the assembly

Tuesday 26 September 2006

The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Madam Speaker in the Chair).

Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Madam Speaker: In accordance with the Northern Ireland Act 2006, the Secretary of State has directed that the Assembly should sit on Tuesday 26 September 2006 at 10.30 am to consider business as it appears on the Order Paper.

The Late
Mr Michael Ferguson MLA

Madam Speaker: Members, it is my sad duty to inform the House of the death of Mr Michael Ferguson, a Member for the West Belfast constituency. In accordance with convention, as a mark of respect for Mr Ferguson, the sitting will now be suspended until 11.00 am.

The sitting was suspended at 10.33 am.

On resuming (Madam Speaker in the Chair) —

11.00 am

Assembly Business

Madam Speaker: Before today’s business, I wish to address the issue of references to members of other elected chambers. Members will recall that, on Tuesday 12 September, I drew attention to a convention previously observed by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

For the information of the House, I will quote the words of the former Speaker, which can be found on page 77 of the ‘Northern Ireland Assembly Companion’. In referring to comments made on the Floor about two Northern Ireland Members of the European Parliament, which were capable of being construed as personal criticism, the former Speaker said:

“It is generally accepted in most responsible elected bodies that Members should not comment on Members of other elected chambers, not least because those Members are not present to defend themselves.”

I would also refer Members to the twenty-third edition of Erskine May, which refers, at page 439, to the need to guard against all appearance of personality in debate. I believe that it is appropriate for the Assembly to adhere, where possible, to the guiding principle of guarding against the appearance of personality in debate.

In reminding the House of this principle, and given the range of issues that emerged in the ensuing exchanges with Members, it is apparent from Hansard that the issues on which I sought to offer guidance became less than clear. I would like to take this opportunity to restore some clarity by dealing with each of the areas of apparent confusion in turn.

I will turn first to the issue of naming officials. It has been the convention in the Chamber that references to civil servants should be to an official position and not to a named individual. Indeed, Members may recall that I drew this convention to the attention of the House on 5 June 2006, when I reported that the head of the Civil Service had agreed that Northern Ireland Civil Service officials would attend relevant debates and sit in the officials’ boxes.

With regard to the comments about members of other elected chambers, I have already referred to the background of the existing convention. The convention appears to be more concerned with the avoidance of comments that could be interpreted as being of a personal nature, and to be closely associated with the importance of maintaining the dignity of the House. It is clear that critical comments of a personal nature are equally out of order whether the reference is to a named individual or to that person’s official title.

The two earlier rulings may have become confused, particularly the misconceptions that arose about the use of names. This confusion then became further compounded by reference to “other elected chambers” and “criticism of Ministers”, to which I will now turn.

Always mindful of the dignity of the House, to which I have already referred, it would seem that the proper role of Members of this Chamber would be to comment on, and challenge, the policies of the Government and its Ministers — whether by name or office — in the interests of the electorate. As Speaker, I can think of many occasions since 15 May 2006 on which this has been the case, and I consider that it is perfectly in order for Members to do so.

In the same context, and subject to it being relevant to the business being conducted, I would not generally consider it to be out of order for a Member to comment on the policies of the Government of any country in the world. In so doing, references might properly be made to particular Ministers or, indeed, to the heads of those Governments, with regard to the policy in question.

However, what I would not consider to be in order, in relation to remarks about members of other legislatures, is where comments stray into the arena of personal insults, vitriol or invective.

I would have no hesitation in asking a Member to temper his or her comments where, in my view, a line has been crossed.

My original intention in reminding the House of our conventions stemmed from noting a number of references in the previous day’s Hansard both to civil servants and to current and former Ministers, here and elsewhere. I therefore considered that it might be timely to draw attention to the earlier ruling.

I hope that there is now greater clarity about these issues. If Members continue to have concerns, or seek further clarity, they can be addressed through the usual channels or on advice from the Clerks in the Business Office.

I trust that those matters are now clearer. I shall move on.

Secretary of State Motion

Report on Rights, Safeguards,
Equality Issues and Victims

Madam Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that Members will be called to speak to the motion, according to the usual conventions, with an upper time limit of 15 minutes to be applied to all those called to speak. The debate will continue until all those who have indicated that they wish to speak have been called to do so. I intend to send a copy of the Official Report of the debate to the Secretary of State.

Motion made:

That the Assembly notes the work of the Committee on the Preparation for Government and the report on Rights; Safeguards; Equality Issues and Victims. — [The Secretary of State.]

Mr McCausland: In the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Democratic Unionist Party committed itself to seeking a fair deal. That principle of fairness is very much in keeping with the core principles of the document ‘A Shared Future’, one of which is equality. The work of the Committee on the Preparation for Government (PFG) was to scope and explore areas that needed to be addressed, and I wish to examine several of those this morning.

The first is the issue of victims. In the course of our discussions about victims, Sinn Féin attempted to remove real differences and to argue that the perpetrators were victims, just as much as those who suffered at the hands of the perpetrators. That position is dishonest; however, it is very much part of republican thinking, because there has been no remorse from the IRA, and there is certainly no sign of repentance. Furthermore, Sinn Féin continues to glorify and extol the role of the IRA in its terrorist campaign over the past 30 years.

Our position is absolutely clear. There is no correlation or comparison between, on the one hand, the terrorist who planted a bomb in a shop on the Shankill Road on a busy Saturday and was blown up by that bomb and, on the other hand, the innocent victims, including children, who were killed by that bomb.

The PFG Committee touched on the issue of the past and how to deal with it, and how to explore and remember the past. However, although those issues were raised, there was no agreement, in spite of the confusion on one occasion in the ranks of Sinn Féin. How can we hope to get to the truth when Martin McGuinness is bound by an IRA code of silence, and Gerry Adams cannot even remember being in the IRA. We may ask what his role was in the republican movement in west Belfast, for example, at the time of the Bloody Friday bombings, but we are unlikely to get much help from him in answering that question.

On the question of victims, the DUP put to the Committee the possibility of developing a border fund. Along the border are Protestant communities that suffered a campaign of ethnic cleansing by the IRA. Many of the victims were farmers and young Protestants, who carried on working on border farms, but who were selected by the IRA and murdered in order to drive the families off the farms. The way in which that was done was sustained, systematic and sectarian. The IRA took its terrorist campaign to every part of Northern Ireland, but that aspect was unique to border areas. Those communities that suffered in that way deserve special support to rebuild themselves.

For that reason, there should be a special border fund for those border communities that have been targeted by terrorists.

The PFG Committee touched on the parades issue; it is now quite a number of years since Sinn Féin started to agitate around parades of the Orange Order and other Loyal Orders. As part of its strategy of broadening the battlefield, the republican movement organised residents’ groups, orchestrated protests against parades, demonised orangemen, and cultivated a hatred of them. That cynical political decision was aimed at damaging the Orange Order, demoralising orangemen, dividing the unionist community and diverting unionists from other important work.

Today, we live with the legacy of Sinn Féin’s strategy, which claims main arterial routes as the property of republicans and demands that those who wish to use those roads seek Sinn Féin’s consent. There must be an end to the Parades Commission and the current processes. A new approach is needed, based on a shared future, that sees our main arterial routes as shared public space. Sinn Féin says that it wants to share Government with unionists, but at the same time refuses to share main roads with us. Sinn Féin has created a poison that pollutes the life of our society. If the desired stability and peace are to be achieved, that problem must be resolved.

‘A Shared Future’ envisages a society with equality at its heart. However, the Government continue to pursue policies based on inequality and discrimination, one of the most notorious examples of which relates to the funding of festivals, particularly in Belfast. For many years, the Government have given substantial annual grants to the West Belfast Festival. Indeed, one civil servant, whom I dare not name, told me that a way had to be found of “laundering the money” so that it would find its way to the West Belfast Festival — an organisation whose board reads like a who’s who of the republican movement.

Money also went to the Ardoyne Fleadh, which benefited from the renowned cultural skills of Eddie Copeland, and to the New Lodge Festival, which has more than a nodding acquaintance with Sinn Féin. Over the years, millions of pounds have been handed over to those festivals, enabling a growth in infra­structure, expertise and skills that is not available to unionist communities. This has enabled the construction of other cultural projects that now operate almost, or entirely, independently.

The disparity in funding was brought to the attention of the Government, which, after years of prevarication, initiated a review. In the meantime, the Government decided to fund only those festivals that were already being funded. As a result, the three republican festivals were locked into funding and unionist communities were locked out. The equality implication of that decision was ignored. The review took several years, and throughout that period unionist festivals remained locked out while republicans were assured of continued funding.

Eventually a new, fairer system was introduced — something for which the DUP had lobbied for years — in which everyone was to be treated equally. However, that was not good enough for Sinn Féin. After both Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly made their way to the Northern Ireland Office and met the Secretary of State, republican festivals received not only money from the new scheme, but additional money on top. Such arbitrary decisions, which give a preferential position to Sinn Féin, create anger and frustration.

Sinn Féin talks about equality, but is not interested in equality. Sinn Féin is interested only in patronage and preferential treatment. Despite its references to equality, the Belfast Agreement entrenched and increased cultural inequality — in fact, the agreement’s section on equality is a prime example of inequality, as illustrated by the difference in funding between the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge. Since the creation of cross-border bodies, there has been a massive differential in the level of funding of the two cross-border language bodies, and year-on-year that differential increases. It has been suggested — and I have heard this from the former Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister Michael McGimpsey — that the Ulster-Scots Agency was unable to spend its budget. That is a somewhat disingenuous comment, because from the time of the Belfast Agreement, there has been a substantial need within the Ulster-Scots community for funding for its projects and programmes. The problem did not lie with the Ulster-Scots community but with the way in which the agency was operated. It was also the result of Government policy.

11.15 am

A report that I submitted is included in the Com­mittee’s report. It is a copy of an internal Government memo that dates from before devolution, when the old Central Community Relations Unit (CCRU) directed language and cultural policy. It was the Government’s social engineering unit. In that memo, the Government set out how, on one hand, they wanted to depoliticise language, but, for political reasons, would give con­cessions on the Irish language to encourage Sinn Féin. At the same time, they would hinder the development of Ulster-Scots and, therefore, deny equality. The programme set out how that would be done. The policy shaped the cultural element of the Belfast Agreement. That is why it was such an unfair document.

The legacy of that discriminatory policy remains. In 2006, the budget for the two language bodies meant that for every £1 that was given to the Ulster-Scots Agency, Foras na Gaeilge received £6. In one year, that disparity amounts to around £10 million, which continues year-on-year. Moreover, the Ulster-Scots Agency has to pick up the tab for educational and other projects that Government Departments, such as the Department of Education, should fund but fail to.

Cultural equality requires much more than money. There is also the issue of broadcasting. The BBC provides extensive broadcasting in Irish and gives extensive coverage to Gaelic sports. The treatment of other cultural traditions, however, in particular Ulster Scots, has been paltry and sporadic. The BBC has deliberately attempted to conceal that. When it reported to the Council of Europe, it did so in such a way that was so misleading as to be dishonest. Indeed, the BBC eventually had to submit an amended report to the Council of Europe. That discrimination in language broadcasting, which is symptomatic of a deeper problem in the BBC, continues.

I am glad that the Committee managed to reach agreement on one issue, which was that of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which sets out specific cultural rights for children and young people and puts those in the context of the education system. Those rights are implemented across some of the education sectors, in particular the Irish-medium sector, which is based on Irish cultural tradition, and the Roman Catholic-maintained sector, which also has an Irish cultural ethos. The cultural identity of schoolchildren in those sectors is affirmed through teaching and learning. However, in many controlled-sector schools, there is a different approach to cultural rights. As a result, children from unionist and Protestant homes, the vast majority of whom attend schools in that sector, are denied the cultural rights that the Irish-medium and Roman Catholic-maintained sectors have by a significant margin.

I am glad that the Committee agreed to call on the Department of Education to initiate a programme of work so that the cultural rights of children, as set out in the charter, are implemented and monitored across all sectors. That will require guidance for school governors, appropriate training for teachers and the production of school resources. The overall responsibility for the implementation and monitoring of those rights lies with the Department. I hope that, in the light of that broad agreement, the Department of Education will face up to its responsibility. Whatever the culture in the home, whether it be Ulster-Scots culture or orange culture, children have a right to learn about that culture at school, just as other children have a right to learn about Irish culture.

I want to mention two aspects of cultural tourism and two organisations that are involved in its development and promotion. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board has the role of product development for tourism, but it has treated cultures other than Irish culture in a shoddy and shabby way and has failed to recognise their potential in the development of Northern Ireland’s cultural tourism product.

International marketing is the role of Tourism Ireland. There is a vast potential market in America among the 20 million Scots-Irish Americans, just as there is an equally vast market among a similar number of Irish Americans. Only recently has Tourism Ireland taken its first tentative steps to look at that Scots-Irish American market. Northern Ireland’s product development through the Tourist Board and the international market must be reviewed and reshaped to ensure that all its cultural divisions have a place within the cultural tourism industry and, through that diversity, ensure the product differentiation that is necessary in the marketplace.

The divisive nature of various aspects of Gaelic culture must also be considered. The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) is the governing body for Gaelic sports. It is unique among sports’ governing bodies in that political aspirations and a political agenda are built into its constitution.

That agenda is nationalist, and that is why grounds, clubs and competitions are often named after republican heroes. A primary school in west Belfast has even named its club in honour of Bobby Sands. That sets him up as a role model for children.

During the recent debacle when Sinn Féin staged a rally in Casement Park, Francie Brolly defended his party’s position by saying that he did not understand how representatives from the GAA could say that it was not a political organisation. Casement Park was named after Roger Casement, not due to his hurling skills, but due to the fact that he was a republican icon. The old IRA paraded at the opening of Casement Park in 1953.

I urge the Sports Council for Northern Ireland and the Community Relations Council to work with the GAA to address the issue and to depoliticise the sport, shed the political baggage and become a genuinely sporting organisation like others in Northern Ireland.

Some items in the report deal with the differential in the voluntary sector’s capacity in the two communities, unionist and nationalist. There are some issues that recent reports from the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action have attempted to disguise. I am glad that there is also agreement for a non-lottery funding source for those who have difficulty in securing lottery money for moral reasons.

The Committee on the Preparation for Government was asked to scope issues that needed to be addressed. We did that, but there was no agreement. There is a range of issues that the Government have tried to ignore and put on the long finger, but equality delayed is equality denied. We are not looking for concessions, but for equality.

Madam Speaker: Mr McCausland, your time is up.

Mr Nesbitt: I shall primarily address equality and human rights issues, and my colleague Mr Hussey will address the equally important subject of victims.

Recently, CAJ — a body that has had much to say on equality over the years — launched a report entitled ‘Equality in Northern Ireland: The Rhetoric and the Reality’. The first sentence of the report states:

“Issues of equality and non-discrimination have fed and fuelled the conflict in Northern Ireland over the decades.”

Much has been written to support the notion that equality and rights have been central to the problems in Northern Ireland. Therefore I welcome the motion. It is important that we discuss this matter, but I regret that Sinn Féin is absent.

Equality and human rights are sensitive topics. As Sir Walter Scott said:

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”

I see much deceit in the equality statements. I am also struck by the comment attributed to Benjamin Disraeli:

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”

If you combine statistics with a tangled web, you end up with a sensitive issue called “equality”. What can we say about it today with reasonable objectivity? Prof Eithne McLaughlin and Neil Faris were appointed to conduct a review of equality policy in Northern Ireland. They concluded that Northern Ireland was internationally unique in that it has one of the most rigorous, strenuous and legalistic equality processes anywhere in the democratic world. An article in ‘The Irish Times’ some time ago described Northern Ireland as the consultation capital of the world, such is the intrusive nature of the equality agenda in our society.

In the preparation for Government in 1997, it was concluded that the consultation was required as there was a lack of employment opportunity and a need to promote equality and to combat discrimination. Indeed, the Queen’s Speech of 14 May 1997 heralded that the new Government would take measures to combat discrimination in the workplace.

There is a clear motive for Government policy and section 75 to show the need for equality of opportunity, equality impact assessments and equality schemes. How do we know whether there is equality? UNISON and CAJ, the two bodies that organised last Friday’s seminar, said that the unemployment differential was a clear measure of discrimination and must be addressed. The SDLP and Sinn Féin were also clear about that. In the booklet published last week, CAJ said that success in eliminating the unemployment differential was the acid test of the commitment to equality. It remarked that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) and Invest Northern Ireland (INI) had not delivered on the equality com­mitment to eliminate the unemployment differential.

I do not want to get into statistics, but I want to place on record my belief that the argument put forward by CAJ in the 1990s, and in the booklet published last week, are based on fundamentally flawed statistics and cannot be used as an measurement tool to assess whether Government are delivering on policy. I challenge CAJ today. Why? I do so because, three times over the summer, I wrote to that organisation about a wider human rights issue — I still await a response. I presented a 30-page statistical analysis to the Committee and during meetings, I challenged parties, particularly Sinn Féin and the SDLP, to meet with me to discuss the issues. I am still waiting for a response.

Mr Robert McCartney: Will the Member give way?

Mr Nesbitt: If I give way, will I be allowed extra time? Yes.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the hon Member agree that Sir Robert Cooper and other members of the Fair Employment Agency (FEA) repeatedly confirmed that discrimination and lack of equality were absolutely minimal factors in any disparity between Catholic and Protestant unemployment?

Mr Nesbitt: The evidence shows that those had no direct relevance whatsoever to the unemployment rates in the 1990s.

It is annoying that Sinn Féin said that I have a “flat earth” policy, and an SDLP member said that my writings on the matter rival the best-selling book, ‘How to lie with statistics’. Those who made such statements should step up to the plate and discuss the matter with me.

I recognise disadvantage in Northern Ireland, and I have always said that it must be addressed. However, let us be honest with ourselves about some of the data. Let us take the example of INI and the report it published yesterday. Of course, there is more assistance to the east than to the west, but there is a greater population in the east than in the west. In fact, spending on assistance per head of population is much higher in the west, at £1,273, than it is in the east, where it is £1,200. Similarly, more is spent on foreign direct investment (FDI) in the west than in the east.

CAJ cited the fact that far more is spent in South Belfast than in West Belfast. However, 30% of the spend in South Belfast was put towards centres of excellence at Queen’s University to enable more research to be carried out. As Dr McDonnell pointed out two weeks ago, such research will not only benefit South Belfast, but all of Northern Ireland.

People often use parliamentary constituencies as a comparator for employment figures. However, that is not a good comparator — travel-to-work areas often cut across parliamentary boundaries.

Of the 37 foreign companies investing in Northern Ireland, 74% were in New TSN areas, almost matching the target of 75%.

The Government are silent on the issue. They crouch so low below the parapet that they are virtually non-existent. They need to step up to the plate and make it clear that the analysis of the 1990s was wrong and that there is equality of opportunity in recruitment. An FEA booklet provides evidence of that, using the benchmark of social mobility and showing that in the 1990s — at the very time when the Government set out to combat discrimination — religious base had no bearing on recruitment. Regrettably, the UK Government have failed to come up to the mark — never mind the foreign Governments that you, Madam Speaker, have asked us not to mention.

I turn now to human rights. We have had a conflict in Northern Ireland. Often, in addressing that conflict, international standards are mentioned. We must under­stand and observe human rights; that is a central plank of a modern democratic society. However, when war broke out in the Middle East this summer, Dermot Ahern said that Israel must abide by international law. On 18 July, he maintained that Israel must abide “strictly” by that law. The Prime Minister Tony Blair, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister for the Middle East Kim Howells, and even Sinn Féin have said the same: Israel must abide by international law.

11.30 am

Sinn Féin often waxes eloquent on what should be done abroad. In the Committee on the Preparation for Government, I challenged Sinn Féin members to tell me whether their party would subscribe to the principles of international human rights law in the context of Northern Ireland. The answer I received was fudged; it was no answer. When Gerry Adams went to the Middle East, he spoke of principles that applied not only to the Middle East, but to Northern Ireland. He stated that there should be respect for human rights and international law. I put it to Sinn Féin in Committee, and I say again today, that if Sinn Féin had respect for human rights and international law, this would not be a shadow Assembly but a full and functioning one.

Sinn Féin walks the world stage pretending to be moderate, modern and internationalist. It pretends to champion human rights. However, at the very core of that party is a form of aggressive nationalism and a lack of respect for the institutions of state that has been rejected everywhere in the democratic world.

Where are the Government? They have made an interesting statement. They have asked Sinn Féin to draw a distinction between constitutional and practical policing; at one stroke, the Government have undermined their commitments to international obligations. They are playing fast and loose with the democratic values needed to underpin any stable settlement in Northern Ireland. With regard to human rights and equality, stark questions must be asked.

How is it that the UK Government expect unionists and nationalists to sit in an Administration with Sinn Féin, when they themselves have undermined the necessary ingredients for a stable, functioning Admin­istration to exist in Northern Ireland? I am being penalised because Sinn Féin does not abide by standards of international democratic practice. The party I represent signs up to all these standards; Sinn Féin does not.

Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown said that all in our country are to play by the rules. The United Kingdom is a member of both the Council of Europe and the European Union. When one is in a club, one plays by the rules. However, the United Kingdom Government are not playing by the rules, and Mr Brown’s statement is not relevant to Northern Ireland.

I read thoroughly the words that were carefully crafted by Dr Seán Brady, Archbishop of Armagh, and, I regret to say, they did not match up to the international standards that are meant to apply in a democracy.

Mr Robert McCartney: What did he say?

Mr Nesbitt: I have said all that I wish to say in 14 minutes.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Nesbitt: I have been asked to tell what the archbishop said, and I will do that in the minute of my time that remains. I request some latitude, because Mr McCartney has requested that I tell the House what the archbishop said. He said that those people who tolerate criminality are incompatible with those who have responsibility for Government. That implies that if one does not have a responsibility, the toleration can be wavered. He also said that where there is a commitment to the institutions of policing, there should not be a problem in the formation of the Government, especially if that Government do not have policing responsibility. Dr Brady’s implication there is that we should form the Government now, and the commit­ment will be given and then, possibly, delivered.

My problem, Madam Speaker, and I finish on this —

Madam Speaker: Mr Nesbitt, your time is over.

Mr Nesbitt: Will you not give me another 30 seconds to respond to Mr McCartney?

Madam Speaker: Mr Nesbitt, your time is up.

Ms Lewsley: I preface my contribution by thanking the Committee Clerks for the hard work, commitment and professionalism they showed during the PFG Committee meetings, and for the endurance that they demonstrated during the debate about two boxes, particularly. I also thank the Hansard staff for their professionalism and commitment, especially con­sidering that it was the summer holidays and the team was 12 short.

The fact that all the parties got round an oblong table — not a round table — at the beginning of the proceedings was progress, as was their achieving consensus on nine proposals or basic principles. Sadly, that consensus was turned into censorship by Sinn Féin just over a week ago when it vetoed the opportunity for many of the political parties — including some of its own members who attended the meetings during the summer and who gave their time and commitment, none less than the late Michael Ferguson — to engage in this debate, and, worse, the right to have the report printed. Sinn Féin’s excuse for that action was that it was not taking part in any Hain talking shop. However, in the comprehensive agreement, that same party, along with the DUP, agreed to a shadow Assembly that was nothing more than a Hain talking shop.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I will touch on many of the issues that were debated in the PFG Committee. The issues debated in the Committee were not contributory to suspension, and, therefore, should not be viewed as preconditions to the restoration of the Assembly and its institutions.

The first proposal or basic principle agreed by the PFG Committee was the need for a bill of rights. All parties in the Committee agreed to follow agreement on that proposal with a half-day seminar on 5 October 2006, which will be facilitated by the Human Rights Com­mission, and that must be seen as progress. The SDLP, like many other parties, wants to see the best possible bill of rights for Northern Ireland, one which reflects socio-economic rights as well as political rights.

Above all, we want a bill of rights that everyone in Northern Ireland can buy into, so that rights are not solely for nationalists or for unionists but for every individual. The best way to reach agreement on a bill of rights is through a round-table forum that involves the political parties and civic society. The chairperson of that forum should be someone of international standing, appointed by the two Governments, and able to choose his or her own independent secretariat.

The round-table forum should report its findings to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which, in turn, should report to the Secretary of State. The Human Rights Commission should also, at the request of the chairperson, contribute to the round-table discussions. The SDLP would like that round-table forum to be set up straight away. Members should remember that the DUP and Sinn Féin agreed, as part of the comprehensive agreement, that that forum should be set up.

We, and many other parties, have lobbied direct-rule Ministers, past and present, to get the round-table forum up and running. While the SDLP supports a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, we also want to see an all-Ireland charter of rights, which would be at the cutting edge of rights in Europe. It is also important that any future Administration engage the help of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to rights-proof any policies and legislation throughout all Government Departments.

I want to make three points on equality, the first of which is the issue of need. The Good Friday Agreement is clear that need must be targeted objectively. If real need is targeted, all communities — Catholic or Protestant, unionist or nationalist, or from any other background — will be enhanced. There is also an opportunity for perceived need to be dealt with.

I know that there is educational underachievement in Protestant communities. The SDLP believes that, by tackling that need, that issue will be addressed. However, the proportion of Catholics who leave school with no qualifications is higher overall, and that is a fast track to unemployment. Therefore, it is important that that prob­lem also be tackled on the basis of need. I welcome the proposal on that matter that was agreed by the Committee.

Secondly, there can be no regression in equality laws. Those laws are a given, and the SDLP will consider opportunities to enhance them. However, we will not support any dilution of those laws. An integrated equality agenda is needed, and that should be brought about through a single equality Bill that harmonises our laws upwards as far as practicable. During the lifetime of the previous Assembly, its two junior Ministers hoped to take Northern Ireland into the lead with a single equality Bill. Unfortunately, because of EU regulations on age and sexual orientation, the Assembly had to defer that Bill. I hope that that matter can now be moved forward.

Equality of opportunity can be created through the realisation of the promise of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. In order to do that, the standard of equality impact assessments must be improved. Often, they lack statistics and rigour, and they should place greater focus on key policies. A strategy for the implementation of section 75 would be helpful.

Thirdly, the commitment to the eradication of unemployment differentials referred to in the agree­ment must be realised. The unemployment differential in 1971 was 2·5; it has now been brought down to 1·8. I want any differential to be eradicated.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member accept a point of information?

Ms Lewsley: Yes.

Mr Nesbitt: Between 2·5 and 1·8, the employment differential was as low as 1·6, and is now up to 2·1. It moves and varies over time. There are two ways of measuring the unemployment differential: one is a ratio, and one is an absolute gap. I support the latter and not the former, which is statistically flawed.

Madam Speaker: There is no such thing as a point of information, Mr Nesbitt. However, I am sure that Ms Lewsley accepts your comments.

Ms Lewsley: I gave way to what I regarded as an intervention.

As with unemployment, there are differentials in economic activity. There are many unemployment black spots, especially west of the Bann. A process to deal with those problems must be introduced, and the Government must also take responsibility centrally to ensure that differentials in housing allocations are dealt with.

11.45 am

Progress has been made; however, there is more to do. As well as being a right in principle, equality of opportunity will help to build a more harmonious and cohesive community.

Creating a shared future is the purpose of any peace process and is about equal citizenship and human rights for all. All public goods, services and facilities should be accessible to everyone. A shared future should be about living, working and playing together. When making policy, a new Executive must take account of ‘A Shared Future’ and give it their full support.

As things stand, those who are intimidated, rather than the perpetrators of that intimidation, are moved on. It matters that people are frightened when they go through our city and town centres at night and that flags and murals — and, more recently, football regalia — intimidate people. Such attacks cannot be justified, nor can the failure to reach political agreement.

‘A Shared Future’ cannot be seen as a small, side policy; it must be a major structure of Government. That means opposing all forms of sectarianism and taking a firm stand against all that is said and done in a sectarian way, rather than explaining, minimising or making excuses for sectarianism. It means removing flags from all public properties.

The Committee heard about the building blocks of ‘A Shared Future’. There are many such building blocks; for example, good relations. Good relations must be the mainstay of central Government and their Departments, as it must be of our current councils and the new ones that will emerge from the Review of Public Administration (RPA). Good relations should be implemented as a key part of section 75 alongside the new power-sharing arrangements that will promote working partnerships when the RPA is put in place. Good-relations committees have been set up in most councils; however, a few have yet to be established, some are working while many are not, and some are paying lip service to the idea. All our councils must reach a standard, and it is particularly important that political parties on councils sign up to the concept of good relations and ensure its delivery.

In trying to reach a compromise, we need to under­stand respect and diversity. As I said, good relations can help to achieve that. We have talked for a long time about a shared future, and it is time that we made that talk a reality.

The SDLP believes that, on a moral basis, we must leave the past behind. There is a danger in our society if we do not face up to that past. Moreover, it is deeply unfair to deny victims the truth, if that is what they seek. It is also important that the language used is more sensitive to the needs of victims and survivors. The very least that those people should expect from us is the acknowledgement of their terrible loss and a commit­ment to ensure that they do not carry the burden of remembering on their own.

More can, and must, be done to address the needs of victims and survivors of conflict. As we rebuild our society, they struggle to rebuild their lives. The SDLP wants a greater platform for victims so that their needs can be articulated and their stories heard and acknow­ledged. It wants to ensure that any process for dealing with the past is victim-centred. That is why my party supports the role of the Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, although the manner of the appointment of the person in that post was unfortunate. My party also supports the establishment of a victims’ and survivors’ forum.

The Committee agreed the proposal to make victims’ needs a priority in the Programme for Government. Through that, we will have the opportunity to address how services for victims can be improved and better compensation payments given to those who have received little or nothing. Funding has often been mentioned. Only last night, those in a meeting of a victims’ group in north Belfast asked why £3·3 million has been given to loyalist communities to remove murals from walls, given that that group often finds itself scraping around for funding to help victims. The entire sector needs more focused funding. Funding should be more flexible, as some victims are now elderly and their needs may have changed. For example, they may have mental health issues or problems with dementia.

A strong monitoring role is needed to oversee how money is spent and to assess its impact. That should be reviewed regularly to ensure that the funding targets those most in need.

Victims have told me that the restoration of the Assembly is important, as it would give them the opportunity to talk more freely about the issues that concern them, as well as greater access to Government. Any future Government should ensure that victims’ needs are centred, rather than policy-driven, so that those needs are taken into consideration. Services must be monitored and matched to need. The Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors could carry out that monitoring role.

The commissioner’s office should be a one-stop shop where victims can get direction on the issue that concerns them. Services must be equitable across Northern Ireland and across all age ranges. I commend the commissioner on her latest report, ‘A Forum for Victims & Survivors: Consultation Responses’, which is a summary of feedback from consultation seminars on the role and purpose of victims’ and survivors’ forums. It represents the voices of victims and survivors, not that of the commissioner.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, I would like to address the issue of the disappeared. The British Government recently responded to a series of recommendations on the disappeared made by the independent Commissioner for the Location of Victims’ Remains. Although that announcement is welcome, it is long overdue. The SDLP has already expressed its concerns about the delay and is pleased to see the commitment being made at last that there will be a liaison officer for the families; the Committee agreed that in principle.

There must be a renewed will to find the bodies. Some people mistakenly believe that everything that can be done has been done; that is simply not true. No amount of good work by Governments will make up for the lack of co-operation shown by those in the IRA or INLA who were involved in those terrible crimes in the first place. Their victims’ lives and bodies were stolen. If the perpetrators have any conscience at all, they must do everything they can to ensure that they do not rob the families of a Christian burial.

Some Members: Hear, hear.

Mr Ford: I join Ms Lewsley in expressing thanks to the staff of the Committee, the co-chairpersons, and the important people such as Hansard and the catering services who kept the work flowing over the summer.

Madam Speaker, the debate is supposed to be on a report of the Committee on the Preparation for Govern­ment. That Government will by necessity involve power sharing, so it is regrettable that much of the debate so far has actually concentrated on accusations in one direction or another about equality issues. Mr McCausland’s speech was almost entirely about equality — or rather, his perception of Protestant inequality. He was backed up by Mr Nesbitt, who devoted almost all of his speech to the same topic. Ms Lewsley countered with her version of statistics, in a speech which at least covered rather more than the single issue of equality. It seems that the statisticians will have much work to do, and also, given the reaction in the Chamber, that it does not matter what they say, as we each have a set of inbuilt prejudices.

Mr Nesbitt: Will Mr Ford give way for a moment?

Mr Ford: Oh, give us a chance. [Laughter.]

Mr Nesbitt: Will he?

Mr Ford: I think that it is customary, Madam Speaker, that Members are allowed at least to start to develop their argument before being asked to give way. I would have thought that an experienced former Minister like Mr Nesbitt would be aware of precedent.

The equality section of the report also talks extensively about a shared future. One of the more interesting points of debate was between Michael Ferguson and the Alliance Party as to whether the issue of a shared future was solely about equality. The Alliance Party believes that it clearly is not. An enormous amount of work needs to be done — the debate this morning has proved just how much — to change mindsets and start to build a shared future.

I do not believe that there would be any stability in the institutions that we are seeking to restore by 24 November if we did not also actively work to build a shared future. Community relations is not an add-on to be done by nice people in their spare time. If we cannot establish good relations in every Government institution and build a shared future in every aspect of the working of this Assembly and the institutions that depend on it, ultimately there is no chance that the process that we are engaged in will succeed.

It is, of course, unfortunate that the devolved Executive were unable to make any progress prior to suspension on the shared future agenda. We were promised that the publication of the report was imminent several times, but we depended on direct-rule Ministers to take that forward.

Now is the time when we must turn the general statement of a commitment to build a shared future, contained in paragraph 23 of the report, into a meaning­ful commitment to address the issues. We must first address the issues of the way in which Members arrived in this place. We must get away from the notion that Northern Ireland is a society neatly divided into two antagonistic communities with no connection between them, each of which is completely homogenous inter­nally. That was never correct, and it is certainly less and less correct as society changes, yet this society continues to bear the huge costs — economic, financial, social and political — of trying to maintain a society as if that were the case.

The simple reality is that, economically, we cannot afford to waste £1 billion a year on managing segregation. As a community that needs to be modern, forward-looking, outgoing and welcoming to visitors — whether they be tourists or those wishing to set up businesses — we cannot afford the cost of neglecting that need, while maintaining segregation and division.

Although I welcome the fact that parties gave a commitment to building a shared future, it is a matter of considerable regret that the Committee was unable to achieve the consensus to sign up to the specific documents: the ‘A Shared Future’ framework document; and even the first triennial action plan. I cannot under­stand how Members can carry out their commitments to build a shared future unless they are prepared to work on the basis of the available documentation.

I keep thinking, Madam Speaker, that Mr Nesbitt is about to take the opportunity to intervene.

Mr Nesbitt: Shall I do it now?

Mr Ford: Certainly. The Member was shuffling his papers.

Mr Nesbitt: I was passing something back to my colleague; it was nothing to do with this.

When I invited any or all the parties around the table to enter discussions, they did not respond. Alliance was one of those parties, and it too has not responded. I am more than happy to discuss any statistical dimension with Mr Ford and to try to reach an objective conclusion. However, I am afraid that Alliance, like the other parties, said no, and that it did not want to talk.

Ms Lewsley: We did not say no. We have not got around to replying.

Mr McCarthy: We never say no.

Mr Ford: My colleague has spoken for the Alliance Party, as has Patricia Lewsley for the SDLP. The timing priorities, while the Committee was working so hard, perhaps countered the opportunities for the delights of further discussion on employment and equality, such as I had on one occasion that I remember, on a particular sunny morning in Hillsborough some years ago. I have no doubt that Mr Nesbitt will be his usual informed and erudite self, and I look forward to those discussions, perhaps around the environs of a golf course in Scotland shortly.

I wish to consider the wider issue of the past and its legacy. There is a mood within this society that it is dangerous to talk about the past, that that is counter-productive to attempts to move forward, and that to do so opens wounds. However, all that we know about seeking the healing that individuals require, and the reconciliation that this society needs, is that we must deal with the wounds of the past in a comprehensive and holistic fashion. We must provide a measure of closure to those who have suffered more than others. If we cannot do that, we will again threaten the possibility of making progress.

There have been far too many piecemeal events in the past. Indeed, the rather unfortunate manner of the appointment of the Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors was an example of that. I welcome the work that Mrs McDougall has been doing; my party has met her, and I believe that she is doing the job to the best of her ability. However, the manner of her appointment gave her a profoundly difficult start, which was most unhelpful.

We need to look at a variety of options in an open way and not always retreat into the immediate holes that people retreat into when difficulties arise. Is there scope for some form of memorial? There is almost certainly not scope for a physical memorial — that might create too many difficulties. However, a day of remembrance or reflection might enable individuals, in their own ways and in whatever company they feel content and safe, to think back over the suffering of the entire community.

12.00 noon

We need to find a way to allow victims to put their stories on the record. Clearly, we will never have a South-African style truth and reconciliation commission, but people should at least be given that opportunity. It would help them to define how they felt and how they suffered, and it would allow them to experience the healing that having their stories recognised by the wider community would bring.

Although it would be extremely difficult, maybe we could consider a wider truth and recovery process. There are international precedents that we need to consider. There is a real need for the Government to take that measure on board, perhaps in conjunction with an incoming Executive. Doing so would ensure that, instead of just talking about what needs to be done and having occasional debates, we would be engaging in a wider process that would enable that to happen.

It is clear that a large number of victims still suffer in this society. I wish to highlight two groups in particular. The first is the families of the disappeared, who still suffer from not having Christian burial sites to which they can go to visit their loved ones. There is no doubt that, even after all these years, more could and should be done. Since my election as a constituency representative, one of the most moving experiences has been my visit to the house of a constituent to attend the wake — it was 30 years late — for his mother, Jean McConville, and my attendance at her funeral a few days later. To some extent, that family’s suffering has been eased, but other families are still suffering in silence, and we should never forget them.

The second group that we must remember are the exiles: those who remain outside Northern Ireland because of threats, fears of threats, and because the practice of exiling certain groups and people is not over. We must ensure that, in any attempt to move forward and to address the needs of victims, we remember those who are active victims, as well as those who are victims because of events that occurred years ago.

I urge unionists, who seem to be prepared to countenance a day of remembrance, to consider seriously whether it is a possibility. It does not need to be an event that, for particular reasons, their political opponents could easily hijack.

Finally, I want to consider human rights and the proposed bill of rights for Northern Ireland. My party has supported the introduction of such legislation for a long time. I believe that historians have recorded that, as long ago as 1962, in the Northern Ireland House of Commons, the Liberal MP for Queen’s University, Sheelagh Murnaghan, proposed such a measure in this Chamber. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights went some way, but, as a document from 1948, it is somewhat out of date. It solely covers civil and political rights; it does not deal with the social and economic rights that concern us so much now. Therefore, we need action to address the bill of rights.

We need action from the parties in the Assembly and from civil society to work with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC) — the body that has the formal statutory duty — to draw up an appropriate Northern Ireland bill of rights. There is precedent in European and international work. There is much that could be drawn on. We need to encourage NIHRC in its work by participation in a round-table format. It is to be hoped that our meeting with NIHRC in October will enable us to move forward on that process, to establish the round table, to tease out the areas of agreement and disagreement, and to make a constructive input to the work of NIHRC, as it makes its proposals to the Secretary of State.

Earlier, Patricia Lewsley referred to the belief that the SDLP has in human rights for every individual. I endorse that, but let us be clear that that means human rights for everyone as an individual. It refers to the rights of people who belong to minorities, and to the rights of those people who choose not to define them­selves as belonging to groups into which others may wish to place them. It is not a matter of a bipolar society’s looking at the balance of two groups. It is the right, which is in line with modern European and international legislation, to assert the rights of each and every individual to ensure that each and every individual has the same rights and abilities to make the most of his or her opportunities in this society.

Mr Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. The Member has stressed rightly, along with Mrs Lewsley, that these rights are individual.

That being the case, what about the rights of those individual applicants to the PSNI who come from the unionist or Protestant community? They, as individuals, are discriminated against by Order.

Mr Ford: I thank the Member for making the Alliance Party’s point using a somewhat unionist form of language.

The issue for the Alliance Party is not whether unionists or Protestants are discriminated against in their applications to join the Police Service. Rather than simply designate on the basis of religious belief, affirmative action must be taken to encourage the widest possible recruitment from every section of this society. To get the best possible Police Service, each and every individual should have the right to apply.

Mr Kennedy: Therefore the Member supports discrimination?

Mr Ford: It would help if the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party learned to listen rather than to interrupt.

We should not impose quotas, which are based on an inappropriate way of dividing up this society. We should take affirmative action to ensure that we attract people to apply to the Police Service, and then ensure that the best possible people are recruited.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ford: No. I do not have much time in which to give way. The Member has already had his one go.

I welcome the report, because it records that there has been progress on a number of items. However, on reading the report, and especially when one reads Hansard, it is clear that a vast amount of work remains to be done, particularly on building a shared future, meeting victims’ needs and building a culture of human rights for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Mr Dawson: My colleague Mr McCausland covered a wide range of issues that appear in the report. I take this opportunity to associate myself with his comments.

I shall focus on one of the equality issues that comes out of the report — section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. I welcome Mr Nesbitt’s comments, and his analysis of the equality issues debated in the Preparation for Government Committee, but I remind him that, in agreeing to and accepting the section 75 provisions as part of the Belfast Agreement, and as part of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 that flowed from the agreement, his party compounded the problem.

Mr Nesbitt: Will the Member give way?

Mr Dawson: I shall perhaps give way to the Member later. Let me develop my comments in line with precedent, as Mr Ford reminded the Member.

Ms Lewsley has spoken about section 75 in glowing terms. On this side of the House, section 75 of the 1998 Act is seen as a charter for the persecution of those who hold to a Christian world view. Section 75 establishes equivalence in the name of equality among groups for which no equivalence exists. For example, individuals have no choice over their race or their disability, but all individuals have a choice about whether they wish to engage in a homosexual lifestyle.

It should be remembered that section 75’s remit goes much further than simply equality of employment; equality, for the categories listed in section 75, must be promoted in every aspect of Government policy. It is there that section 75 goes much too far. Section 75’s approach to sexual orientation springs from the false notion, which the gay lobby promotes as an agenda item, that homosexuality is healthy, natural and normal. In fact, it is none of those things.

From that false basis, section 75 has delivered to Northern Ireland an industry of paper production and report writing, much of which has little relevance to the whole community and adds nothing to our country’s economic well-being. In fact, it deters inward investment from many organisations.

I said at the outset that section 75 is a charter for the persecution of Christians. Section 75 requires that individuals promote equality of opportunity among the named groups.

There can be no disagreement that equality of opportunity should be promoted on the grounds of race, gender, disability, politics, religion, and so forth. However, those categories and the category of sexual orientation clearly differ. Given that the categories listed in the Act are used to screen every Government policy, and that there is a responsibility to promote equality, Christians in government and in local authorities are being asked to promote an agenda and a lifestyle that they find morally and ethically repugnant, unacceptable and contrary to their religious beliefs. It is not acceptable that, in the name of equality, the religious beliefs of the majority of the population in Northern Ireland, from the two main traditions, are being undermined on the subject of homosexual practice.

Let me illustrate my point with a few examples. During the debates on civil partnership in Northern Ireland, many councillors, because of the provisions of section 75, were unable to resist the creation of a false equivalence between marriage and civil partnership. Those provisions mean that the groups listed under section 75 must have access to exactly the same facilities as those who want to marry in council chambers. Councillors were systematically bullied into offering council facilities to those who wanted civil partner­ships, including the marriage suites and full ceremonies. Let me put it on record again: there is no equivalence between marriage and civil partnership. There is no justification for forcing councils to treat marriage and civil partnership as being equal. In those debates on civil partnership, the deeply held religious and moral views of councillors were trampled on and ignored in the interests of equality.

I want to refer to the attitude of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to Christians on its staff. A report jointly commissioned by the Police Ombudsman and the Northern Ireland Policing Board, ‘Policing, Accountability and the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community in Northern Ireland’, states that police officers must not display homophobic attitudes. We have been told that police officers are always on duty; there is never an occasion when a police officer is off duty. The Ombudsman has confirmed to me that a police officer who is a lay preacher or a Sunday school teacher who decides to preach on Genesis, chapter 19, Romans, chapter 1, or First Corinthians, chapter 6, would be guilty, in the eyes of the law, of expressing a homophobic attitude and would be subject to discipline. It is unacceptable that freedom of speech and an individual’s beliefs are curtailed in this way in the name of equality.

The view of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is that the home and property of a school governor would be at risk if he or she allowed his or her religious views on homosexuality to influence the decisions that he or she might take on a school board. Councillors are voting and acting against their conscience, policemen and policewomen are unable to express their religious views, and teachers and governors on school boards are under threat of having their homes seized. That is the equality under which we live in Northern Ireland.

However, it does not end there. Consultation ended yesterday on proposals to outlaw sexual-orientation discrimination in the provision of goods and services. If the proposals are accepted in their current form, churches will be guilty of an offence if they do not allow their church halls to be used by gay and lesbian groups or do not allow their property to be sold to such a group if it happened to be for sale. Christian owners of bed-and-breakfast accommodation will have to put up gay and lesbian couples under their own roofs. Schools will become battlegrounds about gay lifestyles, and Christian teachers will be forced to promote the gay agenda in classrooms, against their conscience and beliefs.

Scripture unions could be banned from schools for being anti-gay. Bible colleges, care homes, adoption agencies, Christian conference centres — the list goes on — would be required to offer double-bed accommodation to gays and lesbians who present themselves at the door.

12.15 pm

Laws that are promoted in the name of equality are attacking, undermining and destroying the rights and beliefs of ordinary Christian people. That cannot be right; it cannot be allowed to continue. That is equality gone mad. It is not equality; it is the dictatorship of a vocal minority, inflicted on the morality of the people, with no sound basis.

While section 75 remains in place in its current form, Christian moral attitudes will continue to be unacceptable in society and the persecution of Christians will increase. It will not be long before the first pastor or layman finds himself before the courts for holding to the moral teachings of the Bible that he seeks to promote. The irony, of course, will be that in the courthouse —

Dr Birnie: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he not agree that the source of the problem that he identifies may not be section 75 itself, but the current interpretation of European law? In a sense, therefore, section 75 is not all that relevant to his argument. It is European law that is the driver.

Mr Dawson: I thank the Member for that. European law is in place but, as he will know, section 75 goes further than European law in giving rights to Northern Ireland that do not exist in the rest of the United Kingdom. For example, the issues that councils here have faced in relation to civil partnerships have not been faced in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is section 75 that brings those problems to Northern Ireland.

As I was saying, the irony will be that when that pastor or layman goes to court, he will be asked to swear his truthfulness on the Bible from which his attitudes are taken, and the law of the land will oblige him to reject those attitudes.

I wish to turn to the issue of parades, which is also referred to in the report. Members will know that, with colleagues on the joint Loyal Orders working group, I have been engaged since autumn 2005 in seeking to bring about a resolution to the present issues about parading. We have consulted a wide range of stake­holders and a large number of interested parties to present our concerns, seek their views and provide a way forward on the issue. We have worked from the premise that the present arrangements are neither satisfactory nor desirable. The Parades Commission has become the third party in parading disputes. It is not seen as an independent body; indeed, it is not an independent body. Rather, it is contributing to the extent of the conflict and to the division that is seen on our streets over parades.

We have also approached our task in the belief that there is no system or set of procedures that cannot be improved. Any set of rules formulated by man can be improved on. The attitude of our colleagues in the SDLP — which seems to believe that the Parades Commission must be in place, and its procedures continued, because they cannot be improved — is one that we reject.

Now that the summer is over and the immediate objective of ensuring that the season passes peacefully has been achieved, it is time for a fundamental review of the legislation governing parades and of the structures and procedures that flow from it. The Secretary of State is aware of our various proposals. He is aware of a process that could transform the situation. The Secretary of State is always keen to remind Members of this House of the importance of meeting deadlines.

I warn the Secretary of State that his time is ticking away. It is the end of September. If I may paraphrase his words, I am not threatening anyone, but I must point out that there are consequences and dangers in delay. It is time for the Secretary of State to make a choice, and it is time for him to deliver.

The Committee’s report rightly points out that parading has a direct impact on the overall political process. The Secretary of State’s failure to deal with the legitimate grievances of the Loyal Orders will render political accommodation impossible, now and in the future. It is the Secretary of State who holds the key to progress on this matter; it is he who must act. The Secretary of State’s time is running out.

Dr Birnie: I wish to refer to the linked themes of diversity and rights. In this debate, we should concentrate on some of the major impediments and obstacles to the restoration of devolution. The point can be made that an exclusive emphasis on the so-called two communities model of our conflict could be hindering the very necessary move towards peace and prosperity because it fails to allow for the richness and diversity of our society.

Northern Ireland is clearly becoming more diverse. There is a long-established ethnic minority population here. In the early years of this decade, it was probably in the order of 15,000 persons. Since 2004, the arrival of migrant workers, particularly from new European Union member countries, has probably boosted that ethnic minority population by two- or threefold.

It is important to say from the outset that migrant workers have performed a major service to our economy. In the short to medium term, that inward migration has allowed the Northern Ireland economy to continue to grow and not be held back by labour shortages, which might otherwise have become critical.

There are, of course, other important longer-term concerns. For example, why has it been necessary to import so much migrant labour when there are still such large pockets of long-term unemployment? As has been said in previous debates, policy-makers must ask why our own long-term unemployed and economically inactive are either unwilling — or unable, because of the skills they have or do not have — to do certain jobs. A question can also be asked of parts of the Health Service, where there is a preference, perhaps on cost grounds, to bring in staff from third-world countries rather than train local people.

It must be emphasised that, on balance, the arrival of outside labour has been economically beneficial. Sadly, as we well know from reports in the media, even as recently as last weekend, this process has been accompanied by a terrible rise in racist activity. There are up to 1,000 attacks every year, and the number is rising. That is a horrendous total, and the figures have doubled or tripled in a small number of years.

It is probably still true that the rate of racist attacks per head of population is less here than in England. That is from a comparison between PSNI and Home Office figures. There is little solid statistical basis to the claim made by ‘The Guardian’ in January 2004 that Northern Ireland is the race hate capital of Europe. However, we should all redouble our efforts to ensure that that never becomes the case.

A joined-up response is required from Government Departments, agencies and the private sector to welcome migrant workers, to ensure that neither they, nor the more established population, are exploited and to deal with some of the underlying social problems that perhaps are exacerbated, such as housing problems, particularly the ongoing debate about houses of multiple occupation.

The private sector group Concordia has pointed out a number of policies that could be adopted to help to absorb migrant workers into our economy and society. The five political parties at Stormont have formed an ad hoc all-party working group on ethnic minority issues, working with the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities (NICEM), other charities, and non-governmental organisations in that sector.

The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the challenge posed by recent research from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Electoral Commission, which shows that only about 40% of the ethnic minorities here are on the electoral register, and of which only about half have actually voted — barely one in five. That is a challenge for the political parties, and it is also a challenge for the ethnic minorities to engage with the parties in political activity.

My colleague Mr Nesbitt has already referred to human rights, and the issue generates a strong sense of déjà vu. On 25 September 2001, a debate was held in this Chamber on the motion that the NIHRC had exceeded its remit under the Belfast Agreement. The 1998 agree­ment instructed the NIHRC to advise and consult on the scope for human rights, supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Eight years on, the Human Rights Commission has not done that, and it has failed to realise its stated objectives under the 1998 Belfast Agreement. Instead, it has spent its time — some parties, including mine, would argue that it has wasted its time and resources — drafting two versions of a bill of rights, which were grandiose, maximalist and very complex.

It was significant that the PFG Committee with responsibility for rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims agreed in principle that there should be a bill of rights for Northern Ireland, but there was no agreement among the parties as to what should be included in it. Hansard for that meeting of the Committee shows that there was disagreement around the notion of so-called social and economic rights.

Members should wish that every member of our society avails of excellent health services, the best possible standard of education, the cleanest environ­ment in the world and the highest possible wage, etc. However, will a statement of those rights — or alleged rights — in a bill of rights help to achieve any of those very laudable objectives? The productivity of the economy and the level of resources available to both the private and the public sectors determines the adequacy of health care, and who gets an operation and when, not the judgement of judges and lawyers.

The argument against so-called social and economic rights, or at least their enshrining in statements of bills of rights, is extremely old and valid. An argument was made on this island as early as 1791 when the great Irish political philosopher Edmund Burke argued against a statement of human rights coming out of the French Revolution. He said, and rightly so, that if somebody was sick, they turn to a doctor and not to a metaphysical statement of human rights, as that would do no good.

It would seem bizarre for the Assembly to struggle to restore devolution, only to strangle any future Assembly within the straitjacket of an all-encompassing complex bill of rights that would remove discretion from any future Northern Ireland Executive, take decision-making in areas such as health policy, education, the environment, industrial development, etc, out of the hands of elected politicians and hand them over to unelected lawyers and judges.

Someone once argued that the human rights project is politics by another means. If that is so, it is politics in which most of the population are denied the right to vote.

Finally, I shall return to diversity and its relationship to rights. It is a necessary condition for a free society — and I hope that that is what we all want — that sometimes we have to endure the expression of views that we find deeply offensive. Mr Dawson referred to the danger, or perhaps the actuality, of the situation we are now in, that on occasions the freedom to express one’s self, particularly in religious terms, may be infringed.

Sadly, especially in the context of parading — though it does not only occur in that regard — there is the crazy notion that there is some right not to be offended. We have to wake up and realise that in a free society there will be occasions when we, and our views, be they political or religious, will be offended. That is the price of freedom and democracy.

Mr P Ramsey: I wish to make a few comments before I read from my prepared script. Almost a year ago, the Police Service of Northern Ireland introduced clear guidelines, aims, objectives and protocols to deal with homophobic attacks occurring in the Derry City Council area. The circumstances were such that all the political parties on Derry City Council participated in drawing up the guidelines. We wanted to ensure that those people, irrespective of creed, colour or background, had the same fundamental human rights as everyone else.

It was therefore disappointing to hear the comments of the Member for East Antrim Mr Dawson. He has a right to those opinions —

12.30 pm

Mr Dawson: Will the Member give way?

Mr P Ramsey: No — I wish to develop my argument. Mr Dawson had eight or nine minutes to talk about homophobia. I shall spend a few minutes talking about homophobic attacks in my constituency. Whether it is a young lady from Antrim who is a lesbian, or a young man from the Bogside who is gay, both have every right to be a part of our society, and no one should intimate that they be excluded in any way.

In general, the debate to date has been very good. I support David Ford’s idea of a day of reflection and reconciliation. A good opportunity will present itself next year when two distinctive events will take place commemorating the Plantation of Ulster and the Flight of the Earls. We should ensure that one of those days is used as a basis for helping people towards reconciliation. I do not have any difficulty supporting that.

Patricia Lewsley made the point that the discussions by the Preparation for Government Committee on rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims did not play a part in the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly. Therefore, they should not be used by any party as a precondition for restoration. They should be a priority for a Programme for Government after the restoration of the Assembly.

All parties reached agreement on several issues in the Committee, but there are many proposals that require further work and discussion. I am delighted that all parties involved in the Committee stressed their commitment to building a shared future. As elected representatives we need to show leadership in our communities. What use is sharing power if we cannot share our streets?

Over the past 20 years in politics, I have been proud of my ability to reach out to the Protestant community in my constituency in Derry. Several years ago, my colleague William Hay and I set out on a course of action as a result of the first phase of the peace programmes. We were instrumental in setting up the Shared City project in Derry. It was obvious that Protestant communities had not taken advantage — and were not in a position to take advantage — of the first phase of funding.

After a major consultation process, visiting and talking to community groups across the city of Derry, Mr Hay and I established that there was a relatively weak community development infrastructure. That had resulted in a lack of confidence, limited capacity, low self-esteem, poor leadership skills, a sense of neglect and isolation, and a perceived disparity of funding in favour of nationalist areas.

The aim of the project was to establish an outreach support programme targeted at marginalised and disadvantaged communities in Protestant areas. It is still in operation, thankfully, and I hope that it will become part of the mainstream within Derry City Council and the Department for Social Development. The project is a model of good practice on increasing capacity, confidence-building measures and addressing the serious alienation and marginalisation that a number of Protestants in Derry still, unfortunately, feel. It should be replicated across Northern Ireland to involve all marginalised communities in civic society.

The Committee agreed that there should, and must, be support for a bill of rights for Northern Ireland. However, when the SDLP put forward a proposal to reach agreement on such a bill, members could not achieve consensus. What has any party to lose from participating in this forum? The best way for all parties to contribute to a bill of rights is to participate in round-table discussions with members of civic society. If all nationalist and unionist politicians and members of civic society were to agree on a bill of rights, it would have the widest possible ownership and public confidence and could not be ignored by the Northern Ireland Office.

The SDLP has consistently called for the establish­ment of a forum for the victims and survivors of the troubles. Any process of truth, remembrance and justice must be victim-based. Sustainable peace and true reconciliation will be achieved only through acknow­ledging and accounting for the past and helping some­how to redress the suffering of victims and survivors.

All parties agree that victims should be a priority in any Programme for Government. However, when the SDLP put forward its proposals to that end, there was no consensus. Let us be clear that there is no hierarchy of victims: victims of the state, republican terror and loyalist terror are all entitled to the same consideration.

Victims have a right to the truth and to have the events of the past recorded, acknowledged and, as far as possible, accounted for. They have a right to have their needs recognised and dealt with. Different victims have different needs, but all require an acknowledgment of their loss. For those who want it, that means providing proper support and compensation and remedying the wrongs and injustices of the past. For some, the funda­mental issue is finding the body of one of the disappeared. Victims have the right to be remembered. The enduring legacy of the past is the lives damaged and lost, the suffering inflicted and the suffering that continues.

The SDLP has long championed the rights of victims and survivors and will continue to do so. In particular, we will work to place the rights of victims and survivors at the heart of any process of truth and remembrance. We must ensure that future generations are free from the bigotry and hatred of the past. A tried and tested method of doing so is to encourage good manners, courtesy and respect for all.

Assembly Members should make a public pledge to support, and commit ourselves to promoting and working to achieve, an inclusive society that values and empowers people. We must show collective leadership by ensuring that everyone has equality of opportunity and equal access to facilities and resources, and that there is equality of esteem for all political and religious beliefs.

MLAs must also encourage, recognise and promote the richness of culture of all traditions, groups and communities across the North of Ireland. Our responsibility is to ensure that the rights of others are respected. At all times, we must affirm our commitment to non-violence. More importantly, as politicians, we must ensure that we acknowledge the rights of each individual through our actions and by avoiding words that could in any way damage, injure or deny the civil rights and well-being of others.

We should also ask all those in our communities — individuals, schools, youth groups, community groups and others in the community sector — to pledge their support for a more inclusive society that values and empowers people.

Members have the opportunity to lead by example — to come together to share power in Government. Contributors to the debate have spoken passionately about the issues. Those issues could be at the heart of a Programme for Government in a devolved Assembly. We could take action that would bring about progress in Northern Ireland and would provide its children with a better life based on equality. It is important that a shared future be built.

I want to reiterate that actions, words and deeds can, as has happened in the past, lead to violence being perpetrated on certain members of the community.

Mr Poots: As the previous Member to speak did not give way to my colleague, it is appropriate that I point out that Mr Dawson said nothing that could be construed as homophobic. He did not say anything to incite or support violence against the homosexual community. He pointed out that there has been an attack on people who have Christian beliefs, and that there are issues and problems with how homosexuality contrasts with biblical teaching.

That brings us to the subject of the debate: it is a challenge to freedom of speech, which is one of the first principles of equality. Freedom of assembly and all other rights follow from it. People who expound freedom of speech and say what they believe in a way that is not inflammatory are being challenged. Mr Dawson went to great lengths to illustrate the sort of challenges that ministers of the Gospel and lay preachers could face if they chose to go down a particular route.

I want to focus on the Equality Commission. How can high standards of equality be achieved when the equality watchdog in Northern Ireland has failed so miserably? Since its inception, the Equality Commission has stuck rigidly to recruiting about 60% of its staff from a Catholic background, whereas 60% of its staff should come from a Protestant background and about 40% from a Roman Catholic background.

The Equality Commission grew out of an amalgam­ation of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Fair Employment Commission, which had replaced the Fair Employment Agency. The Equality Commission was given all their roles. However, since the establishment of the Fair Employment Agency in 1976, the appropriate percentages of the religious background of staff have never been achieved. The Equality Commission is charged with monitoring that activity in other organ­isations but has never achieved that itself.

The Chief Commissioner of the Equality Commission, Bob Collins — who, by the way, hails from the Irish Republic — states that it is not the religious background of his staff that is important, but their impartiality. Although that could be taken at face value, one must consider how those staff discharge their work. I challenge the Equality Commission to cite one case in which it acted for the collective rights of Protestants. In fairness, I admit that it has acted on behalf of individual Protestants only.

Mr Weir: I wonder whether the Equality Commission would accept similar words to those of Bob Collins from a firm that it had under investigation for an imbalance in its workforce? Would it be acceptable for the managing director of such a firm to say it that it does not matter that there is an imbalance as long as the staff are impartial?

Mr Poots: It is unlikely that the Equality Commission would accept that as a reasonable response.

When one looks back to what happened to Shorts plc and other companies, but particularly the high wire act that the Equality Commission undertook as regards Shorts plc, that high profile contrasts with its actions as regards many other companies in Northern Ireland, which have a greater proportion of Protestant under-representation in their workforces. The Equality Commission has never publicly challenged those companies in that way.

Gregory Campbell and I have met the Equality Commission many times. We have quoted the employ­ment statistics of those companies and the fact that statistical records show that that under-representation is worsening every year. The Equality Commission’s response was that it requested those companies to make welcoming statements. Clearly, those statements have not worked. The commission pushed Shorts to do more than simply make welcoming statements.

It is clear that there is one policy for the Protestant community and another for the Roman Catholic community. I put it to the Equality Commission that it does not treat the two communities fairly in practice.

12.45 pm

The Equality Commission agreed that fifty-fifty recruitment was acceptable in the case of the PSNI. Its basis for adopting that process was the apparent inability, over a prolonged period, of the police to encourage Roman Catholics to join. However, the same situation applies to the Equality Commission in that it has failed to encourage Protestants to apply for its jobs over a protracted period. Perhaps the Equality Commission should seek to address its problems by introducing fifty-fifty recruitment. If it is good enough for the PSNI, it should be good enough for the Equality Commission.

Dr McCrea: Perhaps my Friend could address the fact that there is total silence from the SDLP and other groupings on this issue, yet there have been howls for fifty-fifty recruitment in the police. Why is there silence about the inequalities of the Equality Commission?

Mr Poots: Perhaps we can discuss the matter later, but the SDLP seems to think that the Equality Commission, the Human Rights Commission and the Parades Commission are perfect. They believe that the legislation that has been introduced is good and that it can be built upon, but it cannot be taken away from. Patricia Lewsley stated that she would allow further issues to be added and developed on, but would not allow the legislation to be weakened in any way.

Mr Robert McCartney: Is the Member aware of a recent decision relating to police recruitment in England in which a white male applicant was successful in receiving compensation, because he was able to establish that his application had been turned down in favour of a policy of recruiting women and members of ethnic groups, and it was held that that was a breach of his human rights?

Mr Poots: That individual may have had the support of the equivalent body in England. However, if a Protestant were to take a case against the PSNI, they would not receive the support of the Equality Commission because it has identified that the fifty-fifty recruitment process must be in place. Therefore a better qualified Protestant would not be entitled to challenge a decision with the support of the Equality Commission.

Representatives from the Equality Commission told us that they had difficulty in recruiting Protestants because the numbers of Protestants attending the School of Law in Queen’s University Belfast were so low. When those representatives were asked what they were doing about that problem, there was silence. Again , there is failure.

Mr Weir: I appreciate that my Friend seems to be up and down quite a bit today.

The Member mentioned the Equality Commission’s comments on the School of Law at Queen’s University. However, applicants to the Institute of Professional Legal Studies outnumber places by about four to one. Thus many law graduates cannot enter the legal profession to become solicitors and barristers. Given that spare capacity, surely it should be easy to recruit equitably to provide an appropriate community mix. We must therefore take the remarks about the School of Law with a pinch of salt.

Mr Poots: I thank the Member for those points. The chill factor in our universities is important, but Protestant representation in the legal field is even more important as there is a significant lack of Protestants in the legal profession. That trend will be extrapolated in the appointment of Queen’s Counsels (QCs) and judges, and thus the entire legal profession in Northern Ireland will lack balanced representation. We should be deeply concerned about that — if that is allowed to continue, significant problems will arise.

The students’ union at Queen’s University, in its employment practices and its promotion of cultural issues, has not helped matters. It has clearly discriminated against the unionist and Protestant community.

I will finish by touching on the parading issue, which the SDLP mentioned earlier. The DUP made proposals for restructuring the Parades Commission to enable it to operate better. The DUP believes that the Parades Commission cannot act as both a decision-making body and a mediating body — the two roles clash. The party’s suggestion was that the decision-making role should be semi-judicial and that the commission should examine and address its mediation role.

I note that Mr Alban Maginness is in the Chamber. He put up most of the resistance to the DUP’s proposal, and perhaps he will clarify his position later. The SDLP seems to think that the Parades Commission is some kind of Utopia that has already reached a state of perfection and thus needs no improvement. It appears that as the Parades Commission is most acceptable to the nationalist community, it is absolutely irrelevant that it is wholly unacceptable to unionists.

I challenge that attitude. If we take that approach — we have what we hold — to everything in Northern Ireland, there will be little prospect of progress on any issue. I suggest that the SDLP review its attitude to parading, which has been hugely contentious for a long time. If we are to resolve the parading issue, the Parades Commission must command the support of both communities, not just of the nationalist community. Changes will have to be made. The DUP’s proposed changes would not have damaged the process — rather they would have helped it.

Mr Storey: Does the Member agree that an SDLP councillor in my constituency has an extremely provocative attitude to parades? Declan O’Loan plays the green card, which plays into the hands of republicans and dissident republicans in Ballymena whose clear agenda is to stop parades. He assists them in doing that.

Mr Poots: People can be provocative about parades. This year, people in many areas of Northern Ireland — particularly those in the unionist community — sought to take much of the heat out of the parading issue. There­fore we had a relatively successful summer. How­ever, if we are to build on that, there must be changes to both the Parades Commission and the current attitude to parading. The SDLP has a central role to play in that.

Madam Speaker: As Members know, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at lunchtime today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend this sitting until 2.00 pm.

The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.

On resuming (Madam Speaker in the Chair) —

2.00 pm

Mr Hussey: In supporting the motion, I am reminded of a newspaper headline last week, “Sinn Féin Snubs Victims”.

Like Patricia Lewsley and David Ford, I thank and congratulate the Chairpersons and everybody involved in assisting the Committee with its work. It was a privilege to be involved in the work of that format of the Committee on the Preparation for Government (PFG Committee).

The PFG Committee dealing with rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims considered a bill of rights for Northern Ireland and human rights in general. What greater human right is there than that of the right to life? What organisation has been more responsible for the denial of that fundamental human right than the organisation that does not even have the courage of its own misguided conviction to be here to even try to publicly justify its position?

The Committee considered parades; Sinn Féin has manipulated and orchestrated unjustified scenarios on that issue for blatant political gain. It has asked for face-to-face dialogue in respect of many parades throughout the community, but we are here to debate the issue face to face. It appears that the writing that I have seen on many walls in republican areas about the IRA is ringing true for its political wing — I Ran Away.

The Committee, which included Sinn Féin members, reached agreement on many vital issues that can be progressed. However, it is unfortunate that the House cannot ratify the report because Sinn Féin has decreed that it is not prepared to enter into political debate with the democratic majority in Northern Ireland represented in the Chamber. Rather, Members can note the excellent work of the PFG Committee. It considered equality, good relations and a shared future. Sinn Féin, obviously, has nothing to share with Members.

Madam Speaker and other Members will remember that, in debates of the previous Assembly, I clearly distinguished between an elective mandate and a democratic mandate. No one can deny that Sinn Féin has an elective mandate, but it has yet to fully endorse the democratic mandate.

My main remit within this format of the PFG Committee concerned our past and its legacy. The normal society that the PFG Committee, its subgroup and the House are endeavouring to work towards may not emerge in our lifetimes if we do not adequately deal with our past. It is a central precursor to moving forward.

It was agreed that those with primary responsibility for the disappearance of the disappeared needed to finally resolve the issue. The Committee recognised the need for greater support to be given to the families of the disappeared, recommending the establishment of a family liaison officer to support those families. I am confident that the House will concur.

The Ulster Unionist Party’s comments on victims and survivors of terrorism were, and are, predicated on three points. First, we do not equate victims with perpetrators, and I concur with Mr McCausland’s point on this subject. Secondly, each victim’s situation is personal and specific, and any process must reflect that. Any process that may be established must be victim-centred and not subject to a loose, generic system. Thirdly, there is no hierarchy of victimhood.

However, there is a spectrum of victimhood: from those who still bear the physical and mental trauma and those who can forgive and those who will not; to those who regard themselves as survivors and who wish to carry on with the rest of their lives while, no doubt, retaining their private and personal memories.

In the Committee, the Ulster Unionist Party focused primarily on the establishment of agreed principles to provide the necessary framework for victims’ issues to be dealt with sensitively and fairly. The definition of a victim was important to all parties, but could not be agreed. That central factor resulted in several important proposals not finding consensus. The Ulster Unionist Party believes that only those who have suffered through illegal and criminal actions — not the perpetrators themselves — are the true victims of the troubles.

We are all aware of the efforts of perpetrators of violence to sanitise their respective murder campaigns. The efforts of terrorists to legitimise their actions create the problem that we were unable to resolve. I contend that it is only right that account is taken of responsibility and criminal culpability in determining society’s collective approach to victims’ issues. In our view, perpetrators of violence are plainly not victims.

Further, we recognise that illegal and criminal actions have not been perpetrated by only one side of our community. Those who operated outside the framework of civic society; who acted beyond law and order, and who sought to remove from others the most fundamental of all rights — the right to life — cannot be classed as victims or survivors. In spite of widely differing views, the Committee agreed that the issue of victims should be identified and given priority in any Programme for Government. I am confident that this House can concur with such a proposal, which would mean that that we should examine existing levels of support for victims and the glaring need for increased support and proper mainstream funding for victims’ groups.

Many on this side of the House are aware of the tenuous situation facing victims’ groups, which operate from hand to mouth and wonder whether they will be able to open their doors the next day. Those groups must continuously reduce hours and/or lay off essential core workers who have gained irreplaceable under­standing and knowledge of their client base. Those are personnel in whom the client base has confidence and who can empathise fully with those with whom they work.

Although I know that it is wrong to single out any of the many victim support groups throughout Northern Ireland, I cannot fail to mention West Tyrone Voice in my own constituency, which supports victims whom I know well. The work of that group is second to none and is mirrored in all such groups throughout Northern Ireland.

Is it not insensitive and grossly insulting to expect groups that represent victims and survivors of terrorist actions to have to sit down with groups that are representative of the perpetrators of those actions if they are to access the funding that is vital for their survival? Would it not be more productive to let such victims’ groups grow in confidence and, in their own time — if and when they are ready — engage with others, rather than find themselves being financially blackmailed into doing so?

There are many individuals who believe that they were poorly treated by the state in the past in regard to their rightful needs. There should be a review of past levels of compensation.

We do not know it all. The Government should examine international best practice in support of the development of special community-based initiatives, such as a trauma and counselling service. In that respect, I had the privilege of being involved in the work of the South West Local Strategic Partnership Community Victims and Survivors Initiative, partnered with our local health trust. I recommend the recently published report of that initiative, ‘Casting Bread upon the Water’, as essential reading for those taking forward victims and survivors’ issues. I congratulate Sean Coll, our community victims’ support officer, for his work on that excellent report.

The Committee considered the establishment of a victims’ forum. All members agreed with that principle, but consensus could not be achieved on participants. Again, the issue of definition arose. From my own engagement with various individuals and groups, I fully understand that many would have difficulty in sitting down with those who were responsible for their situation.

A victims’ forum should be just that: a forum for the true victims of terrorism. Once again, because of definitions, consensus could not be reached either on a day of remembrance and reflection or memorials. It is tragic that there are many memorials for the victims of terror in our land. Those memorials, which have been erected by relatives and friends, are victim-centred, personal and specific. My experiences with the families of many friends who were murdered in the troubles have shown me that they would not want their kith and kin to be associated in a single national memorial with those who carried out terrorist acts.

Sinn Féin-controlled councils attempted to plant trees of remembrance as part of a cross-community day of coming together to remember victims. Even though its Members are absent, Sinn Féin is fully aware that that project failed because the Protestant/loyalist/unionist community did not want to be associated with it. It was viewed as yet another political exercise to sanitise the actions of Sinn Féin’s military wing.

Contrast that with Omagh District Council’s refusal to support the Omagh Support and Self Help Group’s efforts to place a memorial plaque at the site of the Omagh bombing. Why was that the case? Sinn Féin would not support the acknowledgement on the plaque that the perpetrators of that attack were republican terrorists. I trust that Members will agree that that represents a blatant Sinn Féin denial of the facts. However, what is new? I congratulate the Omagh Support and Self Help Group for its tenacity in its ongoing fight for justice, and I wish it well in those efforts.

The nationalist and republican community appears to expect two standards in a truth-and-reconciliation process. It expects: first, full disclosure and accountability from the forces of law and order; and secondly, codes of honour that grant secrecy to terrorist organisations. The Ulster Unionist Party is clear that the South African model for truth and reconciliation is not suitably transferable, either in whole or in part, to meet the needs of Northern Ireland.

Mr Elliott: Does the Member agree that it is important to get to the truth in any truth-and-reconciliation process but that, in doing so, we must realise that those who have murdered and maimed in the Province in the past three decades are highly unlikely to tell the truth in any such forum?

Mr Hussey: I thank the Member for that intervention. As I said, codes of honour that allow for secrecy will hide the truth.

The Ulster Unionist Party congratulates Bertha McDougall on the excellent work that she has done to date. The establishment of a permanent victims’ commissioner is the way forward. In the absence of an Executive Government in Northern Ireland — which has come about through no fault of the democratic majority, which is in the Chamber — I urge the Secretary of State to take note of and act on the many excellent suggestions that were made in the meetings of the Committee on the Preparation for Government that dealt with rights, safeguards, equality issues and victims. I support the motion.

Mr Shannon: Thers aa’hale lok o’issues brocht up in this report. Mony that aa’ wud laek tae taulk aboot. But thers jist gaun tae be a breef disgusshun, o’yin ishyee, an because aa’cum fae Strangford, ye micht hae sum soart et at least a guid idea, o’whut am guan tae sae. An that is tha permotshun o’tha hamely tongue, Ulster Scotch, I Norlin Airlan.

Whiles A’hm no wantin’ tae gae owre agin whit bes gyely clear hit maun bae pointed oot hoo thair isnae onie parity o’treatment atween Airish an’ Ulster Scotch permotshun. Ulster Scotch bes entitlet tae bae treated the saime es Airish, es an officially designated minority leid — no jist a dialect! Tae risk comin acroass laike a wean A hae tae point oot at the wie things stan’ theday isnae fair. The latest facts adae wi’catter an’ fundin A cum oan wur fae 2002-04, an shew hoo far ahin we ir i gien hefts tae the cultural velue o’Ulster Scotch I Norlin Airlan.

2.15 pm

There are many worthy issues raised in the Committee’s report that I would like to address. However, time permits only a brief discussion of one issue. As I come from the Strangford district, you may have a fair idea of what I am at pains to stress: the promotion of the Ulster-Scots culture in Northern Ireland. While I have no wish to rehash what will be abundantly clear, I must point out that there is a clear lack of parity between the promotion of Irish and that of Ulster Scots. Ulster Scots is entitled to parity of treatment with Irish as an officially designated minority language, not merely a dialect. At the risk of sounding juvenile, I simply must point out that the way things stand at present is not fair. The funding facts for 2000-04 show exactly how far behind we are in the promotion of the cultural value of Ulster Scots in Northern Ireland.

I would like to focus on paragraph 39 of the report. My colleague Mr McCausland has mentioned the clear disparity in funding. It is a ratio of 6:1; for every pound that Ulster Scots gets, Irish gets six. There is currently an imbalance of £10 million. Although funding for Ulster Scots has increased, it is still nowhere near the level it should be at when the sheer volume of those who are part of the culture are taken into consideration. From the beautiful shores of Strangford Lough to the shores of Lough Erne and the hills of Donegal, the whispers of Ulster Scots can be heard in everyday terminology.

The problem lies, perhaps, in the fact that people do not always understand their culture, and cannot have any pride in their culture and heritage unless it is brought to light for them. This failing must be addressed as speedily as possible. Not only do the people of Northern Ireland miss out on their history, but Northern Ireland misses out on the boost to the tourist industry that the proper promotion of this non-political, rich and rewarding aspect of local culture could bring.

Over 200,000 tourists come from Scotland to Northern Ireland every year. Imagine the potential for even more growth were we to fully explore the links, both current and historic. Local pipe bands have returned from the annual World Pipe Band Championship in Glasgow with success in many areas. Also present at the competition were bands from Canada and further afield. The potential to expand this aspect of local culture would be welcomed by many who can trace their ancestry back to our fair shores.

There are information sites dedicated to Ulster Scots in many countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and America, to name a few. The subscription to learning about their roots in Ulster is by no means small. In America, a nation that takes pride in its rich heritage, over 22 million people can trace their roots back to the wee Province of Ulster. Imagine if we were to draw a mere percentage of that number to our shores through effective promotion of the Ulster-Scots language. That would increase tourism and boost our economy no end.

How can we achieve this? In Ards Borough Council, a subgroup is dedicated to the promotion of Ulster Scots. In Newry and Mourne Council, there is a similar committee, and Castlereagh Borough Council has also made a commitment to the language. These councils are trying energetically to promote Ulster Scots. Ards was the first council to put up Ulster-Scots signs, with unanimous cross-community support in the council for the motion, including the SDLP. I was reminded after the meeting that some of the more proficient speakers of Ulster Scots in the Ards Peninsula are members of the SDLP.

Mr Dallat: Does Mr Shannon agree that more money would be available to finance Ulster Scots if the former chairman of the Ulster-Scots Agency, Lord Laird, had not spent so much money hiring private taxis to go to Dublin?

Mr Shannon: I will leave that comment for someone else to answer; it is not worthy of a response.

We in Ards were the first council to support Ulster Scots, but we also support the funding of many books and plays, such as ‘The Scot in America and the Ulster Scot’ by Whitelaw Reid.

Our own Billy Kennedy, who is a close relative of one Member, has promoted Scotch-Irish books across the Province, Europe and the United States. That indicates how many people have promoted Ulster Scots internally, but it also shows that much more is possible.

Numerous celebrations are planned to mark the four-hundredth anniversary of Hamilton and Montgomery’s plantation of Ards. Those celebrations are the culmination of years of effort. Indeed, thousands of people from across the entire community have attended the ongoing Dawn of the Ulster-Scots festival in Greyabbey.

There is a clear celebration of Ulster Scots across the divide; indeed, some of my constituents speak Ulster Scots fluently. If Northern Ireland as a whole were to embrace Ulster-Scots tradition and heritage, it would be in a much better economic and social position. Fair and adequate promotion and funding will benefit not just one sector in Northern Ireland; it will profit everyone in the Province. Ards is displaying a true celebration of culture and diversity: why not allow the entire Province to experience and enjoy the simple pleasures that can be found in the tribute of a rich, extensive and inclusive culture that reminds us all of where we came from and who we have the potential to be?

I shall give some examples of very prominent Ulster-Scots men: the poet Edgar Allan Poe; the United States President George Washington; the army general Robert E Lee; and Blair Mayne — or Colonel Paddy, as he was also known — who was a local hero in Ards, the Province and the world. Just for the record, Elvis Presley was also an Ulster Scot, and he was a man for the rock and roll.

Mr McNarry: He still lives in the peninsula. [Laughter.]

Mr Shannon: He is heard regularly in my house.

The very blood that flowed through those prominent Ulster-Scots men is the same blood that flows through me and many Members. That blood also flows through the veins of many people outside the Chamber. Many people feel part of the Ulster-Scots heritage and experience. If we can find a way to instil a sense of pride in our up-and-coming generation, perhaps it will take those men as examples and be more successful as a result.

To fully comprehend where we are going, we must first understand where we have been. Let us invest in our future by collectively priding ourselves on our past.

Mr Gallagher: As Members know, the Review of Public Administration (RPA) will radically change the future of local government. If the Secretary of State has his way, there will be seven “super councils”: three will be dominated by representatives of the nationalist tradition; another three dominated by representatives of the unionist tradition; and Belfast will most likely be more evenly balanced.

The direct-rule Ministers who are dealing with the RPA have chosen to ignore the dangers that are in those new arrangements. There is a danger of ongoing political domination and, indeed, a real danger that a form of Balkanisation could emerge. When the subject has been brought to the attention of direct-rule Ministers and their civil servants, their rhetoric has been that everything will be all right and that safeguards and protections will be in place. Those safeguards and protections are needed because, despite the positive signs in many local councils that we are on the road towards a more normal society, some unionist-dominated councils to this day refuse to share power and refuse to allocate top posts on a cross-community basis.

Rhetoric from direct-rule Ministers that they will do something about that is just not good enough.

Members will know that the Minister with responsibility for the RPA has established a task force and several working groups, which have been active and reporting for months. They have ignored, however, the need for protections and safeguards for the minorities living in the council areas. Safeguards are not mentioned in a single sentence of any of their reports.

I remind Members that it is of fundamental import­ance that safeguards are put in place in advance of the new arrange