Northern Ireland Assembly Tuesday 11 December 2007 Ministerial Statement: Executive Committee Business: Private Members’ Business: Ministerial Statement: Adjournment: The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClarty] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes’ silence. Mr Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform Members that there will be no lunchtime suspension of today’s sitting because the Business Committee is not scheduled to meet. North/South Ministerial Council — Educational Format Mr Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that she wishes to make a statement on the recent North/South Ministerial Council meeting in education sectoral format. The Minister of Education (Ms Ruane): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is mian liom an tuarascáil seo a leanas a dhéanamh ar an chéad chruinniú de chuid na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas i bhformáid rannach oideachais ó cuireadh an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin agus an Tionol ar bun arís. D’aontaigh an tAire Edwin Poots MLA leis an tuarascáil seo. Tionóladh an cruinniú in óstlann St Helen’s Radisson SAS, Baile Átha Cliath ar 14 Samhain 2007. I wish to make a report on the first North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) meeting in education sectoral format since the restoration of the Executive and the Assembly. This report has been agreed with Edwin Poots MLA. The meeting was held at the Radisson SAS St Helen’s hotel in Dublin on Wednesday 14 November 2007. I represented the Executive as Minister of Education, along with Edwin Poots MLA, the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure. The Irish Government were represented by Mary Hanafin TD, Minister for Education and Science, who chaired the meeting. Déanfaidh mé achoimre ar na príomhphointí a tháinig aníos ag an chruinniú; cruinniú a dhírigh ar an réimse aontaithe i dtaca le comhoibriú Thuaidh/Theas san earnáil oideachais. I shall summarise the main points of the meeting, which concerned the agreed areas of North/South education co-operation. The Council welcomed progress in addressing educational underachievement, including successful initiatives to promote literacy and numeracy in schools. Officials were requested to develop proposals for consideration at the next North/South Ministerial Council meeting in education sectoral format. The ongoing co-operation in the area of school, youth and teacher exchanges was welcomed by the Council, and it was noted that a formal review of co-operation on education exchanges and supporting mechanisms, including the North/South Exchange Consortium, was shortly to commence, with a view to identifying a range of options for future progress in the light of current and future funding availability. Rinneadh plé ar shainriachtanais oideachais. Chuireamar fáilte fosta roimh thuarascáil ó phríomhfheidhmeannach agus ó chathaoirleach an ionaid barr feabhais um uathachas sa Bhaile Láir. Rinne an tuarascáil cuntas ginearálta ar an dul chun cinn suntasach a rinnedh go dtí seo ar ionad barr feabhais a bhunú sa Bhaile Láir agus ar na pleananna atá ann chun próiseas comhairliúcháin a dhéanamh le gach páirtí leasmhar lena gcur ar an eolas faoin dóigh a soláthrófar na seribhísí. Thacamar leis na pleananna don ionad sna todhchaí; pleananna a chuimsíonn soláthar seirbhísí oiliúna/comhairleoireachta agus seirbhísí eolais/taighde agus oideachais, agus seirbhísí foghlama agus tacaíochta atá réidh le tosú chomh luath agus a bheas an obair thógála críochnaithe. Ministers welcomed a report on the establishment of a centre of excellence for autism at Middletown. The chief executive and chairperson of the centre outlined the significant progress made to date, and informed the Council of a consultation exercise, involving all stakeholders, to determine how services would be delivered. The Council endorsed the centre’s future plans, which include training, advisory and information research services and education. Learning and support services will come on stream when building work is completed. The Council discussed proposals for a 2008 joint conference on autistic spectrum disorder, and welcomed the distribution of parent-teacher videos, CD-ROMs and guidance material on autism and dyslexia. Moreover, the Council discussed other joint projects in the field of special educational needs, including the cross-border school and parent community partnership programme, which was supported by the EU Peace and Reconciliation programme, and co-funded by both Departments of Education. The project began in September 2006 and will run until August 2008 and takes a cross-border schools-parents-community approach to the education and socialisation of children with special educational needs. Rinneadh plé ar cháilíochtaí agus aoisliúntas múinteoirí. Rinne an Chomhairle suntas den dul chun cinn atá déanta ag an ghrúpa oibre um cháilíochtaí múinteoirí agus go mbeidh na comhairlí teagaisc ag comhoibriú ar na saincheisteanna san am atá le teacht de réir mar is cuí. In respect of teacher qualifications and superannuation, the Council noted progress made to date by the teachers’ qualification working group, and that teaching councils will co-operate on the issues, as appropriate, in future. The Council recognised the significant changes to Irish language proficiency requirements for teaching posts, and that a specific professional development programme, funded by the Department of Education and Science, and developed in Marino College of Education, Dublin, has been introduced to address the needs of primary school teachers who take the scrúdú le haghaidh cáilíochta sa Ghaeilge, Irish proficiency examination. Ongoing co-operation between the inspectorates of both Education Departments in relation to sharing of best practice and research was welcomed by the Council. Furthermore, the Council acknowledged the outstanding contribution made by the Standing Conference on Teacher Education, North and South (SCoTENS), which provides support for all-island conferences; social, scientific and environmental education; initial teacher education; citizenship education; special educational needs; and for cross-border research projects. Faoi choimirce na hEagraíochta um Chomhar agus Fhorbairt Eacnamaíoch, reachtáil an dá Roinn Oideachais comhdháil de na tíortha rannpháirteacha i mBaile Átha Cliath ar 7 agus 8 Samhain 2007. De thairbhe na comhdhála, fobrófar comhthionscnaimh taighde, agus é mar aidhm aici ceannairí scoile a mhealladh agus a fhorbairt. Déanfar iniúchadh ar an tsainchesit a bhaineann le comhchláir ghairmiúla forbartha do ghrúpaí aontaithe. Under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development — the OECD — the two Education Departments hosted jointly a conference of participating countries in Dublin on 7 and 8 November 2007. As a result, a joint research initiative that is aimed at attracting and developing school leaders will be developed. Joint professional-development programmes for agreed groups will also be explored. The Council discussed the issues that relate to teacher superannuation, particularly the question of transferring superannuation entitlements between both jurisdictions. It noted the decision that the North/South Ministerial Council made at its meeting in institutional format in October 2007 that the Council’s joint secretariat will convene a working group of officials from relevant Departments, including Finance Departments, to consider the transfer of pension rights on a cross-border basis. That working group will report back to a future meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council. The Council also agreed that officials from the Department of Education (DE) and the Department of Education and Science will participate in that working group and will report back to the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in education sectoral format on issues that are relevant to the education sector. In closing, we agreed that the next meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in education sectoral format should take place in spring 2008. Go raibh maith agat. Mr S Wilson: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I make it clear that, where it can, my party is more than happy to learn from good practice in other countries. I notice that the Minister’s statement referred to successful initiatives that have been undertaken to address educational underachievement. During the past six months of the Minister’s term in office, the Northern Ireland Audit Office has published a report on the poor performance of the numeracy and literacy strategy; the Committee for Education has identified that of the 660 teachers that have been trained in reading recovery, only 160 are being used in schools; and unrealistic targets have been set for numeracy and literacy in the Programme for Government. Given those circumstances, can the Minister tell the House what successful initiatives she discussed with her counterparts in the Irish Republic? What good practices did she learn from the Department of Education and Science that could be applied to the serious problem of educational underachievement in Northern Ireland? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat as an cheist sin. I thank the Member for that question. Learning from other countries was useful, and the OECD conference was wonderful because we heard from people from Finland, Norway and other countries that have very good education systems. It is useful for us to learn from those systems, and that is why it was so helpful for Mary Hanafin and me to jointly chair and host the all-island conference for people from different parts of the world. The Member mentioned literacy and numeracy and educational underachievement. Those are key areas for my Department and for my counterparts in the South of Ireland. The Member will be delighted to know that yesterday evening, Conor Lenihan, who is the Minister of State with responsibility for integration policy in the Department of Education and Science and who liaises with different Departments, and I launched ‘A Toolkit for Diversity in the Primary School’. That toolkit will examine the issue of integration and deal with the special needs of newcomer children. We in the North need to examine that issue. I can certainly ensure that the Education Committee receives a copy of that very good pack. We can learn a great deal from the South, and the South can learn a great deal from us. The Member will know that in recent months, my Department has been reviewing the school-improvement policy and the literacy and numeracy strategy. We take very seriously the number of children who are being failed by our education system. That is why I announced last week that the last transfer tests will take place in 2008. At the moment we are failing 4,000 young people every year. In the debate later today on the transfer procedure, I will bring more figures to the Assembly. 10. 45 am It is essential that we get our strategies right; that we make sure that every school is a good school; that we deal with the tail of underachievement. We will learn from the South, and it can learn from us. We will also learn from countries that have non-selective systems. There is tremendous work being done in Finland, which tops the OECD league. I hope that the Chair of the Committee for Education reads carefully the report of that important OECD conference. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Deputy Speaker: I call Mr Paul Butler. Mr Butler: I do not have a question, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr K Robinson: It is interesting to note that the Sinn Féin representative is speechless this morning. Perhaps his notes have not arrived. I note this morning’s statement; however, I want reassurance that educational progress rather than political positioning is the driving force behind the Northern Ireland Minister’s focus in that recent meeting in the South. I notice also that there is no mention of the pre-school sector in the statement. Since she has introduced the transfer procedure, I must point out to the Minister that children do not suddenly fail at the age of 11 — they are failing before they reach that age. Will she assure the House that at the next ministerial meeting she will raise the issue of pre-school and early-years education, so that if there are systems in the Republic of Ireland that work, we can learn from them? I reiterate what my colleague Sammy Wilson said: we need to get to grips with literacy and numeracy. We cannot allow the Minister’s fixation with the transfer procedure to cloud over the underachievement. That is there from the beginning. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. I agree that pre-school education is essential. In fact, every time I rise in the House I mention the importance of early intervention and pre-school education. It was not one of the areas discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council because there were agreed topics in place. I will certainly ask officials to explore how we might get that subject on the agenda of the next NSMC meeting in education sectoral format. I assure the Member that work has begun in my Department on formulating a new early childhood education and care strategy, which includes the time from birth to the foundation years of primary education — the nought-to-six age group. In fact, when I brought forward my proposals on 4 December, I talked about the nought-to-six, six-14 and 14-19 age groups. Those are key educational periods in children’s lives. The nought-to-six strategy will bring Sure Start, pre-school and the home childcare agendas together in a cohesive way to support the integration of service delivery, taking into account all relevant factors and the effect that those changes will have on the lives of children and families. The aim of the strategy is to ensure that a solid framework is in place for early-childhood care and education to enable children to enter school well prepared educationally. Initial stakeholder consultations with the early-years sector emphasised the need to base the strategy on evidence-based research, and we will certainly learn from any good practice in the South of Ireland. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh céad maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire agus gabhaim buíochas léi ar a shon. Tá ceist agam di ar an chóras malartaithe maidir le scoileanna, daoine óga agus múinteoirí. I want to ask the Minister — [Interruption.] I thank my colleague from Newry and Armagh for his vocal support. Obviously, his grandfather’s influence is coming to play on him again today. Mr Kennedy: Great-grandfather. Mr D Bradley: Great-grandfather; I stand corrected. What plans does the Minister have to address the reduction of funding for North/South teacher and youth exchanges in 2010? That is when the IFI funding, which accounts for over 40% of the total, is to cease. Taking into account also the reduction of funding under Peace III — a further 40% — which is already having a devastating effect on projects and organisations that address cross-border co-operation in this area, what concrete plans has the Minister formulated to make up the shortfall? Will the Minister commit herself to giving this area of co-operation the same priority that it was given by the North/South Ministerial Council before suspension? Chomh maith leis sin, a LeasCheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom fiafraí den Aire an inseoidh sí dúinn ar phléigh sí lena comhghleacaithe i mBaile Átha Cliath pleananna le haghaidh oiliúint tosaigh agus oiliúint inseirbhíse do mhúinteoirí ó Thuaisceart Éireann don scrúdú cáilíochta na Gaeilge sna coláistí oiliúna anseo sa chaoi is go n-éascófar an bealach do mhúinteoirí ó Thuaisceart Éireann ar mian leo teagasc i bPoblacht na hÉireann. Will the Minister tell us what discussions she has had with her counterpart in Dublin about plans for initial and in-service training of teachers for the Irish-language teaching qualification to be available in Northern Ireland colleges in order to facilitate North/South teacher mobility on the island? Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. While listening to the second question, I forgot what the first question was. Gabh mo leithscéal. Cad é do chéad cheist arís, a Dhominic? [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, order. Would you like to repeat the question? Mr D Bradley: What plans does the Minister have to address the reduction of funding for North/South teacher and youth exchanges in 2010? That is when the IFI funding, which accounts for over 40% of the total, is to cease. Taking into account also the reduction of funding under Peace III — a further 40% — which is already having a devastating effect on projects and organisations that address cross-border co-operation in this area, what concrete plans has she formulated to make up the shortfall? Will the Minister commit herself to giving this area of co-operation the same priority that it was given by the North/South Ministerial Council before suspension? Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask those who have their names down to ask questions to keep those questions as short as possible. They should not be the same length as the Minister’s statement. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. First of all, I am very committed to North/South co-operation. As I have said before, we have a lot to learn from each other. I have met my counterpart in the South regularly, and we have done joint launches together on many different issues. The Member will know that both Departments are committed to making progress on North/South exchanges. We need to look at it in terms of the environment that we are now in. The Member is right to say that some funding is coming to an end. We are reviewing the North/South work that is being done. Obviously I cannot go into detail while the Budget is out for consultation, but we will be coming forward with plans. I have not had discussions with my counterpart on teacher training. We had a very full agenda; no doubt that subject will be on a future agenda. Mr Lunn: I welcome the Minister’s statement; it is good to see the level of co-operation between North and South on these matters. My question was to have been along the same lines as the one that Sammy Wilson asked, so I will not repeat it. I will ask, however, about the reading recovery programme. Does the South have a similar programme? Have there been cross-border discussions about the value of such programmes? There is a lot of concern up here about the future of it; maybe there is something to learn from the South in this area. Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. The issue of literacy and numeracy is very important, and reading recovery is one of the many methods that are used to deal with underachievement and children who have special educational needs. Special educational needs is one of the most prolific areas of North/South co-operation. The South also uses the reading recovery programme, and we are working together on best practice. CDs have been produced, which will be used in every school, North and South. Yesterday, we launched a toolkit for children with additional language needs. The Department of Education is currently reviewing the entire area of special needs. A report will be published shortly on all the issues that the Member mentioned, including reading recovery. Miss McIlveen: Can the Minister tell the House how much the Middletown Centre of Excellence for Autism has cost the Department of Education to date, the estimated total cost and the annual operational cost? What input have the relevant stakeholders had in the development of this project, in particular, its location? Ms Ruane: In May 2007, I visited the Middletown centre of excellence for autism with Martin McGuinness. At the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in Dublin, there was a report on the centre, which I am pleased to say is moving forward. The Department of Education, in partnership with the Department of Education and Science, are taking forward the arrangements needed to establish the Middletown centre of excellence for autism. The chief executive, the senior management team and the board of directors are working on the provision and phasing in of services, beginning with the training, advisory and information research services. The educational assessment and learning support services will come on stream when the building works are completed, which is expected to be in 2008-09. The senior management team is currently meeting education providers North and South to ascertain needs. A number of training courses are taking place in newly refurbished accommodation on site, and the centre will soon undertake a consultation exercise with relevant stakeholders who are involved with children and young people with autism. Funding for the purchase and running costs of the centre at Middletown has been provided on a 50:50 basis by the Department of Education and the Department of Education and Science. The Department of Education spent £1·5 million on purchasing the property. If any Members have seen the property, they will agree that it is value for money and a wonderful building. The annual running costs of the centre are estimated at approximately £2·97 million per annum and will be shared equally between the two Departments. The refurbishment costs were estimated at £3·5 million over two years; they are to be split equally between the two Departments. In line with general increases in building costs, the estimates have risen, and officials are currently working through the detail. The Department of Health and Children in the South is also funding half the therapy and care costs. The Member will be delighted to know that the programme includes a two- to three-day multidisciplinary educational assessment and a five-week residential multidisciplinary education and learning support programme. This is a North/South project, so the location is perfect. Children will travel from all parts of Ireland — Cork, Kerry, Mayo, Galway, Coleraine and Antrim — to visit the centre. Members will be glad to know that children in the North will spend less time travelling to the centre than children in provinces such as Munster or Connacht. The centre is a very good project, and I am proud that our Department is associated with it. Mrs O’Neill: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I commend the Minister for this morning’s comprehensive report. I thank her for her update on the Middletown centre of excellence for autism, about which I had intended to ask a question. The Minister referred to children for whom English is an additional language. As the migrant worker population grows, right across the island, does the Minister agree that teachers could share good practice, perhaps by organising a conference? We must ensure that all children have equal access to education and equal outcomes. Ms Ruane: I absolutely agree with the Member. It is difficult for people to leave their own country and arrive in a new one, so it is important to welcome newcomers into Ireland. The Member will be glad to know that a conference has been held in Cavan that involved primary-school principals from across the island. Yesterday, primary-school principals and representatives from non-governmental organisations and education centres across the island came together to launch a toolkit. As I have said, I shall ensure that the Committee for Education receives copies of that toolkit, which is the result of 10 years’ work and best practice, North and South. The South has a greater number of newcomer children than we do. 11.00 am I praise teachers and principals for the work that they have done, but the strong message that came out of last night’s launch, and out of the conferences that were organised, is that education cannot do everything on its own. A joined-up approach that involves all sectors of society, including health, is needed. That said, some tremendous work is being done to integrate newcomer children and those who are learning English as a second language. Mr Storey: At the risk of tiring the Minister, I wish to put some questions to her. Given the financial constraints in the current budgetary round, the funding pressures that have been brought to bear and the fact that she still has no financial structure for her blurred vision, which she announced in the House last Tuesday, can the Minister explain to the House how she has been able to commit funding to school-, youth- and teacher-exchange programmes and to pensioner provision, and how she plans for those to be funded? The Minister said in her statement that we can learn a great deal from the Republic of Ireland. On this occasion, I agree with her, having read a report that appeared in yesterday’s ‘Irish Independent’. I hope that the Minister has read the article, which stated that the Republic’s Department of Education and Science’s planning and building unit has proposed that no new second-level Irish-language schools be built. In the light of that proposal, how can she submit spending plans to the House and make more financial commitments when she has not even worked out the finance necessary for her blurred vision? Furthermore, what is she doing about transient children, especially those from families from the British Army community, and not those from families from any other army with which the Members opposite were associated? Ms Ruane: Go raibh maith agat. I do not accept that I have a blurred vision. I ask the Member to go out and about in his own community and talk to educationalists. He may learn something about education and about the tail of underachievement in certain areas. I visited areas that he represents, where I met with local educationalists. Your vision might be a bit less blurred were you to talk to people and listen to them. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister, when replying, please make your remarks through the Chair, not directly to the Member. Ms Ruane: Gabh mo leithscéal. At present, the children of British Army personnel are at 1·2 units on the LMS funding scale. I think that that is the answer to the Member’s question. Mrs M Bradley: I thank the Minister for her statement, but what actual progress has been made in dealing with underachievement that distinguishes the return of devolution from the previous period of care and maintenance? Mrs Ruane: I welcome the Member’s question, which is a very important one. There is an enormous amount of North/South co-operation, and there was a sense of palpable excitement last night in Dundalk at the launch of the toolkit, a copy of which every school on the island of Ireland will receive. Members will be glad to know that I am going to Scotland today to talk about how we can learn from what is happening there. It is important to ensure that we deal with underachievement in education and that we achieve academic excellence in the North. We can learn from the South and from England, Scotland and Wales. I have been all over the island of Ireland. I have met with different Ministers to discuss the Irish language, education and ways in which to remove obstacles to mobility, so it is good to see that progress is being made. A much more proactive approach is being adopted now than was the case when care and maintenance was in operation here, and we shall only be stepping up our efforts. Mr McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh ráiteas an Aire ar an chruinniú de chuid na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas i bhformáid earnála oideachais. I welcome the statement and the report from the North/South Ministerial Council meeting in education sectoral format. My question relates to the special needs sector, and to educational psychology services in particular. I am mindful of one pupil who lives in Lifford, County Donegal, and who attends school in Strabane, County Tyrone. The current rules mean that that pupil is not entitled to the full range of support from educational psychology services, and I would like to know how that matter is going to be remedied. Ms Ruane: Since 1999, the number of educational psychologists in training at Queen’s University has been increased from five to 12 each year through the provision of additional resources. That increase in trainees has been sustained following the move to a three-year doctorate course, which has replaced the one-year Masters course in 2006. The Department of Education supports 24 placements each year at Queen’s University. The Department has also been working with the education and library boards and with Queen’s University to consider future staffing requirements and help ensure that future supply matches demand. The Department has also provided additional funding in recent years to all education and library boards to enable them to recruit additional educational psychologists. In addition, the vacancy control measures that have been in place because of the review of public administration have been lifted in relation to the recruitment of permanent educational psychology staff due to the unique situation of the educational psychology service. I was at a North/South institutional meeting in which we looked at obstacles to mobility: where those exist, we need to identify and deal with them. Mr McCausland: I note that the Minister travelled to Dublin on 14 November and discussed a wide range of topics, such as youth exchanges. Will she explain how she found time to travel to Dublin to hold a cross-border meeting when she could not find time to meet the youth committee of the Belfast Education and Library Board? The chairman of that committee wrote to the Minister on 1 November, and received a reply dated 20 November stating that her diary was too full to meet them. Is the Minister aware that that committee was appalled by her answer and her arrogance and that members of her own party made no attempt to defend her? Finally, having found time to travel to Dublin, will the Minister find time, in her very busy diary, to meet with the Belfast Education and Library Board in the next month to discuss the very important issue of the funding of youth services in Belfast? Ms Ruane: I am delighted that the Member is concerned about my time management skills. I welcome his question and I will be sending him a copy of all the meetings, and launches, I have attended in relation to youth services. Mr Attwood: The Minister referred to removing obstacles to mobility on the island. Indeed, in her statement, the Minister referred to one of them: consideration of the transfer of pension rights on a cross-border basis. There is meant to be a report coming back to the NSMC in due course. We have been down this road before with respect to policing. Patten recommended that there should be lateral entry between the Garda Síochána and the PSNI, which has still not happened after eight years because of issues around the transfer of pension rights. If the Minister is committed to mobility then she must be very vigilant and dedicated in making sure that this matter gets resolved quickly — otherwise, we could have the situation in the years to come in which the transfer of pension rights does not get adjusted and corrected by the Irish Government and the Government in the North. Will she also reassure the House that she will be dedicated in getting that issue across the line? I would like to ask the Minister another question; and I would not normally raise this matter during a statement on a North/South meeting, but the Minister mentioned it on the Floor this morning. She said that there would be no transfer test after 2008. Will she explain to the House why Sinn Féin has tabled an amendment to Sammy Wilson’s motion in this afternoon’s debate? The motion states that the deadline for the creation of an alternative transfer test is 31 January 2008. If that is the case, why does the Sinn Féin amendment follow the phrase “alternative transfer test” with the words “if needed”? Is the Minister in a state of confusion or contradiction, given that the commitment that she gave to the House last week that there would be no transfer test after 2008 has already been changed to include the words “if needed”? Can she explain to the House how she reconciles her statement last week with today’s Sinn Féin amendment? Ms Ruane: The North/South Ministerial Council met in institutional format in October. We agreed, on behalf of the Executive, to convene a working group of officials from relevant Departments, including finance Departments, to consider the transfer of pension rights on a cross-border basis and report back to a future Council meeting. I am glad to say that all four parties in the Executive, including the Member’s party, will work to ensure that obstacles to mobility are removed so that all our people have equal access to different jobs on both sides of the border. I will deal with the Member’s second question in this afternoon’s debate. Mr Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to ask the Minister a question. She has waxed loudly again this morning about underachievement. However, if there is underachievement, it is ministerial underachievement, and there is concern about that in all sectors of education. The Minister’s statement reminded me a bit of our house: there was not much in it. It failed to include any reference to the Irish-language qualification required by the education authorities in the Republic, which specifically discriminates against Northern Ireland-trained teachers and prevents them from obtaining jobs in that jurisdiction. What discussion took place at the joint ministerial meeting on that subject, and can we expect any progress on that long-standing problem in education North and South? Ms Ruane: The meeting identified the Irish-language requirement for recognition as a primary-school teacher as one of the obstacles to cross-border teacher mobility from North to South. Lack of proficiency in the Irish language represents a shortfall in the range of qualifications of primary-school teachers that must be made good. Significant changes have been made to the previous requirements for proficiency in the Irish language in respect of teaching posts, such as the limitation of the requirement to teachers in primary schools and second-level teachers in Gaeltacht schools who are required to teach in the medium of Irish, and the ending of previous differential rates of pay, pending the acquisition of a recognised qualification. The Member will know that the Irish language is the national language of Ireland. It is taught in every primary school in the South of Ireland, and respect should be given to it. Significant obstacles to teacher mobility have been removed. I brought the Irish-medium education review team to the Gaeltacht area to see the Irish language in its natural environment. There were people there from many different communities; I met a young Hindu girl who was learning Hindi, Punjabi, Irish and English, and was nearly fluent in them all. I do not know why people here are so worried about learning different languages. Surely we need to learn different languages and respect different cultures, instead of always trying pathetically to put the Irish language down. 11.15 am Pensions Bill Final Stage The Minister for Social Development (Ms Ritchie): I beg to move That the Pensions Bill [NIA 7/07] do now pass. The Pensions Bill represents a major step in legislating for long-term reform of our pensions system, and it is appropriate that I comment briefly on what has been achieved. As a champion for older and disadvantaged people, I am pleased to have had an opportunity to introduce measures that will provide real help, in particular to women and carers, but also to pensioners in general. The Bill introduces a complementary package of reforms aimed at improving the coverage, generosity and sustainability of the state pension, simplifying private pensions and providing for the initial functions of the personal accounts delivery authority. The reforms flow largely from recommendations made by the Independent Pensions Commission and they respond to demographic and social trends that the commission identified as creating challenges for the future. The state pension reforms recognise the different ways in which people contribute to society and they will particularly benefit sections of society such as women and carers. The effects of labour market differences between men and women and the impact of caring responsibilities will be addressed by reducing the number of qualifying years required for a full basic state pension to 30 for men and women and by introducing contribution credits for parents and carers. These measures will provide significantly enhanced opportunities for accruing state pension entitlement. By the end of the next Parliament, at the latest, the basic state pension will be uprated in line with earnings rather than prices. That will ensure that the basic state pension keeps its value in relation to earnings and will provide a solid underpinning to retirement income. The standard minimum guarantee element of pension credit, which provides a safety net for those who do not build up sufficient state and private pension entitlements, will continue to be uprated in line with earnings. Members will recall that during the second stage of the Bill I was much charged with the need to ensure that pensioners and the more elderly members of our population receive the benefit to which they are entitled, hence my recognition of that and the fact that I introduced the benefit uptake campaign earlier in 2007. The second state pension will be reformed and simplified, and entitlement to a category B pension, which is based on a spouse’s national insurance record, will cease to be conditional on the spouse claiming their pension. Inevitably, given the cost implications, there are trade-offs. For example, in order to meet the demands of an ageing population, the state pension age will gradually increase from 65 to 68 by 2046. The abolition of adult dependency increases of category A and category C retirement pensions will simplify state pension rules and remove an increasingly outdated concept of dependency. A number of measures will help simplify private pensions. Over time, layers of regulation have produced an extremely complicated system. The reforms will provide a degree of clarity that does not exist at present. The Bill also provides for the initial functions of the personal accounts delivery authority in preparation for the introduction of a personal accounts system to enable people to save for retirement. The Bill aims to ensure that the state pension system remains affordable in the short and the long term and to remove existing inequalities in the system. The reforms form an integrated package and, as a whole, will provide the foundation for a new pension settlement for the twenty-first century — a settlement that will allow everyone to plan with confidence for retirement. When I attended the Committee for Social Development, its members expressed reservations about the use of accelerated passage for the Pensions Bill. I spoke at length to the Committee about our need to maintain parity with Great Britain on social security and pension matters, and the advantages of our doing so. I addressed Committee members’ concerns, and I will further discuss with them how I deal with social security legislation and the issue of parity. If the Bill did not receive accelerated passage, there could be no guarantee that the Department would have the necessary power to uprate the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in Northern Ireland in line with earnings from April 2008, and that is an important aspect of the reform package. There is a statutory requirement to seek to maintain a single social security and pensions system in Northern Ireland and Britain. That creates tensions between the Assembly’s desire to scrutinise proposed legislation in depth and the need to ensure the parity of timing that is inherent in single systems. I recognise that tension, and I acknowledge the comments of the Chairperson and members of the Committee for Social Development. I have agreed to consider further with the Committee and its Chairperson how best to handle parity legislation for social security issues. I thank the Chairman and members of the Committee for Social Development, and MLAs in general, for their positive approach and support in progressing this important Bill. The Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development (Mr Campbell): As the Minister indicated, the issue has been the subject of some discussion in Committee, and I formally support the Bill being given its Final Stage. Mr Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister wish to make any further comments? Ms Ritchie: I thank the Chairperson, on behalf of his Committee, for his contribution and supportive comments. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Pensions Bill [NIA 7/07] do now pass. FIFA Eligibility Proposal Mr Deputy Speaker: I must report that a valid petition of concern on the motion was presented on Friday 7 December. Members who wish to inspect the petition may do so in the Business Office. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion has 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech, and all other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. The vote on the motion will be on a cross-community basis, whereas the vote on the amendment requires only a simple majority. Mr Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw to your attention a matter that arises from my having seen the petition of concern in the Business Office. One of the Sinn Féin names listed is that of Mr Gerry McHugh, who is an erstwhile member of the party. It appears that Mr McHugh signed the petition of concern, but his name has now been scored out. Did Mr McHugh score his name out or was that done by his former party colleagues, who feel that he is now unworthy of putting his name to the petition of concern? Will you rule on whether any such interference would invalidate Sinn Féin’s contribution to the petition of concern? Mr Deputy Speaker: The petition of concern only bites at the point of the vote, therefore we can continue with the debate. I will give a ruling on the matter when the vote is due to be taken. Mr McNarry: I beg to move That this Assembly opposes the recent eligibility proposal outlined by FIFA; believes it has the potential to cause serious harm to international soccer relations on the island of Ireland; and calls upon the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure to assist the Irish Football Association in opposing the ratification of this unfair and unjust proposal. It is regrettable that a sporting issue, particularly one that impacts on our country’s only international competitive team, is to be blocked by a petition of concern that is deliberately being used to ensure that a cross-community vote will prevent us from supporting our national soccer team — Northern Ireland. It would have been far better had a cross-community vote been used to give the team a ringing endorsement and perpetuate its future. Instead, a pre-emptive sectarian strike has been launched against the team, using the petition of concern mechanism to divide the House, with unionists and others going one way and nationalists and republicans going the other. There seems to be an assumption that Catholic players from Northern Ireland will automatically opt to play for the Irish Republic. That assumption is not only ill-advised, but highly emotive. It is wrong to bring that issue into the debate, albeit that that is how things will probably end up if FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) proceeds with its proposal. For the sake of soccer, and the players and supporters of Northern Ireland, let the Assembly remove such a wicked assumption from the equation. If we do nothing else, let us make no contribution to Catholics only playing for the Irish Republic and to Protestants only playing for our country — Northern Ireland. We are two separate countries: two separate individual competing soccer nations. Religion has nothing to do with the representative honour of playing for the country of your birth. This debate, which has been generated by FIFA, demands that we concentrate on the tampering of eligibility that is being forced on the Irish Football Association. How helpful it would have been had the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) stepped in with an unqualified rejection of this inflammatory FIFA proposal. In our efforts to stabilise our country, we have stretched the art of compromise almost beyond belief in this place. We have even confused ourselves to the extent that we have almost outwitted each other in pursuit of some hybrid definition of an Irish person, which meets the deeply-held convictions to be both Irish and British at the same time, or only Irish or only British. As a unionist, I have no longing for Northern Ireland to manifest itself in a way in which an allegiance to the country of one’s birth is diluted by creating an opt-out clause, or in the way in which someone is bound to playing for a country to which they have no allegiance. It is called “playing for the shirt” — a pride instilled when players put on their jerseys, go out on to the pitch to do their best, be part of a team and want to win, even against teams such as England, Germany and Brazil, or, in our case, the Irish Republic. Regrettably, the FAI did not do the honourable thing and reject FIFA’s proposal. On the contrary, it only proceeded to raise the bar and, lamentably, took the opportunity to stick the boot in. In a move more typical of a striking poacher, the FAI welcomed FIFA’s proposal, because, in its selfish view, it would then have a larger pool for team selection. How sad that is. The FAI suggested there was a principle involved, in that players born in this country could choose to play for the Irish Republic if they so wished. Let us first establish that there is no such country as Ireland for any sportsman or sportswoman to represent in competitive or friendly-international events. This island is not divided without the consequences of that division impacting on sport. We are as we are, and we are likely to stay that way for a long time. We are also told that Northern Ireland is a country that is moving on from the horrors of its past. In the momentum of moving on, it is implicit that we leave some things as they are, without mischievous overtures from our neighbours and crass interference from our partners in Europe. Soccer in Northern Ireland fits into the category of “leave alone” — leave it as it is. If politicians cannot leave soccer alone, attempts in the Assembly to move on and build a new future together are put at risk. 11.30 am I want to build the new Northern Ireland that all Members crave. However, if soccer representation is kicked out in a shoot-out over eligibility, the goodwill that Members work to produce, every day that the Assembly stays in business, will be undone. Let us not test soccer on the issue; let us not open a divisive loophole to be exploited as a contribution to a political agenda or added to an already embattled political arena; let us set examples, instead of tests, for soccer — let the First Minister and deputy First Minister set a good example and show joint support for the Northern Ireland soccer team. It is understandable that a Northern Ireland-born player not deemed good enough to play for his country will look favourably at another country that is willing to play him in international competitions. However, that is a luxury that is seldom open to Northern Ireland. We need every player that we can get. We do not need — or want — the FAI to act as a surrogate organisation that dangles the attraction of a match like a magnet pulling a player away from putting on the Northern Ireland jersey, which is his as a right. Neither can we allow FIFA to engage in a preposterous game of fantasy football by imagining that the Belfast Agreement mark I — superseded by mark II at St Andrews — through the consent principle, in some way enshrines consent to tear up the basis of an international footballer’s birthplace. I hope that FIFA is listening to the debate because it will hear, no doubt, those in favour of its proposal studiously, and defiantly, avoid calling Northern Ireland by that name. FIFA will hear its cheerleaders in the Assembly talk offensively about the North, the Six Counties and the Twenty-six Counties instead of Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic. That is because they do not use the term “Northern Ireland” in the House. Sadly, that will be the sum total of the contribution by republicans to the debate, as they strive to be divisive in applauding FIFA. I hope that FIFA see through that and does not allow its foolishness to be exploited by so-called Irish republicans who are bringing their ideology into sport. Fortunately, that is not how most unionists, nationalists or Alliance Party supporters behave. The issue is soccer, which is our national game. It is not about coercing a player, turning him inside out over his identity on the pitch or chasing him from the game that he loves and from which he earns his living. I urge Members to support the motion and not sit back and watch FIFA introduce something that they know that they will regret. I know the Minister’s position on the issue, and I urge him not to hesitate in forcefully putting the Northern Ireland soccer team’s case against this pernicious, malicious and incredibly foolish FIFA proposal. I say to my colleague Pat Ramsey from the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure that the FIFA proposal is divisive and too hot to be given endorsement by the House. On this issue, Pat Ramsey has talked of Ireland as a single country, when clearly, on a football and international basis it is not. Mr P Ramsey: It is the case in rugby. Mr McNarry: No it is not. I will not use the yarn, “Did you hear, Mr Blatter, about the Irish man born in Australia who could play for the Irish Republic but another fella from Londonderry who could not”, as Pat Ramsey did. How good it will be for Northern Ireland football, not only when the FIFA proposal is thrown out, but when all teams with their home ground in Northern Ireland play their games in the Irish League — I will welcome that. If the only message sent to FIFA from the Assembly is that of a House divided, so be it. The message of a divided House means than FIFA cannot rule: to do otherwise would be unsafe and totally unrepresentative. Mr Campbell: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after ‘by’ and insert ‘the FIFA legal committee; expresses concern at the undue political pressure exerted on FIFA by the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and offers its support for the Irish Football Association’s campaign to ensure that a cross-community team continues to represent Northern Ireland.’ It is unfortunate that the circumstances have arrived that require the above motion to be brought before the House. One would think that everyone who has the best interests of sport and football in Northern Ireland would not only want to see a good or better Northern Ireland team, but the best Northern Ireland team that can possibly be assembled for the future. One would also think that people in Northern Ireland would want to see footballers of the ability that we undoubtedly have — and we have seen them nurtured and brought on in recent years — continue to play for their own country. It galls me that FIFA, and others, have attempted to propose a directive through the FIFA legal committee to the overall FIFA organisation — and thereby to international associations — that would result in good quality players feeling the need to play for a country that is not their own. Such a proposal would be more than disconcerting; it would be divisive, as the mover of the motion said. I thought that Members would be working to create the best team possible. I was a lover of sport and football long before I became involved in politics. I support football, and I have followed Northern Ireland for many years, as many thousands of people continue so to do. They follow Northern Ireland irrespective of the community or religious background of any of the players. That must continue to be the case, but, unfortunately, it will not be so if the suggestion from the FIFA legal committee is enacted. Some people will decide to play for their own country: Martin O’Neill, Pat Jennings and others, rightly, played for their own country and were applauded and lauded for doing so. Some of them are among the best footballers that Northern Ireland ever had. However, there will be others who will feel the political pressure not to play for their country — that is not just sad, it is appalling. Some argue that we should be trying to get the best team assembled on the pitch, and they argue that we could get a better team from a population of almost six million from both countries — Northern Ireland and the Republic. The logic of that argument is that we could have a team of world-beaters if there was an United Kingdom team. Unfortunately, England has found out that it does not work like that. England might have a population of 50 million, but it did not qualify for the 2008 European Championships: it came as close to qualifying as did a small nation of 1·7 million people. England has shown us that the argument that a bigger population leads to a better team, thereby qualifying for more tournaments, is not correct. I look forward, then, to hearing those who make that argument go on to say, “Let us have a UK team.” However, I hear only silence; they do not advocate that. For some politically inspired reason, they want to have a larger population to draw upon, provided it is drawn in a particular way that suits their political agenda, and that is deeply unfortunate. The other issue is the precedent that this would set, which Mr McNarry mentioned. With political boundaries being redrawn in the Near and Middle East, the same scenario might unfold there: people born in one jurisdiction or country might, because of an emerging political climate, choose to play for another as a result of this ruling. Those are the cans of worms that could be opened if FIFA proceeds down that route. I am opposed to politicising sport — it should remain totally separate, so that all of us can support anyone who plays for Northern Ireland. I do not care whether they come from west Belfast or Crossmaglen; if they score for Northern Ireland, we should cheer them. Before the result of the game against England was known, a political representative who now holds high office was asked whether he would be cheering for Northern Ireland or England. Despite the fact that that representative despises England with every ounce of hatred in him, he could not bring himself to say “my own country, Northern Ireland”, because he did not know which he hated most — England or Northern Ireland. I refer to the man who is now a junior Minister, Gerry Kelly of Old Bailey fame. Unfortunately he could not bring himself to make a decision on which team he preferred, or which hatred he held most dear in his heart. Let us put all of that to one side, get behind our own country and team, and ensure that the best talent from anywhere in Northern Ireland, regardless of religion, politics, or background, plays for their country. That is what the FIFA ruling will prevent. I thank Mr McNarry for supporting the amendment and hope that, even at this late stage, the House will unite behind the only sensible, pragmatic and positive step forward, which is to abandon this ludicrous proposal. Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to be cautious in their remarks. Mr Butler: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. First of all, republicans do not have any hostility towards the Northern Ireland football team. I recently met Howard Wells and a number of officials from the IFA (Irish Football Association) to see whether Sinn Féin could help them, and obviously we discussed this issue. Today’s motion is offensive to a lot of nationalists in the North, who see themselves as Irish citizens and regard the Republic of Ireland football team as their team. That is the reality. This issue has arisen before in the case of Darron Gibson from Derry, who simply did not want to play for anyone other than the Republic of Ireland. Today’s motion is divisive, and if FIFA officials heard the debate they would consider it as being all the more support for their compromise proposal, which is to allow people from the North of Ireland to play either for the Northern Ireland football team or the Republic of Ireland team. Likewise, people from the Republic can play for the Northern Ireland football team. That seems like the best message for this Assembly to send out. No other sport on this island is subjected to this debate. I challenge anyone on the other side of the House to name one. Cricket, GAA, tennis, rugby, cycling; all those other sports are not subjected to this debate. Why are we causing division — [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Ross: Does the Member admit that there is a Northern Ireland volleyball team? In the sports that he refers to, such as rugby, cricket and hockey, the flag that is used is not a national one, because there is no national team. They play for the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU), and they use the IRFU flag; in hockey, they use the Irish Hockey Union flag; and in cricket, they use the Irish Cricket Union flag. 11.45 am Mr Butler: I thank the Member for his intervention. However, since we are on the issue of flags, tell me this — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. When you are making remarks — Mr Butler: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Please refer all your remarks through the Chair. Mr A Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Does that ruling apply to all Members on all sides of the House? Mr Deputy Speaker: I imagine that that is a rhetorical question. Yes, of course, Mr Maskey, it refers to all Members. Mr Butler: On the issue of flags, will the Member tell me why the Northern Ireland football team is the only team that flies the Union Jack and plays the national anthem? Scotland plays its local anthem; Wales plays its local anthem; even England does not play ‘God Save the Queen’. Northern Ireland is the only country to play it. What does that tell us? Does that not send out a political message to nationalists in the North that they are unwelcome? A lot of good work has been done by — Mr Ross: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: No. The IFA has done a lot of good work in trying to eradicate sectarianism in football here, and I welcome that. When we met Howard Wells recently, we praised him for that. The proposals from FIFA’s legal committee are the only sensible way to deal with the issue. It is ridiculous for unionists to try to tell nationalists in the North that they must play for Northern Ireland and no other football team. It will not add up. That is why Sinn Féin has presented a petition of concern. The Chamber must send out a message of compromise based on the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement enshrined people’s identity here in the North so that they could be British or Irish. If people accept that — and everybody in the Chamber signed up to the Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement — then they should accept what FIFA is saying. It is the only logical, imaginative and sensible way to deal with the proposal. The unionists lobbying on this issue need to face the realities. Many nationalists do not accept Northern Ireland as their national team. At the same time, and whatever people’s religious or political background, if footballers want to play for Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, then they should be allowed to get on with that. Nobody should stand in their way or deter them. Members should look at the example of Derry City Football Club. It plays in the Republic of Ireland’s league, and its policy is that if people want to play for the Republic of Ireland then no one will stand in their way. Likewise, if any of the players want to play for the Northern Ireland football team they are given every opportunity to pursue that course, and that is the compromise that Members should send out. Go raibh maith agat. Mr P Ramsey: At the outset, it is important to put on record that the SDLP understands why the Irish Football Association wants to oppose the FIFA proposals. The IFA is concerned that they will reduce the number of players that it has to choose from, and its opposition is understandable. However, the issue of playing for one’s country, or one’s international team, is complex. Unionists see Northern Ireland as a country — some even see it as a nation. Therefore, from their perspective, it makes sense to have a national team called Northern Ireland. Irish nationalists, on the other hand, see the Six Counties of Northern Ireland as a state with complex relationships between Britain and Ireland, but which is geographically — and, for many of us, socially — part of the island of Ireland. Coming back to what Mr McNarry said, it would be a ridiculous situation if an Irish citizen, born to Irish parents in any country of the world, be it Boston, Bangkok or Australia, could play for the Republic of Ireland under the previous ruling, but someone born in Derry, Bangor or Belfast could not. That does not make sense. People may shake their heads, but that was the ruling prior to FIFA’s advice. Hopefully, that advice will be supported at the weekend. I support Northern Ireland. When the team does well, the communities in Northern Ireland do well and there is a feel-good factor. Similarly, in nationalist communities, there is a feel-good factor when the Republic of Ireland does well. People must respect and honour that. David McNarry said that we should leave it alone. Gregory Campbell said that sport should be separate from politics. The crux of the problem is that, if sport is separate from politics, why, two years ago when Darron Gibson and Mark McCrystal were asked to play for an under-21 select team, did the IFA insist that they carry British passports? Is that leaving sport alone? Mr Campbell: Does the Member accept that that is not the case now? Mr P Ramsey: Yes, I fully accept that. However, I say directly to Gregory Campbell that the problem is that that was an own goal by the IFA because it — Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Nothing should be said directly to another Member — only through the Speaker. Mr P Ramsey: Mr Deputy Speaker, it was an own goal by the IFA, which bombarded FIFA with communications about player eligibility. Over a period of two years, 10 years ago, 10 players from Derry City Football Club played for the Republic of Ireland. There was not a word then. This situation is a consequence of the mess due to the passport issue and the negativity of the IFA. Although many nationalists enjoy watching Northern Ireland and hope that the team wins because the players are local, we do not consider it to be the national team. Given that the Irish Constitution has an inclusive approach to Irishness, covering people born in Ireland and those of Irish decent who were born abroad, nationalists do not consider the Republic of Ireland team to be representative of the Irish nation. The emphasis should be on Irish people rather than on the territory of the Republic of Ireland or the island of Ireland. Ultimately, the SDLP wants politics to be removed from the debate and a single team to represent all the people on the island — as happens in other major sports. Such a team would have the potential for tremendous success on the field, and one could argue that such a team would be multinational because it would comprise British and Irish players. The same argument could be made for the Members of this House, because everyone who was born in Northern Ireland is a citizen of two nations. Given the complexity of Northern Ireland, which is not the same as most other states or regions, the FIFA proposal offers a liberal approach that is sensible and wise. A player’s allegiance would be left to the individual, and I fully support and defend an individual’s right to choose. For far too long in Northern Ireland, we have been telling one another what we are and we have been forcing one another to be something we are not. It is time that we allowed ourselves the freedom and space to be what we want to be — British, Irish, Northern Irish, or any combination of those. Frankly, it is none of the Assembly’s business which team a player chooses to play for; and, given the complexity of the relationships on these islands, the Assembly should be protecting the freedom of individual players to choose for themselves. Mr Lunn: The Alliance Party supports the motion and has no problem with the amendment. We regard the debate as an opportunity, once and for all, to clarify the status of Northern Ireland sportspeople. Members should note that the FIFA decision has been taken only at committee level, and that the IFA and the Minister have the opportunity to make a case against it — and I hope that they will. There are several reasons why the proposal is slightly baffling. Although a person’s eligibility to represent their country was based on birth, lineage or residence, FIFA’s proposal would base eligibility on citizenship. Across Europe, that has the potential to open a can of worms that would have implications way beyond Northern Ireland. I do not know whether this debate will be broadcast in Bosnia. If it is, the Bosnian football association is sure to take notice because it is in danger of losing Bosnian-Serb players to Serbia. In the same way, Romanian-born, ethnic Hungarians might opt to play for Hungary — and so it would go on. However, those are not the reasons why the Alliance Party supports the motion and the amendment. Based on what Members have said this morning, there is now a risk that the distinction between our international teams will become purely sectarian. Northern Ireland will become a team for Ulster Protestants, and the Republic will become a team for Irish Catholics. The ongoing community work of the IFA will go to waste; the recent success of our religiously mixed Northern Ireland team could be endangered in the future, and we will have another source of division. We have come a long way in taking sectarianism out of soccer, and I applaud the work of the IFA community-relations office and the amalgamation of supporters’ clubs. However, we must recognise that there is still a delicate work in progress. The problems for young Catholic players have been evident for years, and they go way back. I am sure that Pat Ramsey remembers John Crossan and the abuse that he received at Windsor Park in the bad old days. In his case, the sectarian abuse was reasonably good humoured, and, as it happened, he took it in good spirit. However, Neil Lennon was a vital part of the Northern Ireland team for some years. His acceptance on the team would have represented a major step forward. However, when he joined Glasgow Celtic, he became an outcast. All the old prejudices surfaced, and, as we all know, he was driven out of the Northern Ireland team by disgraceful sectarian abuse at Windsor Park. Although, that example is an exception, despite the excellent community-relations work done by the IFA and the supporters’ clubs, we have not managed to eliminate sectarianism completely. The authorities need all the help that they can get to continue that work. They do not need FIFA’s interference, which has the potential to destabilise the situation. If we are to produce a Northern Ireland team that welcomes players and support from all Northern Irish men and women, we will not be helped by having a decision foisted on us by FIFA, particularly a contrived decision that flies in the face of its normal approach, common sense and logic, and which has nothing constructive to offer, but which has the potential to produce two codes — one Roman Catholic and one Protestant. The Alliance Party particularly respects the part of the motion that refers to the potential for relations between the FAI and the IFA to be harmed. It is a pity that the issue was raised in the first place, but we are where we are. We should recognise co-operation between the associations, not only at the obvious level of competitions, such as the Setanta Sports Cup, which is very successful, but at youth-development level and elsewhere. We should not support moves that could poison that work. We accepted formally in 1998 that anyone born on the island of Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship. However, eligibility for an international soccer team has not previously been determined in that way; it has been determined by birth, residence or lineage. We also accepted in 1998 that the Assembly is responsible for Northern Ireland, and that that responsibility extends to soccer. My party’s vision is of a broadly supported, mixed-religion Northern Ireland team performing successfully at a new stadium — preferably at the Maze site — by 2011. Therefore, I support the motion and the amendment. Mr Shannon: I support the motion and the amendment. I have been a supporter of the Northern Ireland football team for a very long time — since I was a wee boy, and that was not yesterday. I remember going to matches as a teenager, when I dreamed of possessing the skills of those on the field, but, although I had dreams, I did not have the skill. As I grew older, I took the level of support higher. I followed my team to Spain in 1982 and to Mexico in 1986. I had passion for the game and a desire to see my country excel. The 1982 and 1986 teams represented the entire community, as does the team of 2007. As I grew older and raised a family, I had the pleasure of seeing my boys going to watch the matches, and passionately cheering their team to victory. I have seen the team go through bad times as well as good times. I have always been there; the role of true supporters is to support their team when it is not doing well. 12.00 noon It is a pleasure to see how the philosophy of Football for All, which has been implemented by the IFA, has brought football back to being a family game. Grandfathers and grandmothers can now bring their grandchildren to matches with no fear of them learning behaviours, and perhaps lyrics, that they would not like them to learn, and with no fear of violence. Football in Northern Ireland has come a long way, not simply on the international stage, where Northern Ireland is now one of the best teams in the home countries and is no longer thought of as an easy three points, but on the home stage, where both sides of the community find themselves able and willing to support their home team — our home team. We can be proud of the progress that has been made in recent times. Northern Ireland supporters — known as the green-and-white army — have been crowned European supporters of the year and received the Brussels International Supporters Award in 2006. Therefore, to come that far, and to bring so many along with us, to now having sectarianism brought into the game from the highest level cannot be tolerated. If FIFA makes the ruling that has been suggested, it will mean that only Protestants will ever play for the Northern Ireland team, because any Catholic who wants to play, and has the ability to do so, will be pressured into playing for the Republic of Ireland —whether or not he wants to. Not so long ago, the Republic of Ireland team were known as the “England B team”. I am sure that that sent shock waves through the Republic of Ireland supporters and players. To subject football to something that we have fought so hard to move away from is not the way forward. That is why it is the Assembly’s duty to stamp out sectarianism, even though it comes from the highest realms of FIFA. It is absolutely ridiculous that people who have no idea of the problems that we have overcome in this sport are thoughtlessly trying to push through rulings that will only encourage division in communities once again. That is not the way it should be. Recently, Northern Ireland’s footballing hero David Healy — who comes from Killyleagh, incidentally — took part in a football skills day in Newtownards, which was attended by thousands. Kids came from all arts and parts of the community to take part in the event, which was hosted by the Ulster-Scots Agency. Kids from Portaferry played footy with kids from Portavogie, and there were no issues or problems. The reason for that is that children are coming to the stage where the love of the game is overtaking all other factors, and it is that drive that we need to keep in motion so that our children can keep playing the game that they love with others — regardless of their background. We should try to encourage that as part of a shared future. We hear comments about a shared future over and over again. If Members believe in a shared future, they should prove it today in the Assembly for the future on the football field. Surely it is the duty of all Members to support that ideal in its entirety, not just when it suits them to prove a point. It is about skill, ability and passion, and it is about the country that people choose to play for and why. This is not a recipe for the shared future to which some Members have referred; it is a recipe for an old meal that has gone mouldy and bad. We do not need to serve that again. As I have said previously, we are a small country with a big heart. However, our small numbers cannot be further stretched by lessening the choice of those who play. It is not simply that Catholic men will not want to play for their country and wear the Northern Ireland shirt but that they will be expected to play for the Republic; they will have no freedom of choice. That cannot be accepted. In conclusion, the FIFA mission is to: “Develop the game, touch the world, build a better future”. That will certainly not be achieved in Northern Ireland as FIFA tries to drag us back to sectarianism and politics. We have left that behind — where it belongs. The DUP supports a shared future for all. I support the motion and the amendment, and I urge all Members to do likewise. Mr P Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion has been tabled in an attempt to split the House in a controversial manner. That is why the joint petition of concern has been lodged. On many occasions, I have heard it said that politics should not be brought into sport. However, Members of the Assembly have tabled the motion in order to do the exact opposite. The core of the argument goes against the Good Friday Agreement, the same agreement to which the Members who tabled the motion signed up. What is going on there? The issue of what teams people play for is a matter of choice for the individual. Fair play to those individuals who are good enough to play for either team; they must be congratulated on their achievements. Instead of allowing people to choose which team to play for, Mr Kennedy and Mr McNarry are playing silly games with the motion and should be given the red card for their foul play. I have heard MLAs suggest that, were more players from the North to choose to play for the Republic, sectarianism could creep back into the game in the North. What a load of nonsense; what drivel. What proof has any Member that that could happen? I ask Members to recall Neil Lennon and Anton Rogan. Every time that they kicked the ball while playing for Northern Ireland, they were booed. They were jeered off the pitch, because they played for Glasgow Celtic. [Interruption.] Some Members: It never happened. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr P Maskey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If some of the Members opposite were to watch archive footage of Northern Ireland matches in which those players participated, they would be proven wrong. I am already on record as having commended the great work that Michael Boyd and others in his team have done to reduce sectarianism in soccer. Fair play to him and his team on that success. However, this debate should not be about sectarianism but about players’ rights to play for the team of their choosing. How can an individual perform to the best of his or her ability if that individual does not want to play for a team? Mr Dodds: Will the Member give way? Mr P Maskey: I will not. Are we not in favour of improving our teams, of showing leadership and of giving our young players every opportunity to compete at the highest level? If the answer is yes, we should accept FIFA’s recent draft proposal on eligibility. Mr McElduff: Will the Member give way? Mr P Maskey: Certainly. [Interruption.] Mr McElduff: I have come on as a sub, go raibh maith agat. I am curious about the repeated use in the debate of the word “country”. The Six Counties is variously described as a “country” or a “nation”. Sometimes it is called a “region”, a “state” or a “province”. Unionists cannot have it five ways. What is it? Does it constitute a nation, a country, a state or a region? In my eyes, it is two thirds of a province and about a quarter of a country. I prefer to follow Gaelic games, but I must say that the only way in which our soccer players will be able to compete on the world stage, or even to have a competitive edge, is as part of an all-Ireland soccer team. Unionist members opposite are afraid to taste success with a truly national football team. I want to draw attention to the Minister’s comments — Mr Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am unsure as to whether Mr McElduff’s contribution constitutes an intervention or a speech, but it seems to have gone on for an extremely long time. If it sets a precedent that a Member can stand up and speak for as long as he wishes during an intervention, there is little point in Members putting their names down on the list of Members who wish to speak. Mr Deputy Speaker: Interventions are allowed at the discretion of the Member who has the Floor. In this case, the Member has allowed the intervention. Mr McElduff: At the discretion of Mr Maskey, I continue. Lord Morrow: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, will you explain to the House why, if an intervention is allowed at the discretion of the Member who has the Floor, that Member is compensated for interventions with additional time? Mr Deputy Speaker: It is convention that a Member is compensated with additional time only when a contribution is to last five minutes or less. Mr McElduff: I refer Members to the statement that the Minister of Culture, Art and Leisure made to the House on the strategy for sport and physical recreation on 9 October. He said: “it is important that people can fulfil their desires to participate for the team that they wish, whether that is the Great Britain team or the Ireland team.” — [Official Report, Vol 24, No 6, p263, col 2]. Mr P Maskey: I thank the Member for his points, and I hope that the Minister will deal with some of them. I have posed two questions: do we accept the current draft FIFA proposal, and do we commend FIFA for it? The FAI has said that it is pleased that FIFA has once again upheld the principle that players who are born anywhere on the island should be free to choose whether they wish to play for the Republic of Ireland or for Northern Ireland. The FAI has shown leadership, for which it should be commended. Howard Wells of the IFA has said that he was staggered by the FIFA decision. However, I urge him not to bring politics into sport. Unless he has read the Good Friday Agreement, he should be careful about commenting on the matter, because it is about people’s rights as well as being a sporting issue. Therefore, a LeasCheann Comhairle, I urge all Members to kick the motion into touch. Let us not score an own goal by supporting the motion or the amendment. Go raibh maith agat. Mr Deputy Speaker: I thank Lord Morrow for reminding me about timing, but I was aware that the Member was allowed up to one minute extra for an intervention. Mr Dodds: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The clock was stopped during the intervention. Is it to be the case during an intervention that the clock is stopped, a minute is added, and as much intervention time as desired is taken? That seems quite bizarre. Mr Deputy Speaker: The clock was stopped during the point of order, and at no other time during the Member’s speech. Mr A Maskey: Further to that point of order, you said that you had been aware of the time, despite Lord Morrow’s having reminded you of it. Can you advise the House why you did not remind him that he was interrupting a contribution by another Member? Mr Deputy Speaker: That is part of the cut and thrust of debate in the Chamber. Lord Browne: I support the motion and the amendment. I shall begin with a quotation: “The world is a place rich in natural beauty and cultural diversity, but also one where many are still deprived of their rights. FIFA now has an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration.” That is part of FIFA’s mission statement and promise. I strongly contend that the proposal to allow players the choice to play for Northern Ireland or for another foreign county is a contradiction of that mission statement and promise. FIFA states that: “the world is a place of natural beauty and cultural diversity”. Northern Ireland is certainly a place of natural beauty and cultural diversity, but at a time when we endeavour to work together and respect each other’s cultural differences, FIFA is proposing to divide our community by allowing players to choose between our country and another. Mr Dodds: Not only is that proposal wrong for Northern Ireland, but it is wrong in respect of FIFA’s rules, and dangerous for world football. If we follow the logic of the previous contributor to the debate, who said that footballers should play for whichever country they like, that would mean that Germans would be able to play for Italy, and Italians would be able to play for France. That is exactly the same principle as allowing people in Northern Ireland to play for the Irish Republic. That completely undermines everything that FIFA stands for, as well as world football in smaller developing countries. Who would think for one moment that Premier League footballers — such as Didier Drogba — whom certain African countries may call on, would not be more attracted to playing for the bigger teams? That is why the proposal is dangerous. Lord Browne: I agree that the FIFA proposal could open a can of worms. There is political instability in many countries that have sizeable ethnic minorities; for example, there is a large Russian minority in Ukraine, and there are Algerian and African ethnic minorities in France. Where would this ridiculous proposal end? Should it become reality, it would not be difficult to predict which country one section of our community would choose, and which the other section would choose. That would have the effect of dividing our soccer players and our community into two separate camps that would support two separate national soccer teams. Mr P Ramsey: Will the Member give way? Lord Browne: I have already given way. Some may argue that that already happens, which is probably true to some extent, but, recently, there has been a considerable increase in support for Northern Ireland’s soccer team from across our communities. In recent years, the Northern Ireland soccer team has been a unifying symbol, but now the world governing body of soccer wants to create division. FIFA’s mission statement states that it: “now has an even greater responsibility to reach out and touch the world, using football as a symbol of hope and integration.” The suggestion that players should be able to choose between two national sporting bodies without any criteria being applied will bring about the opposite of hope and integration. 12.15 pm We need only look back to the recent European championships, when the Northern Ireland team, whose players hail from across the community, was able to compete for a place in the finals up until the last qualifying game, having beaten major soccer nations such as Spain, Sweden and Denmark along the way. The opportunity for the team to compete, and the hope that we have for football here, will be considerably reduced if the Irish Football Association has a smaller pool of players from which to select. There could be no better way to divide our community in sport than by FIFA’s suggestion, which completely contradicts the word “integration”, which is used in its own mission statement. I agree with FIFA that soccer is a wonderful game. However, I urge it to steer clear of politics. I urge it to recognise the hurt and damage that its suggestion has already caused, and the potential for permanent damage that it would cause the community if it ever became a reality. I therefore call upon FIFA to adhere to its own mission statement and immediately withdraw its suggestion. I urge every Member in the House — and I mean every Member — to unite against FIFA’s divisive proposal and to support the motion and the amendment. Mr K Robinson: I support the motion and the amendment. I believe that FIFA’s move on nationality rules for football in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is not only backward-looking but is also deeply offensive to the many fans who support the game from the terraces in all weathers. The health and future of football depends on those fans. Since the defeat of England in 2005, there has been an increase in national pride in the Northern Ireland team, with the demand for replica kits and tickets outstripping supply, and with tongue-in-cheek songs, such as ‘We’re not Brazil, we’re Northern Ireland’, ringing around Windsor Park; followed, perhaps, by ‘It’s just like watching Brazil’, whether the team’s performing like Brazil or not. In 2006, Northern Ireland supporters were awarded the Brussels International Supporters Award for their efforts to stamp out sectarianism, their charity work, their general good humour and their behaviour at home and overseas. The IFA website, entitled ‘Our Wee Country’ says a great deal about the driving force behind the IFA. It also says a lot about the fans and their aspirations. I have listened carefully to what has been said from the Benches opposite. I also note that the IFA has invested greatly in the development of young and promising players throughout the various echelons that lead ultimately to a place in the international squad. Will the IFA be denied the outcome of all the work that it has put in? FIFA would do well to take account of that if it is to live up to its primary objectives. In its mission statement, FIFA talks about how it aims to: “Develop the game, touch the world, build a better future”. How can any step that has the potential to fatally undermine one of the constituent parts of FIFA, namely the IFA, adhere to that primary mission statement? That scenario is exactly what will happen if FIFA’s proposal to permit players who are born in Northern Ireland to choose to play for the Irish Republic goes ahead. This ill-considered move has the potential to fatally undermine the IFA, since the FAI will be at liberty to poach players who are from Northern Ireland, thus effectively disabling the Northern Ireland squad. That flies in the face of fair competition. It will also have the effect of undermining football in the Province, which has become a beacon of success for the community during many of dark days of the past 30 years, and despite the relatively low population base. My colleague Danny Kennedy will raise an important issue later in the debate. He will describe FIFA’s move as being overtly political. The Assembly must consider the political context of the move. The blurring of the nationality rule flies in the face of all that the Assembly has done. Mr McCartney: Will the Member give way? Mr K Robinson: No. It is based on the outdated political thinking that lay behind the 1937 Irish Constitution. One article in that constitution that caused great offence to unionist-minded people in Northern Ireland was the claim to what was described as the “national territory” of Ireland, which, under the terms of that enactment, meant the whole island, including Northern Ireland. That claim stood in the way of political progress here for decades and introduced an element of irreconcilability into politics.It entrenched that negative spirit in the law. The Belfast Agreement, and the Assembly that flowed from it, were partly based on the renunciation — by politicians and the ordinary voters in the Irish Republic, in a referendum — of that claim to the territory of Northern Ireland. Following that, a new principle of consent was introduced, whereby the future of Northern Ireland would be decided by the voters in a border poll, thus reassuring unionist people that they could not and would not be coerced into a united Ireland. Political progress here is based on the common shared Northern Ireland identity, which, for one side of our community, has a subset of nationalist aspirations, while the other side has unionist aspirations. That Northern Ireland identity is expressed in many ways: it is expressed in our shared Government in Northern Ireland; in our joint approach to economic and social problems; in the way we worked together in New York and Washington in the search for inward investment for Northern Ireland plc; in our working together in the Assembly; and in football, which is a major leisure activity and a major icon for identification right across our community. People identify with our Northern Ireland football team. They identify with the shared fun and shared values of football. To unpick the Northern Ireland team, which will be the result of the FIFA proposal, is to undermine one of the ways in which we hold our communities together. That must be, at the very least, bad for our sense of community cohesion. It is bad for a confident Northern Ireland that is seeking its long-awaited place in the sun. Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Ba mhaith liom a rá ag an tús go bhfuil mé in éadan an rúin agus in éadan an leasaithe chomh maith. I am opposed to the motion and the amendment. The Good Friday Agreement, in the section that deals with constitutional issues, recognises: “the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.” Mr McCartney: I am mindful of what you said about the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and I heard Lord Browne referring to FIFA’s mission statement. Article 15 of FIFA’s own rules states that: “Any person holding the nationality of a country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country.” When that is coupled with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, the case is closed, lads. Mr D Bradley: I thank the Member for his intervention. The Good Friday Agreement clearly recognises the situation that exists in Northern Ireland whereby we have two communities with varying national and political aspirations, both of which are equally legitimate when pursued by wholly peaceful and democratic means. That principle is recognised by all sides of the House. The question of nationality in general has been settled by the Good Friday Agreement. Individuals may choose which passport they hold. We should all agree that no one should be forced, in any way, to accept a nationality to which they do not aspire and with which they feel uncomfortable. People in Northern Ireland have a choice. They can choose to describe themselves as Irish, British or both. That clearly reflects the political and cultural realities on the ground, and ensures that no one is bound by a designation that does not reflect their outlook. The FIFA ruling reflects the realities of the Good Friday Agreement, which is, after all, an international agreement between two sovereign Governments, supported by the political parties. The FIFA ruling allows players, as individuals — subject to certain provisos — to choose the team for which they want to play, according to their own preference. That is how it should be. It is wrong to deny players that choice. That would be tantamount to denying them that which the Good Friday Agreement offers them — the choice of expressing their nationality, as they see it. The Agreement is concerned with giving people that choice, and not denying it to them. We should not pre-empt the choices that players may make. Players from every side of the community will make decisions for themselves, and they should be free to do so. Some players may make their choices on the basis of nationality, while others may choose the team that best suits their career prospects. We must remember that footballers are professionals; football is a career to them, and, ultimately, many of them may be more influenced by where their professional interests lie than by any other consideration. Cibé bunús atá lena rogha, is é an rud is tábhachtaí ná gur leo féin an rogha agus go bhfuil said saor leis an rogha sin a dhéanamh gan cháineadh. Whatever the basis of the choice, the important factor is that it is their choice to make, and they should be free to make it without any censure whatsoever. Go raibh maith agat. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure (Mr Poots): I welcome the opportunity to debate the recent FIFA eligibility proposal. Members will be aware that, for several years, there has been considerable public concern about the state of football in Northern Ireland in general. In the past few years, my Department has striven to help football to address those issues through its soccer strategy initiative. As part of that initiative, DCAL (Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure), in conjunction with Sport Northern Ireland and the IFA, has been working to bring about improvements in the game across a number of areas, including governance, administration, facilities, youth development and, importantly, community relations. In recent times, we have witnessed signs of a revival in the state of our game, which has given all of us increasing grounds for optimism. The success of the Northern Ireland football team is perhaps the most obvious sign of that improvement. Good results, great performances, and the record-breaking feats of David Healy have resulted in a rise in the team’s FIFA ranking, from a low of one-hundred-and-twenty-fourth in 2004, to our current position of thirty-second in the world. For a nation of its size, Northern Ireland is right at the top of its game. That, in turn, has brought about a feel-good factor right across the community, which is best evidenced by a rise in attendance at international matches and a huge demand for tickets that far exceeds the capacity of current facilities. A great deal has been done to improve the image of the sport across all sections of the community. However, that is not the whole picture, and considerable changes lie ahead. The recent consultants’ report on the state of Windsor Park raises concerns about the staging of international football in Northern Ireland in the future. To help the IFA to address that concern, DCAL has developed proposals for a new state-of-the-art multi-sports stadium capable of meeting all of the requisite standards for international football. Such a facility would position international football to make a further contribution to improving the image of football and of Northern Ireland, given that the stadium could be shared with other sports. Members will be aware that a decision will have to be made on that matter in the very near future. Mr P Ramsey: Does the Minister accept that there is a unique situation in Northern Ireland, in that Derry City Football Club plays in the League of Ireland? Furthermore, if a young man from the Minister’s own constituency played in the League of Ireland, was not called up for any of the Northern Ireland junior sides, but was eventually called up for the Republic of Ireland, would the Minister respect and acknowledge that young man’s contribution and his right to choose what he wanted to do? Mr Poots: I met Derry City Football Club last week, and, during our discussions, I encouraged the club to come back home to the league to which it belongs. That would be very good for football in Northern Ireland and in the city of Londonderry, because it would give the team a far greater opportunity to play games locally and the fans a greater opportunity to go to see matches. The Member has made a very good case for Derry City Football Club’s returning to the Irish League. 12.30 pm Considering the pressing issues that Northern Ireland football faces, and its hopes for the future, it is most unfortunate that FIFA’s legal committee has unexpectedly produced a proposal that seriously threatens the identity of our national team. I believe that that proposal has emerged on foot of undue political pressure that has been applied to FIFA. That is disappointing. It is particularly disappointing that people who are involved in the Assembly on the basis of seeking to build a better Northern Ireland should undermine that aim in respect of football. Those people are undermining the good work that is being done by the Irish Football Association to develop a cross-community football team, and theirs is a path that would sectarianise the Northern Ireland football team. All of that serves to drive against the shared-future agenda. Those people were supposed to have signed up to that; however — clearly — they are not as committed to a shared future as they have said. Mr McCartney: Has the Minister sought legal advice in respect of the Good Friday Agreement’s bearing on the FIFA proposal? Mr Poots: By making the proposal, FIFA are stirring up a hornets’ nest. Members have mentioned other countries in Europe. A high number of Russians live in the Baltic states. Large numbers of Hungarians live outside the borders of their country, in south-east Asia. We must also consider the position of the ethnic Albanians, Croats and Serbs. FIFA is engaging in politics in a dangerous way if it goes down that route. A person whose parents were born in Ireland and had moved to Australia can play for Ireland. That is a completely different situation from that of people who have been born and brought up in Northern Ireland, and whose parents have lived in Northern Ireland for generations. Northern Ireland is a legal entity, and it is part of the United Kingdom. Irrespective of whether people like it, Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. I am fully aware of the considerable debate among FIFA, the IFA and the FAI. Officials from my Department have been in regular contact with the IFA on this matter since it arose. As a result, I understand that the IFA had strongly advised FIFA to be cautious on this matter, and that FIFA representatives had, in response, as recently as October, assured the IFA that it intended to uphold the principle that players born in Northern Ireland should represent the Northern Ireland team. That was before undue, unwarranted and very wrong political pressure was applied on a sporting matter, when others decided to introduce politics into sport. It was, therefore, disappointing to learn that the FIFA legal committee now proposes that players born in Northern Ireland and entitled to hold UK or Irish nationality should be eligible to play for either the IFA or the FAI. Miss McIlveen: Does the Minister agree that Northern Ireland is in a unique position? Not only are we one of four football associations in one country, but a foreign country had a claim on our territory, and now willingly hands out its passports to our citizens to justify stealing our players. Mr McCartney: Read the Good Friday Agreement. Mr Poots: We are in a unique situation, and all four countries that make up the UK have independent football teams. That is partly due to the fact that the UK is the home of football, and we have been given some leeway in that matter over the years. I trust that that will continue. I am sure that Members opposite would not wish to move to a situation whereby everyone in Northern Ireland who reached a certain standard would have to play for a United Kingdom football team, and that that would be their only choice. I firmly believe that the FIFA legal committee’s recommendation, if accepted by FIFA’s executive committee, would have serious implications for the future of international football in Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is the agenda that some people follow. That would undermine the credibility of our international team among its fans and supporters. That will also lead to confusion about eligibility and representation, and could well have other more significant repercussions for the wider structures of football in Northern Ireland. Although I fully understand the desire of the Republic of Ireland to poach Northern Ireland players, given the current standing of both teams, it is still not right. If footballers are allowed to choose which country — Mr McCartney: Read the Good Friday Agreement. Mr Poots: I hear a Member who keeps getting agitated about a political agreement. We are talking about sport. We should be attempting to separate politics and sport, but some people keep trying to drag politics back into it. If footballers were allowed to choose which country they represent, there would be a real danger of Northern Ireland losing some of its most promising talent. We have only to look back at the late 1960s and 1970s, when certain Members encouraged young people not to apply to join the RUC, but to apply to the gardaí. We do not want to go down that route when it comes to sport. We must keep politics out of sport, and allow Northern Ireland’s sport, and sporting heroes — from whatever background — to develop. The FIFA proposal could undo much of the good work of the IFA, as well as of the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters’ Clubs in an effort to stamp out sectarianism at international football matches. It is worth noting some of the achievements of those bodies. The IFA’s Football for All project has worked to provide anti-sectarian and anti-racism training support for football clubs and community groups, using football to celebrate diversity. With significant financial backing from UEFA (Union of European Football Associations), the Football for All campaign has been extended across our society to incorporate activities to tackle exclusion, and to ensure that football is welcoming, safe and inclusive — regardless of age, gender, ability, disability, ethnic background or religion. In September 2006, delegates from UEFA and the EU awarded the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters’ Clubs the Brussels International Supporters Award for its efforts to stamp out sectarianism. More recently, on 31 October 2007, the IFA and the amalgamation were runners-up in the volunteer category of the UK-wide International Sports Event Management and Security Awards, in recognition of their efforts to give sectarianism the boot at international matches. It is sad that some people want to bring sectarianism back into football. I am amazed that Members should wish to create a single-identity football team. Moreover, I am concerned at the astonishing abuse of the petition of concern. That flies in the face of the principles of the shared future that was referred to earlier. As the Minister with responsibility for sport, I have sought to reach out to bodies with which we may not, previously, have been involved — in particular, the GAA — which I commend for its good work. I encourage that body to be more cross-community driven, and to see how it can reach out to other sections of the community that may not have participated much in its sports. I find it sad that some politicians want to drive Northern Ireland football in the opposite direction, and remove its cross-community element. That is an absolute disgrace. Once again, we can be truly proud of international football in Northern Ireland, on the pitches and the terraces. The recommendation that is under consideration by FIFA has the potential to undo or jeopardise much of the progress of recent years. I cannot foresee that that so-called freedom of choice will in any way benefit the development of international football in Northern Ireland — or Northern Ireland’s sporting image in general — particularly when we are developing a biennial competition for the Celtic nations. Every other year, the Northern Ireland team will be in competition with teams from the Irish Republic, Scotland and Wales — yet there are people from Northern Ireland who want to undermine our team before the competition even begins. Against that backdrop of concerns, and immediately after FIFA’s announcement, I met Howard Wells, the chief executive of the IFA, and Raymond Kennedy, its president, to discuss the proposed recommendation of the FIFA legal committee. Mr Wells believes that the recommendation flies in the face of FIFA’s existing player-eligibility rules, as set out in that organisation’s circular 901. He advised me that the IFA will strongly oppose the legal committee’s recommendation, and I fully endorse that position. Further, I offer the IFA whatever support it feels will be useful in having that recommendation rejected by the executive committee. I am conscious that this matter concerns a sporting organisation, and, given that I do not want to interfere inappropriately in the decisions of sporting bodies, I will take advice from the relevant sporting bodies on what I should do. As the Minister for sport, I have written to the general secretary of FIFA asking him to review the recommendation of the legal committee as a matter of urgency and to stand by FIFA’s long-standing principle that only players who are born within the territory of an association and who hold appropriate citizenship should be eligible to play for its international team. In conclusion, I welcome the interest that the Assembly has shown in the matter through this debate. I confirm that I am totally opposed to FIFA’s proposal, and I assure the House that I am doing all in my power to ensure that a satisfactory conclusion is reached as soon as possible. Further to that, I have asked Howard Wells to keep me informed of developments. Mr Ross: Members’ contributions have shown that this is a divisive issue. That should be a warning to FIFA that it should not proceed down this route. When the suggestion was first mooted that players from Northern Ireland who have no family or blood ties to the Irish Republic should be allowed to, effectively, choose which international team to play for, I, like many others, felt that local football could be damaged. Such a decision could potentially create a dangerous precedent in international football. Many Members have mentioned that point this afternoon. I have written to FIFA about the matter, and, through correspondence with the Minister, I know that he has done the same, as he has just confirmed. He has made representations to both FIFA and the IFA about the apparent inconsistency between this decision and FIFA’s own rules and regulations. In his contribution to the debate, my colleague Lord Browne mentioned FIFA’s mission statement. I am aware that three Brazilian players wished to represent the state of Qatar, but were barred from doing so by FIFA. We are not Brazil, we are Northern Ireland, but the same rules should apply to each case. I am glad that nobody stole that gag before I was able |