is appropriate that we do so in this case also. I hope that, following this debate, and subject to the motion being passed, there will be an opportunity for my ministerial colleagues and others to raise this matter with the backing of the Assembly. When writing of those who favoured the retention of slavery, President Thomas Jefferson said that: “Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” The same might be said of many in the Irish state who have had the opportunity to consider this case. Self-preservation must never be allowed to outweigh justice in any democratic society. I urge the House to support the Bland family in their ongoing quest for justice. Ms S Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. I support the motion, and want to address a number of issues that the proposer of the motion, quite rightly, mentioned. The Assembly debated a similar motion in September 2001, and six years later there has been no change. Normally, when a motion is debated in this Assembly on a subject that is beyond its control, the relevant edition of Hansard and a covering letter are sent to the relevant authorities. Did that happen in 2001, and if so, what was the response? I ask the Speaker’s Office to examine that issue. The key elements of this tragic and disturbing case are domestic violence; severe and continuous child abuse; and alcoholism. The tragedy was compounded by the decision of the court to award care of the child to the father, at whose hand she suffered the kind of trauma and torture to which no child or individual should ever be subjected. In turn, that left the child’s mother to fight an ongoing court battle to gain any kind of protection for her child. The situation was further compounded by the failure of the courts and the Irish Government to provide any kind of help or apology to a family who had been ill-treated. Indeed, the family has seen its life savings drained away by a system that has completely failed it. It is right that the Assembly should call for justice. Although the facts of the case are extreme and disturbing, the failure to provide justice for those who suffer from sexual abuse, rape or domestic violence is not peculiar to the Irish justice system. Many women and children in our own and other jurisdictions face difficulty in securing both the conviction of the perpetrator and the kind of justice that they require. We must learn the lessons of other jurisdictions. Domestic violence in residence and contact cases must be clearly identified, and the risk to children living in such situations must be assessed. 1.15 pm The police and the courts must be clear — and they were not in this case — that domestic violence is an abusive context for children and that they may experience emotional or other damage, or suffer physical harm, as a result. Research findings indicate that where there is domestic violence, a child is at an increased risk of physical or sexual abuse. The perpetrator may abuse the child as part of his violence against the woman. The perpetrator can continue to abuse the child emotionally and physically during contact visits. Domestic violence must be viewed as a serious child protection risk, and all court interventions for that risk must be assessed and fully taken into account in residence and contact issues. If only such a view had been taken in the case of the Bland family, further serious abuse would have been prevented. A risk assessment model has been developed and is being used in several health and social service trusts in the North. I call on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to ensure that that model is being used across all trusts. The proposer of the motion covered some issues about the judiciary. It is essential that the judiciary is trained to understand the risk assessment model and to take it fully into account when making decisions that are linked to residence and contact. I support the motion. Rev Dr Robert Coulter: I am speaking on behalf of Sir Reg Empey, who is attending the funeral of Lord Cooke, who served on the Senate of the Parliament of Northern Ireland many years ago. It would be impossible for anyone to read, as I have done, the chronology of events as presented by Mrs Bland without a deep sense of unease. Although the events that are detailed took place exclusively in other jurisdictions, the Assembly has been asked to lend its support to the family’s search for justice. For almost three decades, Mrs Bland and her children have constantly sought redress through the Irish legal system for a set of grievances, thus far without anything that could reasonably be described as success. The file that she has painstakingly prepared on the case raises many concerns regarding the part that has been played by some in the Irish legal system. The family’s troubles began in September 1979, when Mrs Bland sought legal advice in an effort to save her husband from suicide. That led to a series of events that, at first sight, look stranger than fiction but are nevertheless supported by well-presented documentary evidence. Mrs Bland and her children state that, because of the unwillingness of the Irish legal system to act properly, they have endured physical, mental and sexual abuse, financial ruin, and were for a time exiled to Canada by an Irish judge, who realised — too late — that Sarah had been sexually abused for two years on foot of court orders. From a powerless position, Mrs Bland and her children have watched the dissolution and dispersal of family assets, including land, property and the contents of the primary family home, Rath House in County Laois. Those contents included antique furniture, works of art in oils and watercolours by a variety of Dutch and other European masters, crystal, silver, Chinese porcelain and a library of approximately 10,000 leather-bound books that was considered so important that the Irish Government once requested its donation as a national treasure. In addition, there were personal items belonging to Henry Grattan that linked the Bland family to four saints, among them Sir Thomas More and Oliver Plunkett. All that represents a capital loss to the Bland family of €17 million. The family also seeks damages of €4 million each for Mrs Bland and her daughter Sarah, and a further €2 million each for James and Julia Bland. Those are not small amounts of money, but Mrs Bland’s documentation of the case is well presented. The time factor is all important, as 27 years of such a massive miscarriage of justice have passed while the Irish state has denied any misdoing. Many years ago, a leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who was also a highly regarded legal figure, was involved in the George Archer-Shee case, in which a cadet was dismissed from a naval college for allegedly stealing a small-denomination postal order. It was reported that, at a vital stage in the proceedings, Sir Edward Carson passed a note to his legal opponents that simply stated: “Let justice be done.” Surely we, in this Chamber, could make no stronger demand of those in a position to progress the case than to say to the Irish Government: “Let justice be done.” As Sir Reg is now in the House, he may wish to second the motion. Sir Reg Empey: I formally second the motion. Mr A Maginness: Any injustice to any person in any jurisdiction is a matter of grave concern. The case of the Bland family raises several questions about how it was treated by its legal representation and how the courts in the Irish Republic considered its case, and it is right and proper to raise such questions. It would be appropriate for Members to meet the Justice Minister in the Republic, Mr Lenihan, to discuss the case. My understanding is that the Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality, and Law Reform ordered the DPP to investigate complaints raised by the family. The result of that investigation was that nothing untoward was found in the way that the criminal complaint was handled, and no evidence of discrimination or anything of that nature was unearthed. However, having said that, such a serious matter should be vigorously pursued, and any element of doubt should be eliminated. The previous debate on the case indicates that there were suggestions of some kind of conspiracy by the judicial authorities and solicitors who acted wrongly on behalf of the family, or the father of the family. Any such impropriety must be fully investigated. If the Bland family considers the original investigation to be inadequate, a further investigation should be carried out to remove the suspicion of conspiracy by any judicial authority in the South, solicitors or state authorities, including the DPP and the police. Again, reading about the case shows that the family was ill served on occasions by its legal representation. Initially Mrs Bland asked a firm of solicitors to represent the family, as opposed to individual family members, and perhaps that was the genesis of a conflict of interest. I support the examination of certain matters relating to the case. I hope that Members will pursue such an examination with the Justice Department in Dublin as a matter of urgency, and should they gain no satisfaction, perhaps the family can take legal action in the courts in the South. However, I stress that the judiciary in the Republic is totally separate from Government. It is an independent judiciary that acts under the law of the land and the Constitution. The Constitution is an effective safeguard for any citizen. If the matter were to come before the courts again, in whatever form, one would hope that they would consider it seriously and vigorously examine and scrutinise what has happened in the past. Dr Farry: I, too, support the motion, and I thank its proposers for bringing it to the House’s attention. This is a truly dreadful situation for the Bland family, particularly for the children. There appears to have been a systematic failure across the board to deal with the situation effectively, and that failure extends throughout the system. The statutory agencies; the police, through their investigation; the legal system, which did not regulate solicitors effectively; and the political and judicial systems in the Republic of Ireland have all failed the Bland family. The proposer of the motion has set out well the history of the case, but some points must be stressed. First, this debate should not necessarily be seen as an attack on the Republic of Ireland. Such situations can arise in almost every jurisdiction. In the UK in recent years, there have been miscarriages of justice, failures of the justice system to take effective action on serious cases, and failures of statutory agencies and the police to deal with sex offenders and instances of domestic violence. Therefore, the Republic of Ireland is not alone in this situation. Nevertheless, it is imperative that it addresses the failures that have been identified in its system. It is important that lessons be learned from what has happened and that any prospect of justice, even at this late stage, be pursued to the maximum. As we all know, justice delayed is justice denied. That seems very much to be the case with the Bland family. I fully support the mood of the House, which seems to be that we send a copy of today’s Official Report to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Republic of Ireland, in order that that they might read MLAs’ views. I am also keen that our Ministers raise the issue at the North/South Ministerial Council. Although it is unusual for individual cases to be discussed in any legislature, there are sometimes extreme cases in which it falls to legislators to discuss matters that should be dealt with at an operational level. When legislators discuss such matters, it indicates serious concerns about what has happened at an operational level. It is unusual for a legislature in one jurisdiction to refer to the justice system in another jurisdiction, but this is an extreme case in which justice has not been delivered effectively. The Government of the Republic of Ireland have taken an interest in some cases in our jurisdiction; therefore, it is reasonable that we voice our concerns about what is happening down there. This debate must serve as a clarion call to explore whether Northern Ireland has sufficiently robust procedures in place to prevent a similar situation arising. In recent years, our criminal justice system has undergone major reforms, which have been generally welcomed. Nevertheless, it is useful to have an ongoing monitoring process to ensure that we have the systems in place to deal with such cases. The Department of Finance and Personnel recently concluded a consultation on the regulation of legal services. There are lessons to be learned from what happened with sister firms in the South of Ireland. It would be useful to reconfirm that systems are in place to prevent the conflicts of interest that arose in the case of the Bland family. There is no doubt that that is the case, though the system in Northern Ireland is still effectively self-regulatory. 1.30 pm This issue is much wider than criminal justice: it includes how we deal with sex offenders in society and how we approach domestic violence — a subject that the House considered in a debate in June. The issue needs to be set within the context of the wider issues that we need to consider in Northern Ireland, while putting pressure on our colleagues in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that their systems are fully robust. The Alliance Party supports the motion. Mr Paisley Jnr: I congratulate the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Donaldson and the Member for East Belfast Sir Reg Empey for getting this matter on the Order Paper. This is the second time that the Assembly has debated the issue, the first time being during a previous mandate. That indicates how serious this House and Members continue to regard this gross miscarriage of justice to the Bland family. It has been said, rightly, that a country can be judged by how well it treats its most vulnerable. The way in which the Republic of Ireland has dealt with this case has set a poor standard. If people were passing judgement on how that country treated a vulnerable woman and her vulnerable children, they would find the standard to be far too low, and that all the effective safeguards supposed to be in place to protect citizens, quite frankly, failed this family miserably. A miscarriage of justice is possibly the most pernicious insult to a person’s character. How deep and awful must be the scar upon a family when someone has been wrongly treated, defamed by the courts of the land, abused verbally and in the press, and knows in his or her heart of hearts that they are nothing more than a victim. This House does well today to reflect on this miscarriage of justice — almost 28 years of passing a case from pillar to post. As a public representative, I know how frustrating it can be to deal with cases that have been delayed by months; but 28 years — almost a generation — of delay is unacceptable, and that is why this House ought to be saying most powerfully to its neighbour that it wants this matter resolved, not expeditiously, but now. We need to make that point very clearly. The Member for Belfast North Mr Alban Maginness made a very telling point when he asked whether there was anything else that the Assembly could do. We should take up that offer. I would be more than happy to join a cross-party delegation of Members representing this House and the Bland family to meet with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, or indeed the Taoiseach, to make it very clear how the House feels about this case and to drive home the need to have it resolved. The matter can go back to trial or it can be extended further; however, we need to see political will in the Republic to resolve the case. My colleague Jeffrey Donaldson quite rightly said that this matter has been passed from pillar to post. I have in my hand a massive manuscript containing letter upon letter, to Taoisigh, justice ministers and all sorts of officials in the Irish justice system. To pursue this case again through the courts would simply extend the pain that the Bland family has already suffered. Let us encourage the Republic of Ireland authorities to find the political will to resolve this issue. I do not know any other jurisdiction that could tolerate the fact that a neighbouring jurisdiction regularly debates a case of injustice and yet does not appear worried about getting it resolved. The Irish Government should be seeking a way to resolve this matter urgently and expeditiously. I met Judge Smithwick to discuss the case — and I am reminded of what the Member for North Belfast Alban Maginness said: there appears to have been an inadequate handling of the case — and during our conversation, that senior judge of the Republic of Ireland courts made it clear that he disagreed with the evidence in front of him. Members can rehash the case time and time again. However, if there is a simple disagreement, we must get the political will to solve the case and to find a way to get the Republic of Ireland’s Government to allow it to be addressed satisfactorily. I hope that the Assembly can do that. The Bland family have given me details of the horrific catalogue of abuse that was waged against Sarah Bland. I am prepared to place the DVD, numerous drawings and a report drawn up on behalf of the family by Professor Ivor Browne in the Assembly Library so that Members can study the abuse that this young woman faced and understand the necessity of having the case solved expeditiously. Sir Reg Empey: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak at such a late stage in the debate. I apologise to the proposer of the motion for not being present at the beginning of the debate. Dr Farry asked why the Assembly is looking at this case when the legal, and other, remedies are in another jurisdiction. On a number of occasions, the Irish Government have involved themselves in justice matters in this jurisdiction that they were sufficiently concerned about, including miscarriages of justice. Therefore, there is no reason why Members should feel any compunction about raising a matter about which they feel concerned. I support Alban Maginness’s suggestion — which was echoed by junior Minister Paisley — that a delegation of Members could meet with the Irish Republic’s Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, or the most appropriate official. This case involves a most unusual catalogue of events, and I appreciate that anyone who has not seen or studied the facts may find it difficult to comprehend. Virtually every issue of grave concern to our society, from legal protection to child abuse, appears in this case. The family have suffered for a prolonged period of, as junior Minister Paisley said, 28 years. That is a very long time. I am thankful for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate and commend the motion to the House. Mr Donaldson: I sincerely thank all my colleagues in the House who participated in the debate. I give a special word of appreciation to Sir Reg Empey the Member for East Belfast for his support for the motion and for coming back to the Chamber so quickly after a funeral — the House understood the reasons for his absence. I thank the Member for North Antrim Rev Dr Robert Coulter for delivering the remarks on behalf of his party leader. In her comments, the Member for West Belfast Ms Ramsey indicated her support for the motion and asked what follow-up there has been since the matter was debated in 2001. As I understand it, since that motion was passed by the Assembly, letters have been written to the Irish Government, and the matter has been raised at ministerial level with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Office. Therefore, there has been a follow-through, but, unfortunately, no progress has been made as a result of those representations. The Member also called for additional safeguards to protect children in the Republic, and I am sure that all Members would echo that sentiment. Rev Coulter spoke on behalf of Sir Reg Empey. He mentioned his support for the case — which we appreciate — and highlighted the injustices that have been dealt to the Bland family. He made particular mention of the family’s statement of claim, which, as he rightly said, is a valid statement that ought to be responded to by the Irish state authorities. The Member for North Belfast Alban Maginness suggested that a cross-party delegation meet the Irish Justice Minister, Mr Lenihan, to discuss the case, and my colleague junior Minister Paisley said that the DUP would be happy to support that meeting. Sir Reg Empey also gave his assent. Between all the parties, we will seek an appropriate way in which such a delegation can be arranged to meet the Irish Justice Minister and representatives of the Bland family. That meeting would be timely and, I hope, productive. Mr Maginness also emphasised the separation of powers between the judiciary and the Government in the Republic of Ireland, and we appreciate and respect that. Nevertheless, the injustices that have been visited upon the Bland family carry political implications, to which the Irish Government ought — and need — to respond. I hope that a meeting with the Irish Justice Minister will help to expedite that response in due course. Dr Stephen Farry, the Alliance Party Member for North Down, offered his party’s support for a cross-party delegation to meet the Irish Justice Minister, and we appreciate that. He also stated that the motion should not been seen as an attack on the Republic of Ireland, and I — having moved the motion — can confirm that it is in no way an attack on the Irish state. Dr Farry rightly said that there are cases of injustice in our own country, and it is right and proper that we criticise those — just as it is appropriate to criticise the injustice against the Bland family. He also said that justice delayed is justice denied. That is an appropriate way of describing how the Bland family feel about their situation. The junior Minister Mr Paisley Jnr also contributed to the debate. On behalf of the Bland family, I acknowledge the long-term support that the junior Minister and his father, the First Minister, have given to them over the years. They have raised the issue persistently in meetings at political level and — as my colleague said — with representatives of the Irish judiciary in their search for justice for the Bland family. The family appreciates Mr Paisley Jnr’s commitment to the case. He rightly said that political will was needed to solve this problem and that it was not a matter solely for the courts. He is right; and I hope that following this motion — provided that it is supported by the House — we can apply further pressure to ensure that that political will is exercised soon, because the ongoing delay is unacceptable. The Bland family are entitled to some form of justice now, despite the lateness of the day. The junior Minister stated that he has material — of which I have also had sight — that he will place in the Assembly Library in order that Members can consult it if they wish. There is much detail associated with the case, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the purpose of today’s debate is to go through in precise detail what has happened and the injustices that have occurred. However, I want to reiterate two examples of the injustices that have arisen in the Bland case — and they are only two of a number of injustices. First, as a result of Irish court orders, Sarah, as a young child, was placed in the care of her father, and was subjected to ongoing assaults, including rape. That must be addressed by the Irish state. 1.45 pm The second injustice is that, over a lengthy period, Patricia Bland was subject to her husband’s ongoing legal proceedings. Those proceedings damaged her health, undermined her role as a mother, and kept unacceptable pressure on the family. That all happened when the solicitors acting for Mr Bland were claiming to the revenue commissioners in the Irish Republic that he: “is not capable of taking business decisions”. They also claimed: “Because of his state of mind my client does not recall receiving any Notices to Appeal”, etc, etc, etc. Despite knowing that this man was not of a sound mind, and despite making that case to the Irish Revenue Commissioners, those solicitors continued to sue Mrs Bland on behalf of their client. That brought enormous pressure to bear on the family, and it is another example of how the family has been subjected to injustice and unfair treatment. I believe that it is right to debate the matter today. It is right that the Assembly, if minded, reiterates its support for the Bland family. We ask only that the family be given proper consideration. The Irish state, whether that means the political system, including the Government as a whole, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of the Taoiseach, or whether it means the Irish judicial system and the courts, must address themselves to the issues at hand and to the outstanding and unresolved matters. The Irish state must do so quickly in order that the Bland family can take away some sense of justice from the whole sorry affair. The motion states that justice must be done and that it is “seen to be done.” The sooner that that happens the better. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with deep concern the failure of the Irish Government and Irish Courts to provide justice for Patricia, Sarah, James and Julia Bland, in light of the evidence presented by the family concerning the alleged crimes committed against them by Rory Bland; and calls on the Irish Prime Minister and Minister for Justice to give this case priority attention, so that justice is done and is seen to be done. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair) Closure of the Seagate Operation in Limavady Mr Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been received and is published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech. Mr McLaughlin: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses concern at the impact on the economy, particularly in the north-west, of the closure of the Seagate operation in Limavady, with the loss of 900 jobs; and calls on the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to work with the Minister for Employment and Learning to agree a co-ordinated strategy to assist Seagate workers back into employment. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sinn Féin accepts the amendment that the party opposite has tabled; it usefully updates the situation in light of the subsequent announcement of even more job losses in the area. The announced closure of Seagate Technology in Limavady, with the loss of 930 jobs, was a devastating blow to the local economy. It was the most severe in a series of job losses that has been announced in the Limavady area, and, quite literally, it has brought that subregion to its knees economically. The affected workforce is drawn from a wide area that encompasses Derry, Antrim, Tyrone and Donegal. The closure will have an impact on the Limavady and Coleraine areas in particular. However, the crisis will have a detrimental economic effect on all the areas that I mentioned. That means that it is imperative that all parties in the Assembly co-operate fully with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and Invest NI and, if possible, with enterprise agencies across the border to repair the economic damage that will be done to the north-west economy. It would be easy to be critical of the company or of the various statutory agencies. However, at this juncture, raking over the coals of what could have been done to prevent the Seagate closure would serve no positive purpose. Invest NI could tell us when it first became aware of Seagate’s intention to close the plant; what steps it took to prevent that or to attract other investors; and what it can do to recover as much grant aid as possible. However, important as those issues are, they are for discussion on another day. Lessons can be learnt from this experience. As the downturn in major economies continues, competition will increase and multinational companies will come under significant stockholder pressure to maximise profits by moving operations to emerging, low-wage economies. Therefore, it is time for us to radically rethink how we plan to develop our economy. We should address the issue of proper employment conditions and security of entitlements for workers — an issue that exercises all parties. Companies, particularly those in receipt of substantial Government or departmental subventions, must adhere to the basic human and financial rights of workers, including the right to organise. No company should be encouraged to locate in our economy or be eligible for grant aid if it insists on a non-unionised workforce. In addition, the Assembly must address the wider issue of the recruitment of so-called “agency” workers who are being employed on one-year contracts as a way of circumventing local employment legislation. If we are to compete for sustainable, inward, direct investment and expand our indigenous manufacturing sector, we must equip ourselves and our workforce with skills and expertise in higher-knowledge-based disciplines. We must target investors who specialise in those areas, and we must invest in the future by enabling young people to focus on achieving qualifications in areas such as engineering, research and development, intelligent design and medical research. I welcome the fact that that focus has been reflected in the recent Programme for Government statement, in ISNI, and in wider Budget discussions. Such disciplines and skills will attract employment from the higher end of the economic spectrum, which is an area of intense competition — not least between this region and similar economic regions on this island. That is a key area in which we must record progress and display an increasing ability to compete for investments. Locally generated employment tends to be less susceptible to competition from low-wage economies and provides a sustainable basis for future planning. However, if the indigenous sector, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, is to compete, we must ensure that the wider economy provides benefits and opportunities — particularly from procurement policies that will give those enterprises access to Government contracts. In the Seagate factory in Limavady, we have a skilled workforce that is housed in one of the most modern manufacturing plants in the North. The facilities are of the highest specifications, including the water treatment plant. In meetings with the workforce, I discovered that if that water treatment plant is mothballed, it will not be capable of being recommissioned — it will have to be replaced or scrapped. The factory is built to high specifications, with a 1-metre-deep anti-vibration floor that is essential for modern production processes. It has a fully-equipped office suite with 100% broadband connectivity, a canteen that can cater for more than 1,000 workers, and two massive car parks. This is an unusual set of circumstances. I invite the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to state how we might deal with the projected Seagate closure rather than issuing a terse two-line statement to the effect that the company has withdrawn. We have some notice — a gap — in which an opportunity exists to match the skills of the still-intact workforce, combined with high-specification factory accommodation, with a suitable inward investor. My approach to this crisis will be non-confrontational, but the situation presents a challenge to Invest NI. Given that an important investment conference is scheduled to take place a month before Seagate’s projected closure date, in the meantime, can Invest NI match the facilities and the workforce to an inward investor to ensure continuous employment? All Members should co-operate and support Invest NI, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and other Departments, if current employees need to be reskilled or upskilled. All parties must co-operate in order to demonstrate that not only can we deal with this crisis — which is not of our making — but that we can realistically address our targets for the generation of new jobs and the expansion of the economy. This crisis presents a challenge for all parties in the Assembly, all MLAs and all Departments to co-operate and to work with DETI and Invest NI to show that a local Assembly can respond differently to the way that it did in the past when job losses were announced. Go raibh míle maith agat. Mr Campbell: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “loss” and insert “of 1,000 jobs; and calls on Invest NI to outline the measures it intends to implement to deal with a series of actual and potential job losses in the north-west.” I am glad that the amendment has been accepted. There was some uncertainty about the number of jobs being lost. Seagate employs 930 people, but, on further investigation and after several meetings with the management of Seagate in Limavady, it transpires that two other companies directly employ more than 80 people who will also lose their jobs. That takes the total number of jobs being lost to more than 1,000. I hope that Members across the Assembly agree that the sequence of events is unprecedented, and the motion and the amendment seek to outline the measures that Invest NI must establish. The largest employer in the Limavady area announces its closure; the second-largest employer — Magilligan Prison — is at risk; and there have been other announcements, including the closure of HÜCO Lightronic NI Ltd over the weekend. Limavady has a population of some 30,000, and Belfast has a population of 300,000, which is 10 times that of Limavady. If there were a series of job loss announcements, and the potential threat of closure from a significant employer, in the Belfast area, the pro rata number of job losses would be approximately 12,000 to 13,000. If that were to happen in the Belfast area, “crisis” is not the word that would be used, and the situation would merit urgent action by all the statutory authorities. However, that is an indication of the magnitude of the series of blows that has hit the Limavady area. As has been pointed out, the crisis has spread, because Seagate is a regional employer that employs people from Coleraine, Londonderry and the Irish Republic in high-value jobs. Employees feel that Seagate has offered a reasonably helpful redundancy package. That is good progress, but it is not enough. Some 1,200 to 1,300 people will be looking for life after Seagate and H. We must ensure that Paul Goggins, the Minister of State with responsibility for prisons, takes the right decision and retains Magilligan Prison, thus preventing a further 350 job holders from being added to the lengthening dole queues in Limavady. I understand that that decision is due in the next month or so. I am sure that the NIO follows proceedings diligently, so I hope that, when Mr Goggins reads Hansard, he will take into account the effect that further job losses would have on the area. 2.00 pm We must ensure that that series of events is addressed. Unfortunately, in the past, I have had cause to be critical of Invest Northern Ireland. I refer to a response, which has proven to be ironic, that I received from the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Barry Gardiner to a question for written answer in the House of Commons. In April 2004, I asked: “how many visits have been made under the auspices of Invest Northern Ireland by potential inward investors to the East Londonderry constituency within the past 12 months; and how many jobs have been created as a result.” His response, on 28 April 2004, was that, from April 2003 to March 2004, there had been two visits — to the entire constituency, that is, not to Limavady. Mr Gardiner’s written answer continued: “While these have not led to investment to the area, Invest NI continually seeks to build on the recent successes, which has seen a re-investment by Seagate Limavady”. I am sure that the irony will not be lost on the people of Limavady. Earlier this year, I asked the then Under-Secretary of State Maria Eagle, also in a question for written answer: “how many potential inward investors have been to (a) Limavady and (b) Coleraine council area at the invitation of Invest Northern Ireland during 2006.” Her answer, on 19 February 2007, was straightforward. She did not avoid the question but answered it deliberately and specifically. She wrote: “During 2006 there were no visits under the auspices of Invest Northern Ireland to Limavady and Coleraine council areas by potential inward investors.” We begin to see the nature of the problem, and I hope that the Minister will deal with it. He has made endeavours and efforts since taking office; however, Invest NI must be seen to produce the goods. It must respond, so that people see tangible, effective results on the ground. I assume that that is the reason behind the motion. It is certainly the reason behind the amendment. The Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Mr Durkan): First, on behalf of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I acknowledge the Minister’s prompt attendance at the meeting on 6 November to brief Committee members on developments. I was in the United States, so the meeting was chaired by the Deputy Chairperson, Paul Maskey. On that occasion, the Committee shared the Minister’s regret and huge disappointment at the impending closure of Seagate Technology in Limavady, with the loss of more than 900 jobs, and the consequential impact that that will have on other firms. Since then, further job losses in Limavady have been announced. The Committee was happy to receive assurances that the Department will do all that it can, in conjunction with its own and other agencies and with other Departments, to provide support mechanisms for Seagate employees. The Committee took note of Members’ concerns by writing to the Minister, urging him to consider support for agency workers. Mitchel McLaughlin mentioned that point in proposing the motion. Moreover, Members wanted the needs of migrant workers who will be affected by the closure to be taken into account. At that same meeting, the Committee heard from the Roe Valley Chamber of Trade and Commerce, which highlighted the urgent need to find a replacement for Seagate in Limavady. The direct impact that the closure will have on other firms was mentioned, as was the indirect impact on the wider economy. Members have recognised that the closure affects not only those who live in the East Derry constituency but those in Foyle, West Tyrone and, in a couple of instances, North Antrim. Taking account of the impact that the closure will have on local suppliers and retailers and the local housing market, the Committee shares the concern of the Chamber about the overall economic impact on Limavady and the wider north-west. Of course, that has been further compounded by the decision in respect of HÜCO in the last week. Proposing the motion, Mitchel McLaughlin rightly said that this is not a problem that we should dump on each other’s laps, whether as Ministers, Departments, agencies or parties. In asking the Minister to consider what measures are necessary to lessen the impact on the local economy and to seek further investment for the Limavady area, the Committee has a view to being as supportive as possible of all the local efforts and those of the Minister and his agencies. As has already been said, we are conscious that the US/NI (United States/Northern Ireland) investment conference might afford a timely opportunity to seek potential investors for the area. We know that there is a quality workforce. Their performance and productivity did not contribute to this decision, which was made on the basis of cost margins that the workforce could not control. On the basis of the quality workforce and the quality estate available at the Seagate plant in Limavady, it seems that a featured and focused sell would be particularly appropriate in the context of the US/NI investment conference. I do not think that anyone would take that focus as being untoward or in any way discriminatory against the interests of anyone else. It would be an honest and genuine response to a dire situation. The Committee also welcomes the stated intention of the Department to pursue clawback consistent with the contractual arrangements. The issue highlights once again the need, not just for an active concentration in pursuing FDI (foreign direct investment) that gives us employment scale, but also to make sure that the role of Invest NI in helping indigenous small business start-ups to expand is further reinforced. That has been brought into sharp relief by the scale of the impact of the Seagate announcement. We will be using the US/NI conference, I hope, to try to address the issue of FDI. The Committee will be at pains in the coming weeks to ensure that the focus on indigenous enterprises is not lost either. Mr Cree: I sympathise with all those in the Limavady area and further afield who will lose their jobs as a result of Seagate’s closing its plant at Limavady. We are told that this action was necessary as a result of significantly lower wage costs in Asia, foreign exchange and shipping costs. We have heard that many times; it is a problem that will be with us for some time to come. It is disappointing to lose these high-tech jobs. The situation clearly illustrates the need to increase our efforts to attract new, high-value-added jobs. That has already been referred to, and is anticipated in the draft Programme for Government and the investment strategy. We need to obtain new jobs quickly in order to alleviate the situation in the north-west. It may be that Invest NI should review its strategy on FDI to ensure that, as far as practicable, publicly-funded jobs are protected, bearing in mind our experience with Seagate. The Chairman of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee referred to the Minister’s visit to the Committee, when a useful exchange occurred. I will not cover the ground again, except to say that everyone agreed the need for action. The Ulster Unionists will be supporting the motion as amended. Mr Neeson: I welcome the debate. It is now some weeks since the announcement was made, but the urgency of dealing with the matter remains. I understand how the people of Limavady are feeling. In the early 1980s, Carrickfergus, my hometown, suffered a major setback when three major factories closed within a short time, with the loss of some 8,000 jobs. Importantly, when those factories closed, the local council was prepared to take the initiative. Realising that it was important to do something, it adopted a multi-agency approach. The situation did not change overnight, and it took some time to restore people’s confidence in the Carrickfergus economy. What worries me about the situation in Limavady is that people could lose confidence in the future. That must not happen, because it is important that people have that confidence. We live in a global economy, and we are all aware of the issues associated with our doing so, some of which Mr Cree has already mentioned. However, Invest Northern Ireland must provide safeguards that reduce global companies’ opportunities to pull out on a whim, which is what is happening in Limavady. We all know that the economy’s development is not the sole responsibility of a single Department but must involve others, such as DEL (Department for Employment and Learning) and DOE (Department of Environment). I propose to the Minister that Invest Northern Ireland try to investigate other uses of the Seagate factory site when it is vacated. That is what we did in Carrickfergus way back in the 1980s. The relevant Departments and the workforce must also remain focused on the issue at hand. Finally, I suggest to the Minister that he set up a Seagate foundation, similar to the Enkalon Foundation that was set up in Antrim a number of years ago. The establishment of a foundation would help to ease the problems that the pull-out creates. As I have said, I welcome the debate, from which I hope something positive will emerge. Mr McQuillan: In recent years, I have become increasingly frustrated as I watch more and more jobs disappear from East Londonderry. The loss of the Seagate operation is on a scale of unimaginably damaging proportions. Seagate is the largest employer in the area, and its loss is creating an employment and economic problem that must be addressed with the utmost urgency. The loss of that one employer could do more economic damage to the area than 35 years of terrorism did. It could force the leisure and retail sectors into a crisis that would undoubtedly lead to more job losses and economic deprivation. I fully recognise and accept that other areas of Northern Ireland will also feel the impact of Seagate’s withdrawal, but East Londonderry will bear the brunt of the economic damage. Some perceive Invest Northern Ireland as being focused on creating jobs in Belfast. Indeed, it is often referred to in East Londonderry as “Invest Belfast”. That trend must be stopped, unless the most northerly part of Northern Ireland is to become an employment and economic wasteland. That is an outcome that my party colleagues and I will not accept and will work tirelessly to prevent. Therefore, it must become a priority for Invest Northern Ireland to put together a package that aims to make East Londonderry its number one concern for investment. As rural employment shrank and the countryside became a dormitory area for the towns, the more rural areas of my constituency — for example, Garvagh, Kilrea and Dungiven — were always glad of the employment opportunities that factories such as Seagate provided. Invest Northern Ireland (INI) must therefore take a long, hard look at supporting businesses in rural areas as well as in the main population centres, and that support must form an integral part of any strategy that is devised and pursued. 2.15 pm Like my colleagues, I am grateful to the First Minister and to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for taking the time to visit the plant in person to talk to management, staff and local representatives. That alone reassured many that the oncoming economic storm was being treated as a matter of urgency at the very highest level of Government. I am confident that the Executive understand the gravity of the coming problems and will make every effort on behalf of the East Londonderry constituency. I am happy to support the call for the rebuilding of Magilligan Prison at its current location. If the Westminster Government permit the closure of what will be the area’s largest employer after Seagate’s departure, I, for one, will roundly condemn them as loudly and as publicly as I can. Our MP, Mr Campbell, has raised the issue many times at Westminster, and I am sure that he will continue his efforts with renewed vigour in the light of recent events. In his reply to Mr Campbell at Westminster, Paul Goggins stated that the issue of the location of the new policing college was closed, as a site had been identified. I ask the Executive and our MPs to ensure that the case for locating the college at the former Shackleton Barracks, for example, be reopened and emphasised in the strongest possible way to the appropriate Ministers in London. An excellent case can be made for the protection and enhancement of employment opportunities for all East Londonderry residents — regardless of their religious or political beliefs. I support the amendment. Mr McCartney: Éirím le tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún agus don leasú. I support the motion and the amendment. All of us who live in the north-west are only too aware of the impact that losing 900 jobs in Seagate will have on the region. As has been stated, Seagate is the largest employer in Limavady, and it is estimated that up to 450 workers come from the Foyle constituency. The closure will have a knock-on effect for north and west Tyrone, County Donegal and, as Mark Durkan pointed out, north Antrim, so the impact on the economy is obvious. There is a focus — indeed, an expectation — on the Assembly, the Executive and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to deal with the matter in the coming months. Therefore I welcome the Minister’s presence this afternoon. I commend Mitchel McLaughlin’s suggestion that INI and the Department should prioritise matching the skills of the workers with the needs of corresponding companies; that option should be explored fully. I have no doubt that the Minister will consider that suggestion, and I hope that he will report to the Assembly in the weeks and months ahead. We must avoid letting the workforce break up in the meantime. When the redundancy package is in place, people might not wait to see what happens, and if the signal is not sent that the intention is to match skills with suitable companies, the workers might vote with their feet. The Assembly, the Executive and the relevant Ministers should follow every possible avenue to ensure that, in future, the impact of a firm’s closure on an area should not be dictated by the firm alone. Members should reflect on the example of Molins in Derry several years ago, where the workers took the initiative. They were faced with the inevitability of the firm’s closure, but they showed that there was another way. They used their skills to set up a new company and acted as a supplier to Molins, which was leaving the area. It is important to note that the company responded by gifting the factory to the workers and providing funding. I understand that Seagate owns the machinery and the building, and the Minister should investigate what will happen to them in the weeks ahead. The appropriate Department at that time also provided funding and the workers bought into the company. The new company was a success; not only did it supply its parent company, Molins, but it diversified and supplied other companies. The workers demonstrated in the clearest terms that closure is not inevitable. When I met representatives of Seagate recently in Derry, they said that they would take on board such a community renewal initiative. I hope that the Minister will also explore it when he talks to the company and INI. We should send a signal that the Assembly, the Executive and the Department do not see redundancies as inevitable and that if anything can be done to avoid them, they will do it. Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr T Clarke: I support the amendment. Not only during this debate, but in conversation, I have listened to the comments of my colleagues Gregory Campbell and Adrian McQuillan, who represent the area that is affected by the closure of Seagate Technology. The only way that I can comprehend the economic damage that will result from the forthcoming closure is if I compare it to a similar, hypothetical situation in my own constituency. For example, if a firm such as the Camden Group in Antrim, which has a workforce of over 1000, were to close, there would be immense damage to the local economy. Therefore, my views on the economic damage that such a scenario would create in South Antrim are based on that hypothetical situation. Given that another firm that is in the same locality as Seagate Technology announced its closure, there is a real and immediate need for Invest NI to develop and implement an economic-regeneration plan for East Londonderry, which is suffering most as a result of the closures. I share the worries about the future that the Members who moved the amendment expressed. It is only through the co-operation of Invest NI that a manufacturing base can be re-established and the economic future safeguarded. I urge the Assembly to support the amendment and to show the people of East Londonderry that we, as Members of their Assembly, recognise their plight and that we are determined to assist in every possible way. People in any area who are suffering as a result of such a devastating blow would expect their Government to seek solutions to the problems that that created. Those solutions must come via a body such as Invest NI, and they deserve the support of all Assembly Members. I was stunned to hear of the negative and politically based opposition in Limavady Borough Council to the positive approach that is employment protection and creation. However, I am glad to hear that the Members opposite have adopted a different stance to that of their colleagues on Limavady Borough Council: perhaps the decision-making of the councillors in Limavady was coloured by the fact that DUP Ministers, MLAs and councillors took the lead when the closure of Seagate Technology was announced. It is blatantly obvious to everyone that the area has many positive points to interest employers. The strategy for future economic investment in the area must be based firmly on those positives. I support every effort to bring investment and employment to Northern Ireland. Furthermore, I share the views of my colleagues that the race, colour, class or creed of any employer or employee is of no importance whatever. The most important factor is that employment is available in every area — there should be no ifs, buts or maybes about that. The DUP has demonstrated its wish to work for the benefit of all Northern Ireland’s people, and it has exposed the hypocritical political stance of others. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment. Mr McClarty: I support the amendment. The afternoon of 29 October 2007, when the employees at Seagate Technology’s Limavady plant were informed that they were about to lose their jobs, was a black day for Limavady and for the Northern Ireland economy. Once again, Northern Ireland has lost jobs as a result of the significantly lower wages and shipping costs that exist in competing Asian countries. The impact of the Seagate Technology job losses not only had a shocking and distressing affect on its workers, but it had a seriously negative impact on the entire community in Limavady. The news was truly devastating for Northern Ireland’s economic ambitions, and it has led to considerable concern about the economic future of Limavady and the surrounding north-west region. Unfortunately, the news got worse for an already beleaguered Limavady community when HÜCO Lightronic NI Ltd, an electronics firm, announced that it will close in January 2008, with the loss of a further 70 jobs. That closure brought the total number of manufacturing jobs lost within weeks in Limavady to a staggering 1000. That should be deeply worrying for the Assembly and the new Executive. I want to put on record my firm belief that the Seagate Technology job losses were in no way a reflection of its employees, who are fantastically skilled, motivated and inventive. In 2002, Seagate Technology’s Limavady plant was the recipient of two awards: the company’s media substrate operation was awarded the internationally recognised Mark of Excellence for quality management, and, in a separate scheme, it was granted the Business in the Community Award for Social Responsibility. Therefore, it is evident how big a shock it was to learn that 930 jobs were being lost at a firm that employed some of the UK’s most skilled and talented workers in their field. The economic consequences for Limavady and the north-west continue to be of serious concern. It is estimated that unemployment could double in the area. Furthermore, it is also reported that the latest redundancies could mean that an estimated £4 million to £5 million per annum will no longer be spent in the Limavady area. In the ‘Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2005’, Limavady was ranked as the sixth most deprived council area in Northern Ireland: Londonderry was ranked third. The closure will have a further negative impact on those economically deprived areas. The north-west has experienced considerable job losses in the past few years, namely, the closure of the Desmond & Sons Ltd factory at Dungiven, the Daintyfit Foundation Wear Company at Limavady, FarmFed Chickens Ltd in Coleraine and the ongoing threat of public-sector job losses in the area. That paints a very bleak picture. What governmental response is needed? The work of assisting the Seagate workforce to re-engage with the labour market — having regard for their skill profile and geographical location — is already under way. That is extremely important. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, along with Invest NI and the Department for Employment and Learning must work diligently to find alternative employment for the Seagate employees who want to remain economically active. Those workers are extremely talented and must be given every opportunity to avail of retraining and educational programmes to enable them to remain in employment. I would welcome a progress report from the Minister on that. Furthermore, I would be interested to learn from the Minister what progress he is making, even at this early stage, in achieving potential replacements for the Seagate factory in the near future. I would also be grateful if the Minister would inform the House whether, as a result of the Seagate job losses, there were any renewed plans to promote the north-west of Northern Ireland as a prime location at the investment conference to be hosted by the Executive in the spring of next year. The Executive and the Assembly must act now so that we can offer hope and economic prosperity for this already beleaguered and fraught community. I support the motion and the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker: Question time will begin at 2.30 pm, so Members may take their ease for a few moments. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) 2.30 pm Education Binge Drinking/Illicit Drug Use 1. Mr McCarthy asked the Minister of Education to detail the role that her Department will play in developing and expanding programmes to educate young people on the dangers of binge drinking and illicit drug use. (AQO 856/08) The Minister of Education (Ms Ruane): Go raibh maith agat. I recognise the dangers facing young people and, indeed, adults from binge drinking and illicit drug use. Schools have a role in addressing those issues, but they cannot provide an answer on their own. I hope that every person who is in a position to influence young people will do their best to avoid such danger. I am impressed by the work that schools do in that area. Last week, I saw another example of that at a prize-giving in Armagh, at which the principal gave a very strong message to the young boys and girls not to drink and drive. I am committed to ensuring that everything that we do for education and youth promotes the well-being of our young people, as well as their academic achievement. Alcohol and drugs are difficult challenges facing everyone, which require the support of families, schools, youth and community groups as well as other key voluntary and statutory agencies — for example, in the area of health. My Department has a range of policies to help to educate young people about the risks associated with drug and alcohol misuse, including a requirement for all schools to have a drugs policy, which must include a focus on alcohol. We have issued drugs misuse guidance to all schools as part of drugs and alcohol education. Additionally, the revised curriculum is designed in a way that will give every young person an opportunity to learn about the dangers of binge drinking. It will also help them to develop the skills that they need to deal with peer pressure, and an understanding of the problems that may lead them to drugs and alcohol in the first place. Those interventions are supported and complemented through each school’s pastoral care arrangements, including the new counselling service, which is proving to be successful, with 95% of post-primary schools availing of it. The eight schools that do not use our counselling service already have existing counselling provision in place. Outside school, the youth and community sector has a number of programmes in place that target those most at risk of drugs and alcohol misuse to help them to make healthy choices. Mr McCarthy: Will the Minister explain why that serious subject is covered by the public service agree& |