Monday 14 October 2002
Contents
Assembly Business: Suspension of Assembly
Public Petition: Neglect of the Gray’s Hill Area in North Down
Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill: Second Stage
Draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers
Draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
Draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures
Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill: Period Extension
Harbours Bill: Period Extension
The Future of the Mater Hospital
The Assembly met at noon (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.
Assembly Business: Suspension of Assembly
Mr Speaker:
I have received a letter this morning from the Secretary of State, which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. The letter reads as follows:
"It was with very great regret that I made the Order this morning to suspend the devolved institutions, in order to stabilise the current political situation in Northern Ireland. It was clear that it was not for the time being possible to hold together an inclusive power-sharing Executive, since the confidence within the community necessary to underpin it had broken down.
I nevertheless believe the Agreement has delivered enormous benefits, and points the way forward. I and my ministerial team will seek to carry forward good government within Northern Ireland, to work with the Irish Government and the parties to restore the devolved institutions as soon as we can, and to remove once and for all concerns about the commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful means.
I want to work energetically in the economic and social fields. Though I hope suspension will be brief, there are serious problems to be dealt with and it would be wrong to approach matters simply as caretakers. We shall be assisted in taking forward our work by the great achievements that have been brought about by all parties within the Assembly and the Executive. Despite the tensions, I believe the period of devolution was a great success, and a great advance for Northern Ireland. We must get back as soon as possible to the position where people in Northern Ireland are in charge of their own affairs.
With suspension, the Assembly and its committees can no longer meet. We hope suspension will be short-lived, and we recognise that Assembly Members should, for the time being, continue to represent their constituencies.
But I believe there will be an expectation that the removal of the Assembly’s core functions must be reflected in arrangements for it and its members. We envisage therefore, with effect from next month, bringing Assembly members’ salaries back to the levels that applied in the shadow period (adjusted for subsequent increases to date). We shall immediately review closely the allowances that are paid in the Assembly, from the same perspective. Assembly members will for the present continue to have access to Parliament Buildings in order to carry out their constituency work.
But if the Assembly remains without its essential responsibilities, I believe these arrangements will need to be looked at again. We shall therefore review the situation by the end of the year.
The Assembly has an impressive record to its credit. It has been a forum for dialogue between different strains of political thought unprecedented in Northern Ireland, but essential to our future. Its committees have been diligent in holding the Executive to account, to the great benefit of public administration. If I may say so, I admire the way you yourself have guided it in the most tense situations.
We must do all we can to restore it, and the other institutions, as soon as possible. I shall do all I can to bring that about."
Signed by the Secretary of State.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Mr Speaker, will you inform the House if the Secretary of State talked to you about the letter before you received it? If that was not so, is it not a matter of grave discourtesy on his part that he did not consult with you at the same time as he consulted with party leaders?
With regard to payments, can you confirm that the salaries of those who are now employed in party offices and registered as workers in those offices for Members of the Assembly will remain as they are, just as your salary will remain as it is?
Mr Speaker:
First, the Secretary of State has written to me, and I fully expect that there will be further communication. However, in direct response to the Member’s question, it was obviously much more important that he communicate with party leaders, such as the Member, rather than with me.
As for concerns about the other arrangements to which the Member refers, I cannot immediately be more clear than by recounting the content of the letter from the Secretary of State. However, it may be of assistance if I remind Members of some of the administrative arrangements that there were during the previous suspension, particularly in view of some of the Member’s comments. Clearly there were some misunderstandings, and I shall seek to correct at least one of them.
In the previous situation, direct rule was reinstated and the Assembly remained in place, but the Assembly and its Committees could not meet or discuss business, and that included the Assembly Commission. Those in elected office — Ministers, junior Ministers, Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons of Statutory Committees — could no longer hold office. Participation in the North/South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council was suspended. No functions could be conferred on implementation bodies. Members had the usual access to Parliament Buildings. Members’ salaries were abated to the pre-devolution level, and the office cost allowances were also abated to the pre-devolution level, but not until the end of that financial year. Party allowance was reduced, and that obviously might have a bearing, if it were mirrored on this occasion, on the Member’s question about party staff, but I cannot give him any more enlightenment on that, for I have none myself. The childcare allowance was not affected.
The Speaker continued to hold office, but his salary was abated to pre-devolution level, and I have no expectation that it will be otherwise on this occasion, Dr Paisley — unless, in your conversation with the Secretary of State, you put a good word in for me. I am sure that it would carry heavily, were you to do so.
Committee Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons did not receive salaries for their work in chairing Committees. Some other measures, which were not referred to in the correspondence from the previous Secretary of State, came into place during the last suspension. The Secretary of State discharged the functions of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. During the first six months of suspension, legislation on devolved matters was made by Order in Council at Westminster, and the Secretary of State could extend that for periods of up to six months if required. Northern Ireland Departments discharged their functions subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State, who appointed NIO Ministers to look after those functions.
As far as the Assembly Commission was concerned, its functions were taken over directly by the Secretary of State, and the accounting officer gave account of his functions in that way.
I trust that that gives some clarity on some of the important matters that the Member raised.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Will you clarify the standing of the intergovernmental bodies? There has been a lot of discussion in the press about their going from strength to strength, but from what you read out, I think that such progress will be limited by the agreement, which I have been reading this morning.
Mr Speaker:
As far as I am concerned, my responsibility is to try to interpret the procedures of this House. Interpretation of the agreement goes well beyond that. Foreseeing what politicians at any level may choose to do subsequent to today would require a prophet not a Speaker, and, as the Member knows, I am not even the son of a prophet; I am just the son of a poor Presbyterian minister.
Mr C Wilson:
It is unfortunate that the Secretary of State did not take the opportunity to declare the suspension of the Executive and the Assembly Committees in the House. That might have given Members an opportunity to explore with him his comment on the Assembly’s great achievements. It would be interesting to hear how he would manage to put a spin on that. In the wider community, there is cause to acknowledge the great achievement that will occur when the House rises and we see an end to the terms of the two Sinn Féin Ministers. It is cause for rejoicing in Northern Ireland —
Mr Speaker:
Can I ask the Member for his point of order?
Mr C Wilson:
Thank you very much.
Mr Speaker:
I am not sure that there is a ruling for me to give in regard to that.
Mr McCarthy:
Is it not ironic that on the day on which the House loses any power that it has, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party is more concerned about wages and salaries than he is about contributing to the welfare of our senior citizens who need personal care?
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member must know that what he is raising is not a point of order and that this is not an opportunity for debate.
Mr Kennedy:
My point of order concerns a matter that is recorded in Hansard. During the debate on the review of post-primary education on Tuesday 8 October, the Minister of Education, in reference to the transfer test, said:
"Change will be implemented in a considered, planned manner, which will lead to real improvement in our education system.
The current arrangements, including the transfer test, must remain in place until decisions are taken on the post-primary review." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 18, p386].
Within days of that statement, the Minister acted arbitrarily to abolish the 11-plus. Given his conduct, his approach to the House and his subsequent actions, is that a matter to which the Speaker should give some consideration?
Mr Speaker:
There will be an opportunity during Question Time to ask questions of the Minister. It remains to be seen whether what he said to the House, as recorded in Hansard, or what he said outside the House, as recorded and advised by the Member, turns out to be the more accurate.
12.15 pm
Mr S Wilson:
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you can inform the House whether the Executive ratified the highly cynical and highly political decision that the Minister of Education made to declare a date for the ending of the 11-plus tests. Indeed, was that decision even raised with the Executive? If not, does the Minister have the power to make such a decision without reference to the Executive, the Committee for Education or the Assembly, as was promised by the First Minister? Is this yet another example of the First Minister breaking a promise, particularly as he told us that IRA/Sinn Féin Ministers would be held to account and would not be able to act as despots?
Mr Speaker:
Order. Again, if the Member chooses, he may ask appropriate supplementary questions of the Minister this afternoon if the opportunity arises for him.
I cannot say whether this was a matter agreed by the Executive or not; that is clearly a matter for the Executive. As far as procedure is concerned, it is my understanding — but no more than that — that developments of policy in this way are matters to be agreed by the Executive. The Member may care to raise directly with the Minister or other Members of the Executive whether the Executive agreed that matter.
Mr Dodds:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 24 July the Secretary of State told the House of Commons that he would not hesitate to send to you — and, through you, to the Floor of the House — a motion to exclude Sinn Féin/IRA if it was found to be in further breach of its obligations. Has the Secretary of State raised that possibility with you, and have you discussed it?
Furthermore, can you say whether any other parties have signed the exclusion motion, currently in the Business Office, designed to exclude IRA/Sinn Féin? Outside the House, I hear parties, particularly the Ulster Unionist Party, calling for the exclusion of Sinn Féin/IRA, but they are failing to take the steps necessary to have the matter debated in the Assembly.
Can you tell the House whether the matters listed in today’s Order Paper that relate to legislation will be taken today despite the Assembly’s imminent suspension? When suspension kicks in, what will happen to the legislation that is currently in Committee or on the Floor of the House?
Mr Speaker:
The Member will understand that it is not normally my practice to describe discussions that have, or have not, taken place with the Secretary of State, Ministers or parties. It is wise for me to maintain that practice. However, I can confirm to the Member and to the House that I have not received any such exclusion motion from the Secretary of State under the relevant section.
I am not aware precisely which Members have or have not signed a motion on the No Day Named List, but that is a matter of public record; there is no obstruction to any Member looking at the names that are on that list. If they wish to make account of that, that is entirely a matter for themselves, not for me. It would, of course, be a matter for the Business Committee, and the Member is familiar with the procedure to be followed if there are sufficient signatures.
With regard to today’s Order Paper, we shall simply proceed in the normal fashion, as is proper, and, I trust, in the normal congenial, courteous and parliamentary fashion in which Members have been in the habit of conducting themselves here, doing our duty and fulfilling our responsibilities to those who have elected us.
I am considering the matter of the status of legislation, but I have one or two comments to make. First, it seems to me that during the period of suspension, it will be as though that legislation were frozen, and it may well be that at the end of suspension, it can be taken up as though the clock had stopped and were restarted — in the same way as is the case with ministerial office and chairmanship of Committees, and so forth. However, I say that not as a ruling, because I want to look more fully at the legalities of that. If we find ourselves in that circumstance, I will then give an appropriate ruling.
However, it is entirely possible that the Secretary of State and his Ministers may regard some of the legislation that has been partly carried through the Assembly as being of such importance, timeliness or urgency that they may choose to convert it into a form in which it might suitably be passed at Westminster, should they acquire the necessary parliamentary time. If that were to be the case, naturally such legislation carried through would fall when the Assembly returned. That is the best guidance I can give the Member and the House in the present circumstances.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
Mr Speaker, while you cannot confirm which parties or groupings have signed the motion sent in by my hon Friends and other Colleagues, can you confirm that no other political party has forwarded an exclusion motion to you, for example, the Ulster Unionist party?
Mr Speaker:
As far as I am aware we would not be very accepting of further motions coming forward on something that was already there, unless there was very good reason for doing so. I am not aware of anything else having come forward. However, it is not a matter that I checked before coming into the Chamber. The Member is entitled to checked the matter in the Business Office.
Having received no further requests for points of order, we will move to the next item.
Public Petition: Neglect of the Gray’s Hill Area in North Down
Mr Speaker:
Ms Morrice has begged leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.
Ms Morrice:
I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the residents and the business community from the Gray’s Hill area of Bangor in north Down.
More than 100 people have signed the petition, which highlights the neglect of the area and calls for its improvement in accordance with the town centre management strategy prepared by Ferguson & McIlveen. This major gateway into Bangor is a mixed residential and commercial street which suffers from speeding traffic, a lack of parking management and general neglect. The petition emphasises the broad concern about the matter in the north Down area. As you can see, Mr Speaker, I continue to work for my constituents, and I will keep on doing so.
Ms Morrice moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.
Mr Speaker:
I will send a copy of the petition to the Minister for Social Development, when such a Minister has been appointed. In the meantime, I will send a copy to the Chairperson of the Committee for Social Development.
Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill: Second Stage
Mr Speaker:
I advise the House that I have received a valid petition of concern in respect of this Bill, in accordance with Standing Order 27. No vote can therefore be held on its Second Stage until at least one day has passed.
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That the Second Stage of the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Bill (NIA 8/02) be agreed. – [The First Minister (Mr Trimble) and the Deputy First Minister (Mr Durkan).]
Motion not moved.
Mr B Hutchinson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker, can you say whether, when this information is sent to the Northern Ireland Office, it will also carry the warning that a reasoned amendment was tabled, which was supported by the majority of parties in the House?
Mr Speaker:
I can confirm that the fact that the Member has raised the point of order and has tabled a reasoned amendment will clearly be in Hansard for forwarding to whichever Minister addresses the matter. Whether that amendment would have had the support of the majority of Members is, of course, one of the great unknowns of life.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker:
I will call Mr Dodds, and then we will have a further point of order.
Mr Dodds:
For the second week in a row, this business has not proceeded. Last week we were told that the two junior Ministers were not in a position to move the business because the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were not in the Chamber. The junior Ministers have obviously been trusted with the onerous job of not moving the motion, so they have been trusted with something.
It is outrageous that, for two weeks in a row, this item has been listed on the Order Paper and, for two weeks in a row, it has gone absolutely nowhere. We have the two junior Ministers from OFMDFM telling us that the motion is not moved. The important point I want to make is that, as Mr Billy Hutchinson has said, and as many Members will agree, the motion is not being moved today because the Ministers know that it would not be approved. It would not pass through the House. The clear message that should be given to any Minister who may take over this responsibility is that there is a groundswell of opinion in the House against the contents of the Bill.
Mr Speaker:
Order. Let me remain with the point of order. Of course it is regrettable if matters are tabled on an Order Paper two weeks in a row and it is not possible to proceed with them. I suspect that, in the greater scheme of things, it is one of the less regrettable things about today, but that is another matter. With regard to the question of support, I cannot rule on that matter as a point of order.
Mr Morrow:
Mr Speaker, the Order Paper states that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister would move the Second Stage of the Bill, although I understand that the Bill is in the name of Mr Haughey, but he did not withdraw it. Is it one of the more cowardly acts of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to send its deputies here to do this work?
Mr Speaker:
It is quite clearly in order for any Minister representing the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to proceed with such a Bill and to handle it as has been agreed in that Office.
Mr Poots:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any means by which the Assembly can express its concerns about the Bill to the Northern Ireland Office? Given that no public consultation has taken place on the Bill, it would be a matter of concern if the Northern Ireland Office rushed it through.
Mr Speaker:
Order. I understand entirely why the Member has a specific concern about the Bill, as he is the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre. However, I think that he is aware that there is no facility for the Assembly to do that in the short time that appears to be available to us for the rest of today other than through the points of order that the Member and others have already raised.
Mr P Robinson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will confirm that the record of today’s proceedings and the views expressed by Members through points of order will be one method by which the Northern Ireland Office will be made aware of the Assembly’s view on this matter. However, is it not the case that this business was on the Order Paper last week and that it was announced that it could not be dealt with, although the two junior Ministers were present in the House on that occasion and could have moved it? We were told that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister wished to be present to hear the Assembly’s views. Is it not the case that the two junior Ministers came today intent on moving the Bill and decided not to move it only when they saw that there was a petition of concern signed by over 30 Members?
Mr Speaker:
The Member is tempting me to look into what is going on in the minds of the junior Ministers, but I am on duty today as the Speaker, and not in any other capacity.
Mr McCartney:
Mr Speaker do you attribute any significance to the suspension by the Secretary of State, whose words you read out, taking place at midnight tonight, given that the Bill was on the Order Paper to be dealt with today?
Mr Speaker:
I am not quite sure that I see the connection that appears to be in the Member’s mind. As I understand it, such suspensions can take place only at midnight; there might be a question of whether it was midnight tonight, midnight last night, or midnight on another night, but they must take place at midnight. As I understand it, that is the proper procedure for them.
There are several points of order, and I will come to Minister Haughey’s if possible.
Rev Dr William McCrea:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When did you receive notice of the withdrawal of the Bill? Did it take two lecterns in front of two Ministers to announce "Not moved"?
Mr Speaker:
The Member must know that if matters are withdrawn in advance of the sitting, as was the case last week, I make that clear. However, the Ministers have taken the decision not to move the Second Stage of the Bill. That is clear parliamentary procedure.
The Junior Minister (Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (Mr Haughey): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The decision not to move the Second Stage of the Bill was taken long before Mr Leslie or I knew that there was a petition of concern. That is a matter of fact.
On a second point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for Members to request you to convey the feelings of the House to the Northern Ireland Office when the opinion of the House has not been recorded by means of a vote?
Will you confirm that it has been indicated to you that it is the DUP, in alliance with Sinn Féin, that opposes the Bill, and that those two parties do not constitute a majority of the Members of the House? [Interruption].
12.30 pm
Mr Speaker:
Order. I am sure that the House is grateful to the Member for confirming when the decision was taken. As for the question of how much support or otherwise there is for the Bill, the reasoned amendment or whatever, I can say only what I have said already — there cannot be an assumption of any particular support or lack of support, save for one particular fact, which is that the petition of concern contained 32 signatures. Other than that, no assumption can be made about support for any matter that has not come before the House and been voted on in the usual way.
Mr Beggs:
There has been much discussion about the petition of concern. Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the motion must receive cross-community support in order for approval to be granted? Will you confirm that such cross-community support is also required for the House to exclude Sinn Féin?
Mr Speaker:
I can confirm both those matters. Once a petition of concern has been certified as valid and has been received in due time, it postpones the vote and requires it to have cross-community support. The Member is correct that the same applies to an exclusion motion.
Mr P Robinson:
Are you concerned, Mr Speaker, to learn from the junior Minister that the decision not to move the motion was taken a long time ago, yet you were not informed of it? Is that not a grave discourtesy to the Assembly, and should the Minister not be asked to get to his feet and apologise? [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Some Members:
Resign.
Mr Speaker:
Order. When Members call for such action, I trust that they are not, as it would appear to be in parliamentary terms, referring to the Speaker. The Speaker does his best with all the ignorance at his disposal in all these various ways.
Ms McWilliams:
Lest the collaboration between the DUP and Sinn Féin alarm junior Minister Haughey, I advise him that the Women’s Coalition was only too glad to sign the petition of concern on this occasion.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
Further to the point of order that junior Minister Haughey raised, is it not the case that had he moved the Second Stage today the House could have made a decision? He could have found out exactly how the House feels. An amendment was tabled, and it would have had to be called today.
Mr Speaker:
I can confirm that if the matter had proceeded, the amendment standing in the name of Mr Billy Hutchinson would have been taken. However, given the petition of concern, which was headed up by Dr Paisley, had the reasoned amendment not been made, the view of the House would not have been able to be ascertained until at least one day hence.
Mr McCartney:
Further to the point of order that Mr Peter Robinson raised, when the motion that the Second Stage be agreed was not moved last week, Mr Speaker, you said that you were notified in time and were therefore able to make an announcement at the beginning of proceedings. That being the case, why was the same procedure not followed on this occasion? If it was not followed, does that not amount to a grave discourtesy to the Speaker?
Mr Speaker:
Not necessarily. A different procedure has been followed: in one case the motion has been withdrawn, and in another it has not been moved. Other procedures might also have been used. Members have a range of possibilities from which to choose. However, the Member has given his view and interpretation of proceedings.
Mr B Hutchinson:
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has either of the junior Ministers, the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister informed you which parts of the Bill they want the Secretary of State to deal with?
Mr Speaker:
It would not be appropriate for Ministers to take action of that kind in respect of the Speaker. It is not a procedural matter and, insofar as there might be any procedures involved, they would not be procedures in this place, but in another place. That is not a matter which has been referred to, nor would I expect it to be.
I know that Members have a sense that there is a time within which they must raise all their points of order for the rest of the session, but we must try to move on.
Mr Dodds:
We can take this up this afternoon, if you want to draw it to a close now.
Can you confirm that no Sinn Féin Members signed the petition of concern that was tabled? The comments from across the House show widespread party opposition to the Bill. Never have so many dispatch boxes been employed to achieve, and to say, so little. Can you also confirm that enough Members signed the petition of concern — including enough Unionists for the purposes of the cross-community vote — to ensure that the Bill would not have got anywhere?
Mr Speaker:
I can confirm what the Member said about there being a valid number of signatures. However, as I have previously indicated, it is not appropriate for me to go through whose name is or is not on the petition of concern, save that it is a matter of record which is in the Business Office and which Members can follow up as they wish.
Draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers
The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna):
I beg to move
That the Department for Employment and Learning’s draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers be approved.[Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Ms Hanna:
The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002 and is subject to affirmative resolution. On approval by the Assembly the draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on the appointed day.
The draft code is issued under article 95 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which gives the Department power, subject to Assembly approval, to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations. The draft code takes account of the current legislative provisions on industrial action ballots and notice to employers, including those contained in the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. It is intended as a practical instrument to assist a range of individuals and organisations, including employers, trade unions and employees, to regulate and improve industrial relations. It also provides guidance on statutory rights.
The draft code is relevant to any union involved in industrial action ballots, to employers who are affected by them and to union members who may be asked to vote. The draft code seeks to ensure that appropriate action is taken to resolve disputes before industrial action. It sets out details of best practice on whether a ballot is appropriate, how to prepare for a ballot, the specific process and steps to be followed when holding a ballot, and what action should be taken following a ballot. It provides helpful summaries of what the current legislation requires by way of consultation by the employer and the unions.
The draft code does not impose legal obligations, and failure to observe it does not render anyone liable to proceedings. However, it may be admissible in evidence before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court, if it is deemed to be relevant. Full consultation has taken place in Northern Ireland on the content of the draft code. I commend the draft code to the Assembly.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair).
The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning (Dr Birnie):
I support the motion. The Committee considered the code of practice at its meeting on 3 October 2002 and supports it. It has been well described by the Minister. It seems to be based on a similar code in Great Britain, produced by the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore the production of the code maintains parity with Great Britain. I urge the House to support the motion.
Ms Hanna:
I thank the Chairperson for his remarks. The draft code sets out fair and reasonable procedures for parties to adopt when a ballot is to be held. It balances the duties of employers and trade unions, with the emphasis on responsible behaviour.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Department for Employment and Learning’s draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers be approved.
Draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna):
I beg to move
That the Labour Relations Agency’s draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures be approved.
The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002 and is subject to affirmation by the Assembly. On approval by the Assembly, the draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on an appointed day.
The draft code is issued under article 90 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which gives the Labour Relations Agency power, subject to departmental and Assembly approval, to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations. The draft code is a revision of an existing code of practice on disciplinary procedures and practices in employment that was issued by the Labour Relations Agency in November 1990.
The draft code will replace the old one. The main reason for the revision is the need for the draft code to take account of a legislative change. Article 12 of the Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 provided for a new statutory right for individuals to be accompanied at certain disciplinary and grievance hearings. That right came into effect on 2 June 2002. The draft code gives practical guidance to employers, workers and workers’ representatives who are involved in grievance and disciplinary matters.
In every organisation there should be clearly understood arrangements and principles, however simple, which are consistent with the underlying intentions set out in the draft code. The draft code addresses disciplinary issues relating to problems of conduct or performance and how employers seek to address them. It provides guidance on the practices and procedures that could, and indeed, in some instances should, be followed. It considers how employers can best handle the grievances that individuals bring to them and provides guidance on the statutory right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.
The code highlights the best practice principles in terms of rules and procedures. It outlines appropriate structures and the balance between formal and informal processes, provides guidance on how decisions should be made and recorded, and suggests timescales by which formal warnings may be regarded as spent. The impact assessment undertaken on the draft code concludes that it will not disadvantage any of the groups specified in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; nor will it place any additional costs on employers. It will have a positive impact in the workplace.
12.45 pm
While failure to observe any provision of the draft code does not of itself render anyone liable to proceedings, it may be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court, if deemed to be relevant. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning (Dr Birnie):
I support the motion. The Committee considered the draft code at its meeting on Thursday 3 October 2002. As the Minister said, the code is being introduced as a replacement for an existing code of practice, and it attempts to give helpful guidance to employers and employees. It is based on a similar code in Great Britain produced by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which is the GB equivalent of the Labour Relations Agency. Therefore the production of the code maintains parity with Great Britain. As the Minister said, the regulatory and equality impact assessments have judged the code favourably. I urge the House to support the motion.
Ms Hanna:
I welcome the Chairperson's remarks. The draft code sets out practical guidance which aims to promote the improvement of industrial relations and, therefore, ultimately enhance the economic performance of industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Labour Relations Agency's draft Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures be approved.
Draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures
The Minister for Employment and Learning (Ms Hanna):
I beg to move
That the Labour Relations Agency's draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures be approved.
The draft code was laid before the Assembly on 24 September 2002, and it is subject to the Assembly's approval. The draft code is issued under article 90 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992, which, subject to departmental and Assembly approval, gives the Labour Relations Agency power to issue codes for the purpose of improving industrial relations.
The draft code is a revision of an existing code of practice on redundancy consultation and procedures that was issued in September 1998. The revisions take account of changes to the legislative provisions on consultation and collective redundancies as a consequence of the enactment of the Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999. The draft code will replace the old one. On approval by the Assembly, this draft code becomes the code, and the Department will make an Order bringing it into effect on an appointed day.
Members will agree that all organisations must adapt to economic and technological change in order to remain viable. Sometimes this may necessitate a change in their employment requirements with regard to the numbers and skills of the employees involved. In circumstances where redundancy becomes necessary, employers should recognise the damaging effects this may have on employees and should, therefore, handle redundancies with due care and consideration.
The aim of the code is to provide best practice guidance on redundancies - from early consultation about the likelihood of redundancies to the management of the process. It seeks to encourage all organisations to agree a framework within which a change in employment may be handled fairly, effectively and comprehensibly. The code seeks to ensure that employers are aware of their statutory obligations and employees of their entitlements under the relevant legislation. The code also gives guidance on the main features of a redundancy procedure.
In every organisation there should be clearly understood arrangements and principles, however simple, which are consistent with the underlying intentions set out in the draft code. The draft code provides summaries of what the current legislation requires by way of consultation by the employer with employees or their representatives when a redundancy situation is proposed, including such matters as the election of representatives, if necessary. It suggests ways of reducing or avoiding compulsory redundancies, sets out the principles of fair selection of those to be made redundant and outlines the rights of an employee when under notice of redundancy.
The impact assessments undertaken on the draft code conclude that it will not disadvantage any of the section 75 groups; it will place no additional costs on employers; and it will have a positive impact in the workplace. Although failure to observe any provision of the draft code does not of itself render anyone liable to proceedings, it may be admissible in evidence in any proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the industrial court if it is deemed to be relevant. I commend the draft code to the Assembly.
The Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning (Dr Birnie):
I support the motion, as do the majority of Committee members. It was considered at our meeting on 3 October. I sincerely hope that the issue of redundancy consultation does not become one of personal interest to myself and other MLAs. Seriously, it is an important issue. As the Minister rightly said, it is important that codes of practice be in place to attempt to achieve best practice in the field of industrial relations. The draft code is unique to Northern Ireland, but it revises an existing Northern Ireland code. The regulatory and equality impact assessments have been favourable in this case. I urge the House to support the motion.
Ms Hanna:
I welcome the Committee Chairperson's remarks. The draft code balances the duties of both employers and employees, with the emphasis on responsible behaviour. Prior to any proposed redundancies, proper adherence to the draft code will reduce the likelihood of conflict and the possibility of misunderstanding when redundancies are declared.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Labour Relations Agency's draft Code of Practice on Redundancy Consultation and Procedures be approved.
Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill: Period Extension
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 6 December 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Assembly Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (Assembly Standards) Bill. - [The Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre (Mr Poots).]
The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre (Mr Gibson):
In view of circumstances outside the control of the Committee of the Centre, I beg to not move the motion.
Motion not moved.
Harbours Bill: Period Extension
The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(5), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(3) be extended to 16 December 2002, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Harbours Bill. - [Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development (Mr A Maginness).]
The Chairperson of the Committee for Regional Development (Mr A Maginness):
Acting on advice on this very sad day, I beg to not move the motion.
Motion not moved.
The sitting was suspended at 12.55 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) -
2.30 pm
Oral Answers to Questions
Education
Integrated Teacher-Training College
1.
Ms Morrice
asked the Minister of Education if he will make it his policy to support, and provide the lead in, the creation of an integrated teacher-training college.
The Minister of Education (Mr M McGuinness): The creation of an integrated teacher-training college would lie within the responsibilities of my Colleague, the Minister for Employment and Learning. I am not aware that any such proposal is being considered.
Ms Morrice:
I regret that that is the only response to my question. The Minister has called for the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, page 18 of which calls for the promotion of initiatives to facilitate and encourage integrated education. My party was responsible for inserting that proposal.
Does the Minister agree that in order for integrated education to work, teachers must be trained specifically in that area? As he takes the lead in policy, will he not agree to push for an integrated teacher-training college as one of his last deeds in the Assembly? Is it not a fact that teacher training is the only segregated third-level education system, and is that not an utter disgrace?
Mr M McGuinness:
The Good Friday Agreement states that an essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society, including initiatives to facilitate and encourage integrated education. Since taking up office, I have clearly demonstrated my commitment to the duty that the agreement places on my Department.
The question of teacher-training institutions can be answered only after full discussion and debate, not only with the teacher-training institutions but also with the schools and colleges that they serve. The practical implications of the Member's question are primarily a matter for my Colleague, the Minister for Employment and Learning.
Burns Report
2.
Mr Hamilton
asked the Minister of Education to outline (a) if he has taken any further action on the Burns proposals and (b) what that action was.
Mr M McGuinness:
On 8 October 2002 I published a report summarising the responses to the consultation on the Burns Report. I made a statement in the Assembly outlining the next steps and announced my commitment to abolish the transfer test as soon as is practical. I am absolutely determined that my decision to abolish the test will not be thwarted by political developments.
On 11 October I announced that the last tests will be held in 2004. That decision allows my Department to proceed with work with our key education partners to build on the emerging consensus and to develop new arrangements finally to consign the transfer test to history. To allow the suspension of the Assembly to delay the abolition of the test and the development of new post-primary arrangements would only prolong the unfairness and inequalities of the current system, and I am not prepared to countenance that.
Mr Hamilton:
Given that the Minister's announcement was made, to some extent, under cover of darkness, how does he square the fact that 64% of parents, 62% of teachers and 50% of pupils support the retention of academic selection, according to his own recent survey? Is it not the case that his decision was driven by petty political malice and his own personal prejudices?
Mr M McGuinness:
Petty political malice has no place in the education of our children.
Two thirds of those who returned the household response form supported the retention of academic selection. Those views are important and will be taken into account. However, they cannot be considered to be fully representative of the wider public, because only 16% of the population responded to the household survey. The response rate from well-off areas was almost three times greater than that from the poorest areas. Responses from the parents of grammar-school pupils were over-represented by more than 50%, given the proportion of children who attend grammar schools.
In developing new arrangements, my Department and its key education partners must examine the views of the public as expressed through all strands of the consultation in responses from the education partners, schools, churches, community organisations and political parties. Some - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
Let me go further, some members of the Committee for Education are focusing exclusively on the responses to the household response form on academic selection. The position they have now adopted is an about-turn from their previous position when consulted on the household response form, when they said:
"The Committee would also wish to express reservations about the limited nature of this tick-box questionnaire and the fact that a yes or no answer is being sought on complex issues which many of the respondents will have a limited knowledge or understanding of. While it may be a useful exercise to encourage some sort of feedback it may not be appropriate to rely on or cite the results as clear and unequivocal support for certain proposals or a particular way forward."
However, that is precisely what the Member and his Colleagues are doing. The Member's party is also trumpeting the views of teachers who responded to the household response form - the same teachers about whom they said:
"We have reservations about the emphasis being placed on teachers' views, particularly given that they only make up a small proportion of the population to which this household form will be sent."
Having previously rubbished the views of the public and of the teachers, the Ulster Unionist Party and the Democratic Unionist Party members of the Education Committee are now citing them in support of their case. That is the lowest form of political point-scoring on an issue of the highest importance. From the outset, I have made it clear that the consultation would be multi-stranded and account would be taken of responses to all of the strands, and I am sticking to that commitment.
In contrast to the political point-scoring by the UUP and the DUP, I have given clear leadership to the education sector by announcing a date for the end of these iniquitous tests. That will provide the impetus to develop new arrangements, and my Department will be working with its key education partners to take that work forward by building on the consensus that has emerged from the consultation. [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member had an opportunity to ask his questions.
Mr Gallagher:
The SDLP's position on the 11-plus is well known to the Minister and to the Assembly. Does the Minister agree that his announcement on Friday, if it is to take effect, must include a decision about what will replace the 11-plus in 2004? Will he tell the House whether any decisions have been taken about what will come into being in 2005 and thereafter?
Mr M McGuinness:
I have made it clear that the transfer tests will not be part of education here in the future. My Department will be working with its education partners to determine how we move forward in relation to new transfer arrangements. A range of suggestions for alternative post-primary arrangements was included in the responses to the consultation, and my Department, in consultation with its education partners, will consider those further.
Those who support academic selection agreed that substantial modifications to the current system are required. There was some support for all-ability schools, or a fully comprehensive school system, operating on the basis of catchment areas. There was broad support from our education partners - all the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the teachers' unions and others - for a system of informed election, whereby parents and pupils consider information and advice about the pupil and the range of educational opportunities and courses available and choose or elect which courses or institutions to apply for admission to. Whatever structure is put in place must enable all pupils to have educational provision that meets their individual learning needs and enables them to fulfil their potential. That is what it is about.
Children are central to how we move forward. The matter is more about children than institutions.
Mr S Wilson:
For someone who has based his life on not answering questions by remaining silent during lengthy interrogations by the security forces, the Minister appears to have adopted a new tack today: he spends around six minutes speaking on a question without answering it.
Perhaps I may remind him of the original question. The Minister has said that the responses that he received in the household survey were not representative. He described the monitoring survey as a representative sample of 2,000 homes, and it produced the same result as the household survey. Why does he still insist on ignoring the results of a survey in which the people said that they wished to retain academic selection and which he has himself described as representative? Why did the Minister say on Tuesday 8 October 2002 in his statement that he would
"carefully consider the views expressed by our education partners. along with the views of the Assembly and the Committee for Education and the responses to the consultation." ? -[Official Report, Bound Volume 18, p387].
He went on to say that he would announce proposals for the review's next stage in December. Why has he broken that promise? He said that he would listen to the people, yet he has ignored them. He said that he would listen to the Assembly, yet he has ignored it. Perhaps he will explain why his final act as Minister of Education has simply reinforced the view that he is duplicitous, deceitful -
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member has made his question clear.
Mr M McGuinness:
Last Tuesday, no decision on suspension had been taken. I am determined - [Interruption].
Mr S Wilson:
It is an act of desperation.
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
There is no desperation about me. I am determined that political developments will not prevent progress on that vital issue.
Consultation on the Burns Report showed overwhelming support for the abolition of the transfer test, and last Tuesday I made clear my commitment to ending it as soon as practicable. By making clear that the transfer test will end in 2004, I have exhibited clear leadership to the education sector and provided the impetus for this important work to be continued. Many respondents acknowledged the achievements of the system of academic selection but argued that it is not adequate or acceptable for the future.
The predominant view from the consultation is that academic selection at the age of 11 should end. Some support depended on certain conditions being met. However, those in favour included - and this is extremely important - all five education and library boards; the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools; the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education; Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta; the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment; the five main teachers' unions; the Catholic Heads Association and the Association of Head Teachers in Secondary Schools; two thirds of schools; the Northern Catholic bishops and the Transferor Representatives' Council, which represents Protestant churches; those institutes of higher and further education that responded; the Confederation of British Industry; the SDLP; Sinn Féin; the Alliance Party; the Progressive Unionist Party; the Women's Coalition; the Workers' Party; 30 % of those who returned the household response forms and the majority of the voluntary and community interests that responded; the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; the Children's Law Centre; the Comptroller and Auditor General; the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions; and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance. Some complain about the decision that was taken last Friday to abolish the transfer tests. I heard some people claim - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
I heard some people claim at the opening of the sitting that no consultation took place with the Executive. Ulster Unionist members of the Executive are on the record as stating that it was very unlikely that the Executive would meet again in its present form.
2.45 pm
That decision was well within my competence as Minister of Education. I am within my rights to take that decision - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
It is about the future education of our children - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member will find it difficult to ask his supplementary question from outside the Chamber.
Mr M McGuinness:
I wish that the Unionist Members of the House would take their responsibilities seriously and focus on the needs of children. This issue concerns children. It concerns the way in which the Assembly should progress. I do not know how long suspension will last. However, I believe that whoever manages the Department of Education in the foreseeable future will be guided by the important decisions that have been taken.
Mr Speaker:
I do not see Mr Conor Murphy in his place. Therefore Mr Hay may ask his question to the Minister.
Foyle and Londonderry College
4.
Mr Hay
asked the Minister of Education whether discussions have commenced with Foyle and Londonderry College regarding a new site; and to make a statement.
Mr M McGuinness:
My Department has carried out an economic appraisal in order to identify suitable educational facilities that will meet the curricular needs of pupils who attend Foyle and Londonderry College. The issue is under consideration.
Mr Hay:
Everybody knows the history of the school, which is situated on the west bank of the River Foyle. The school has enjoyed working with, and educating, the young people of the west bank for many years. During the past 30 years the school has had no choice but to try to find a site on the east bank of the river. During the 1970s and 1980s many Protestants were forced to leave the west bank because of Republican violence, and they continue to do so. Will the Minster confirm that there was no opposition to the school's moving to the east bank? Has a new site been identified on the east bank?
Mr M McGuinness:
The relocation of Foyle and Londonderry College is the subject of a development proposal that was published by the Western Education and Library Board on 10 May 2002. In addition to that development proposal, further work must be undertaken by my officials in conjunction with the school in order to give me a full assessment of the situation. The board of governors has also indicated that it would like to meet me. That meeting is now unlikely to take place in the foreseeable future. The board's views should be heard before any decision is taken. However, I cannot put a timescale on that.
Mrs Courtney:
How does the Minister intend to use the obsolete site? Will he ensure that it is not used solely for housing development?
Mr M McGuinness:
I do not want to speculate on how the site will be used. My stewardship of the matter is to recognise that the relocation of the college is the subject of a development proposal from the Western Education and Library Board. When that has been dealt with and a decision has been taken, there will be keen interest in the city of Derry to ensure that the site is used for proper and useful purposes. I have tremendous sympathy with the Member's last point. However, as Minister of Education, I have no control over housing in the Derry area.
Mrs Nelis:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Does the Minster agree that the threatened closure of Templemore Secondary School, and the planned retreat of Foyle College to the Waterside, may contribute to the reduction of cultural diversity on the city side of Derry and adversely affect the freedom of parents to choose non-denominational schools for their children?
Mr M McGuinness:
I am aware that that issue is hotly debated in Derry. I understand the concerns that have been expressed.
That said, decisions on the future of Templemore Secondary School and the issue of Foyle and Londonderry College will, unfortunately, have to be taken by someone else in the coming weeks and months. If that person is not prepared to take those decisions, or chooses not to, whoever returns as Minister of Education after suspension will have to deal with the matter then.
The questions today were specifically about Foyle and Londonderry College. I have laid out exactly how we intend to proceed on the issue. More work must be done. We should wait until officials and others meet the board of governors and take their own decision.
Mr Speaker:
Mr John Kelly is not in the Chamber. We shall proceed with the next question.
Dromore High School
6.
Mr Poots
asked the Minister of Education what plans he has to address the under-provision of places, and other problems, at Dromore High School.
Mr M McGuinness:
My Department, in consultation with the Southern Education and Library Board, which is responsible for the planning of school provision in the area, previously agreed a long-term enrolment figure of 740 pupils as appropriate for Dromore High School, based on an annual year 8 intake of 148. However, following a request from the school to introduce post-16 provision, that figure is currently under review.
The long-term enrolment takes account of any development in the area, as well as the number of pupils coming through the primary sector. It is not, however, my Department's policy to increase the number of places at schools, with the consequential implications for capital expenditure, simply to cater for demand, while places are available in other suitable schools within reasonable distance.
The outcome of the review, and a decision regarding post-16 provision at Dromore High School, will be made known to the board of governors of the school as soon as possible.
Mr Poots:
There has been much prevarication over the provision of sixth-form places at Dromore High School. The time has come for answers, not further consultation. Every year, 30 children are turned away from the school. The area is scheduled to almost double in population.
The Minister will no longer be a Minister after tonight. I do not know what he turns into after midnight, given his past history. However, it is time that the Department grasped the nettle and provided the places necessary for children in Dromore. The school cannot go on operating with the current intake levels.
Mr M McGuinness:
My Department's current policy on new and existing sixth-form provision in secondary schools is to leave such provision to each school's discretion, providing the school can accommodate it within its existing approved accommodation. My officials are considering the issue and, depending on other priorities, hope to complete the review in the near future.
Schools: Breakfast Meetings
7.
Mr Dallat
asked the Minister of Education what incentives are available to schools to organise breakfast meetings aimed at encouraging greater participation among parents, teachers, pupils, classroom assistants and community groups providing classroom support.
Mr M McGuinness:
The Department does not fund out-of-school activities, as it would divert scarce resources from the classroom. Therefore, there are no incentives universally available to schools to organise breakfast meetings. Some schools have been able to establish breakfast clubs for pupils with funding made available to them through the new opportunities fund from the Belfast Regeneration Office.
Mr Dallat:
Is the Minister aware that there have been welcome and remarkable improvements in standards of literacy and numeracy in some of the most socially deprived areas? In Belfast especially, schools have sought support from this type of back-up. Will the Minister leave a note on his ministerial desk instructing the Department to give that top priority, so that the awful scourge of illiteracy and innumeracy can be alleviated?
Mr M McGuinness:
As well as helping to promote the regular, prompt attendance of some children, breakfast clubs can provide a healthy breakfast for some pupils who might not otherwise have the chance. Indeed, if I had the resources, I would expand breakfast clubs, especially in schools serving areas of severe social disadvantage.
I know that John Dallat has a keen interest in literacy and numeracy, and I have tremendous sympathy with the arguments that he has made. There is no doubt that we must consistently challenge ourselves to see what more can be done to ensure that literacy standards are raised.
Mr Shannon:
The Minister has stated that no moneys will be made available for participation by parents, teachers, pupils and classroom assistants in out-of-school activities. Can the Minister or his Department confirm that any assistance - it may not take the form of money - will be equitable and given in parity to all state schools as opposed to only Irish-language schools and those schools represented by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools? In the past, those schools have been given priority over state schools.
Mr M McGuinness:
The concept of equality is important to the Department in its deliberations on the education of all children.
Mr McElduff:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh cheist an Uasail Dallat. I welcome my Colleague's question, and particularly his emphasis on harnessing all the energies around schools to create a school and community partnership. However, I am not sure that breakfast meetings are the best mechanism for doing that. What does the Minister consider to be the best mechanism for achieving real participation among parents, teachers and pupils in a school and community partnership?
Mr M McGuinness:
My Department accepts that parents have an important role to play in their children's education and has made limited funding available to each education and library board for a range of targeted parenting initiatives. In addition, under existing and proposed legislation, a school must consult parents about its discipline and anti-bullying policies. The Education and Training Inspectorate also seeks parents' views when undertaking a general inspection of a school.
Review of Post-Primary Education
8.
Mr McHugh
asked the Minister of Education to outline the next steps he intends to take in his review of post-primary education.
Mr M McGuinness:
In last week's statement, I said that building consensus remains the best way by which to make progress and that the considerable consensus demonstrated by the responses to the consultation provides a sound platform from which to move the review forward. I also outlined my plans to meet key stakeholders in education to listen to their views on responses to the consultation and on how best to make progress on the post-primary review before announcing proposals for the next steps in December. I am determined that the overwhelming demand for abolition of the transfer test shall not be thwarted by the suspension of the Assembly, and I announced on Friday that the last transfer test will be held in November 2004. The Department of Education will meet the key stakeholders as part of the process of developing new arrangements that are fair and that will enable all children to reach their full potential regardless of their background or circumstances.
Mr McHugh:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister's answer and, in particular, the move on the 11-plus. Many teachers and parents have already been in touch to express their delight that this flawed and divisive test is truly on its way out. Does the Minister believe that to suspend the institutions at a time when the education system is planning such fundamental change is nothing short of political vandalism?
Mr M McGuinness:
As a Minister in an Executive that has only a few hours to run, I am saddened and disappointed that the institutions established under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement are to be suspended from midnight tonight - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Mr M McGuinness:
On and off over the course of the past three years, I have worked happily with my Unionist and SDLP Colleagues in the Executive. All of us, including the DUP Ministers, have done good work on behalf of the people. I was struck by John Reid's press conference this morning and the Ministers who were lined up beside him in front of the television cameras. They are probably all good and decent people, but none of them is from here. They do not know the communities, the geography and our problems as we know them. Of course, they will be overloaded by several portfolios.
3.00 pm
The suspension of the institutions will be detrimental to our economy and to our health and education systems. I am saddened by that. Whatever happens, there will be a huge responsibility on all of us - not least on the two Prime Ministers, Mr Ahern and Mr Blair - to ensure that we get the institutions back up again in the interests of the future of our people.
Mr S Wilson:
Including your spy ring.[Interruption].
You nearly lost your seat there.
Mr M McGuinness:
Copy that.
Mr Speaker:
Order. Time is up.
Health, Social Services and Public Safety
Fertility Treatment
1.
Ms Lewsley
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline, for each health service board (a) the waiting time for an initial fertility clinic consultation and (b) the waiting time for each type of fertility treatment.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún):
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Áirítear seirbhísí neamhthorthúlachta sna ceithre bhord sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta mar chlinicí ginearálta gínéiceolaíochta; mar sin de níl saineolas ar bith ar fáil maidir le hamanna feithimh do chlinicí neamhthorthúlachta.
Cuimsíonn cóireáil neamhthorthúlachta drugaí, máinliacht, inseamhnú saorga agus teicníochtaí cúnta giniúna mar IVF (toirchiú in vitro). Fanann cuid othar le cóireáil agus iad ar liostaí feithimh ginearálta, mar shampla, i ngnícéiceolaíocht, agus ní féidir iad a mhiondealú de réir diagnóise nó de réir reachta.
Fertility services in the four health and social services boards are counted under general gynaecology clinics, and no specific information in regard to waiting times for infertility clinics is available. Infertility treatment includes drugs, surgery, artificial insemination and assisted conception techniques, such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Some patients await treatment on general waiting lists - for example, in gynaecology - and it is not possible to disaggregate those by diagnosis or condition.
Ms Lewsley:
Does the Minister envisage that in future those details might be separated so that we can see the number of people on a waiting list, particularly for infertility treatment? Given the expense of private treatment for infertility, has the Minister any plans to improve availability of the service and to reduce the waiting times for consultations?
Ms de Brún:
There are two difficulties with regard to the future. One is obvious in today's context; the other is that, on an increasing number of issues, Members have asked about disaggregating the information to a level which simply is not possible. It is difficult to acquire the information, and it would place the system under added pressure.
With regard to improving the service, it was precisely because this was such a difficult matter and because there was no publicly funded sub-fertility service, that I decided to proceed with an interim service while working on what should be provided in future. The interim service provides only limited service, based on existing resources. However, I emphasise that it enables some couples to have access to publicly funded sub-fertility treatment, which, formerly, was provided only privately.
Brain Surgery
2.
Ms Morrice
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to outline, for the last 10 month period, (a) the number of brain surgery operations that have taken place and (b) the number of people waiting for surgery.
Ms de Brún:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Níl fáil ar an eolas ar líon na n-obráidí máinliacht inchinne a rinneadh agus ar líon na daoine atá ag fanacht le máinliacht, mar ní mhiondealaítear liostaí feithimh ar an speisialtacht néarmháinliachta ina gcatagóirí ar leith.
The information requested is not available, as waiting lists in the neurosurgery speciality are not broken down into separate categories.
Ms Morrice:
I am disappointed with the Minister's response. She is aware that the 82-year-old mother of one of my constituents was told in December 2001 that she needed surgery for a brain tumour.
Almost 12 months later, Hanna Glascott is still waiting. Two weeks ago, the Minister's office told me that she was in line for surgery. Her family has heard absolutely nothing. Will the Minister explain what is happening? Will she assure me that Mrs Glascott has not been put to the bottom of the list because of her age?
Ms de Brún:
I assure Ms Morrice that no one is put to the bottom of a waiting list because of age and that Mrs Glascott has most definitely not been put to the bottom of the list because of her age. As Ms Morrice knows, right up until I came here today, my office has been dealing with her to determine what to provide for Mrs Glascott and the steps that must be taken to do that.
Ms Morrice referred to the breakdown of information. It is not possible to break down the numbers waiting for speciality services, and, if it were, it would not necessarily improve the provision of those services. Measures to improve the provision of speciality services include, for example, the considerable efforts being made by the Royal Group of Hospitals to address current problems, which include the introduction of three additional theatre lists; provision of funding for two additional beds for elective surgery; improvements in discharge times; a substantial increase in the number of nurse training places; and - [Interruption].
Ms Morrice:
Not by September this year.
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Ms de Brún:
It ill behoves a Deputy Speaker to interrupt the Minister who is trying to answer her question.
Ms Morrice:
I need answers.
Ms de Brún:
Provision has been made to fund four nurses, on a supernumerary basis, to attract them to the neurosurgery speciality. Therefore, work has been done to improve discharge times; provide additional nurses and theatre lists; and find funding for two additional beds for elective surgery.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Is practice in the United Kingdom the same as in Europe, where surgery is performed at the weekend?
Ms de Brún:
Practices vary between different countries in Europe. Some practices are similar here, and some are not. Specific work has been done on elective surgery here, and questions have been asked about the payments that have been made for it. Negotiations must take place for people to work outside their normal hours, and that issue is also being addressed through the negotiations on consultant contracts.
Mr Byrne:
Does the Minister accept that many people who suffer from brain illnesses experience great concern and anxiety, especially given the NHS categorisation that ranges between "very serious illness" and "life-threatening illness"? Does the Minister accept that no patient should have to make a choice between going private, because of the urgency of the situation, and waiting for an NHS operation?
Ms de Brún:
As I have said many times in the Assembly, I agree that staff in the health and personal social services deal with the legacy of years of considerable underfunding. Daily, they are faced with questions that must be answered and decisions that must be taken in a far from ideal context. In neurosurgery, the more urgent cases are assessed daily and treated in accordance with clinical priority. It would, therefore, not be possible for us to move away from a service that is based, not on age or any other criterion, but on clinical priority.
Bone Marrow Database
3.
Rev Robert Coulter
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps she is taking to establish a Northern Ireland bone marrow tissue-typing database.
Ms de Brún:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuireann an tSeirbhís Fuilaistrithe anseo, i gcomhar leis an tSaortharlann Tíopála Fíocháin, go suntasach cheana le Clár Deontóirí Smeara na Breataine. Tá timpeall is 7,000 deontóirí áitiúil ann, ar dheonaigh thart ar 50 acu smior. Tá clár smeara fosta ag Iontaobhas Anthony Nolan agus ag an Chlár Smeara Idirnáisiúnta; tá comhoibriú ann idir na cláir uilig.
The Blood Transfusion Service, in conjunction with the local tissue-typing laboratory, already contributes significantly to the British Bone Marrow Donor Registry. Approximately 50 of the 7,000 local donors have donated bone marrow. The Anthony Nolan Trust and International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry also hold bone marrow registers, and all registries co-operate.
Rev Robert Coulter:
Will the Minister recommend to her successor that he or she, at an early date, extend to Northern Ireland the existing model for a bone marrow database similar to that already established in England?
Ms de Brún:
A successful outcome in unrelated bone marrow transplantation is critically dependent on an exact match between the donor and patient. The nature of the blood typing that is required to find an exact match means that hundreds of thousands of donors are necessary in order to have a reasonable chance of finding a match, and there are approximately 160,000 donors on the British Bone Marrow Donor Registry. We must take those issues into account when we consider separating from that system.
Since the service began, the public here has shown a lot of interest by volunteering for the programme. The existing bone marrow programme has operated successfully for many years and has resulted in over 50 volunteers donating bone marrow. Our current connection means that anything extra that is done through the NHS will also have a positive, knock-on effect on access to the service here.
Mr Kennedy:
Is the answer "yes" or "no"?
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Northern Ireland Fire Service
4.
Ms Armitage
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety if she has considered, or will consider, the reorganisation of the Northern Ireland Fire Service.
Ms de Brún:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Le deireannas, chuir an Bhriogáid Dóiteáin críoch le hathbhreithniú cuimsitheach ar chlúdach dóiteáin anseo, agus tá mo Roinn ag déanamh machnaimh ar an dréacht-thuarascáil thosaigh den mheasúnú sin.
Ina theannta sin, tá bailchríoch á cur ar an chéad chéim d'athbhreithniú cúigbhliantúil an Údaráis Dóiteáin. Déanfaidh an dara céim den athbhreithniú meastóireacht ar an dóigh a bhfeidhmíonn an t-údarás maidir le luach ar airgead go háirithe, agus déanfaidh sé moltaí ar conas a fheidhmíocht a fheabhsú.
The Fire Brigade recently completed a comprehensive review of fire cover here, and my Department is considering the initial draft report of that assessment. Additionally, the first stage of a quinquennial review of the Fire Authority is being finalised, and the second stage of that review will evaluate how the authority performs, particularly with regard to value for money. Recommendations as to how the service's performance could be improved will be contained in the second stage review. Those reviews will provide information to help determine the future shape and deployment of the Fire Service.
Ms Armitage:
The Minister has almost answered most of my questions. Is she aware of the problems that exist in the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade, especially because it does not have a Chief Fire Officer? Does she think that the Fire Authority still has a role to play in the organisation of the Northern Ireland Fire Brigade? Is there equality in the membership of the Fire Authority? Finally, does the Minister agree that the Fire Authority is a quango and should be suspended prior to complete removal, like the Assembly?
Ms de Brún:
I thank the Member for her somewhat colourful supplementary question.
I have full confidence in the acting chairperson of the Fire Authority, and I also believe that assistant chief fire officer Lammey and assistant chief fire officer Craig will provide the necessary leadership to manage the brigade effectively until the new Chief Fire Officer is appointed.
3.15 pm
With regard to the quinquennial review, the idea of having two stages is that the first stage should consider whether the present organisational structure remains the most appropriate vehicle to deliver the required service and whether the functions which the Fire Authority, in this case, carries out are still required. The stage-two review evaluates performance, and whether that review is carried out depends on the outcome of the first stage, which is being finalised at the moment.
Mr S Wilson:
Is the Minister aware that, apart from the dissatisfaction felt in some circles with the organisation of the Fire Service, there is also continued dissatisfaction with the way that firefighters' pay has been handled - or not, as may be the case? Will the Minister confirm that, if that issue is not resolved, the Army will have to provide cover in the event of a strike by firefighters? In such an event the Army will, in turn, require police cover, with the Minister's Department responsible for the payment of that cover. Do we, therefore, face the prospect of an IRA/Sinn Féin Minister actually paying for the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Ms de Brún:
Unless that happens before midnight tonight, Mr Wilson knows well that it is most unlikely that we will face any such prospect. However, I can say that although my Department is not directly involved in the negotiations that take place between the Fire Authorities and the staff side, the Department, along with the Fire Authority, has responsibility to consider how emergency cover can be provided in the event of a strike.
Mr Foster:
With the emphasis on the word "reorganisation", in relation to hospital services, will the Minister agree that the site of the new acute hospital for the Enniskillen area should be announced -
Mr Speaker:
Order. The Member knows perfectly well that this is remote in the extreme from the question to which it is meant to be a supplemental.
Mr Hussey:
The Member meant to say Omagh.
Mr Speaker:
Even if Mr Foster had said Omagh, it would still not have qualified.
Antrim Hospital
5.
Mr Beggs
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make a statement on the waiting lists at Antrim Hospital and to give her assessment of the effects of the scarcity of community care packages on bed blocking there.
Ms de Brún:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Bhí 1,935 duine ar liosta feithimh d'othair chónaitheacha ag Otharlann Cheantar Aontroma ar 30 Deireadh Fómhair 2002. Is ionann sin agus laghdú de 100 sna sé mhí ó 31 Mhárta. Thar an tréimhse chéanna, tháinig ardú de 140 ar chásanna lae ó 2,269; bhí moill ar 73 duine a scaoileadh amach ar 30 Meán Fómhair 2002 mar gheall ar dheacrachtaí ag freastal ar an éileamh ar chúram sa phobal.
Mar gheall ar na brúnna seo, chuir mé maoiniú ar fáil do bharda breise 24 leaba san otharlann; tá sé le bheith ann faoi Mhárta 2004. Tá an t-iontaobhas ag obair chomh maith le Bord an Tuaiscirt agus le mo Roinn le teacht ar bhealaí breise le liostaí feithimh a laghdú, go háirithe i ngnáthaimh lae agus i gcúram lae agus trí phacáistí breise cúraim phobail a chur ar fáil.
The inpatient waiting list total at Antrim Area Hospital, on 30 September 2002, was 1,935. That represents a reduction of 100 in the six months from 31 March 2002. Over the same period, day cases rose by 140 from 2,269 to 2,409. There were 73 delayed discharges at 30 September 2002, due to difficulties in meeting the demand for care in the community. In recognition of these pressures, I have made funding available for an additional 24-bed ward at the hospital, scheduled to be in place by March 2004. The trust is also working with the Northern Health and Social Services Board and my Department to find further ways to reduce waiting lists, particularly for day procedures, day care and through the creation of additional community care.
Mr Beggs:
Does the Minister agree that there is an acute shortage of community care provision in the Homefirst Community Trust area and that a contributory factor to the lack of community care is that patients in Northern Ireland receive some of the lowest levels of funding per patient in the Health Service? Will she confirm that beds are being blocked and that patients are being admitted on an emergency basis because they are not being adequately treated in the community? For example, east Antrim has some of the longest occupational therapy waiting lists. Will she explain why the consultant rheumatologist for the Northern Health and Social Services Board area had to close her list in March 2000? Furthermore, would she care to comment on the rumour that the Massereene ambulance depot is being considered for relocation and on the effects that that would have on jobs and the delivery of care in the community?
Ms de Brún:
I am slightly at a loss to understand the connection between an ambulance and the provision of money for care in the community. However, if the Member wishes to write to me on the subject, I would be happy to take up that point with him.
On several occasions I have stated that years of underfunding have affected not only hospital capacity but, vitally, care in the community to the extent that it impacts on people who are admitted inappropriately to hospital and on people who are ready to go home but whose discharges are delayed because they are not able to go home. It also has an impact on those waiting for services in the community. That is why I secured an additional £19·1 million for the current financial year, which will increase the capacity of health and social services boards to make payments to care homes, to implement the changes that I have already outlined in nursing care, and to support an additional 1,000 people in community settings. I continue to seek extra funding to increase that number even further. I continue to prioritise delayed discharge. I assure the Member of that and of the restoration of domiciliary care as a cost-effective alternative to institutional care.
Mrs I Robinson:
The Minister's answer to the Member for East Antrim and to supplementary questions from other Members illustrates the overall, unsatisfactory state of the health sector in the Province. As her period in charge comes to an end today, what does the Minister think she has achieved in office? Bearing in mind that hospital waiting lists have deteriorated to the extent that they are now the worst in Europe; that expensive consultations have provided few tangible results; that our acute hospitals have insufficient resources; that staff are overworked and feel undervalued; and that GPs do not involve themselves in local health and social care groups, what were the Minister's aims, and what does she think that she has delivered?
Mr Speaker:
Order. It would be in order for the Minister to answer the points of the supplementary question that relate to the primary question.
Ms de Brún:
When I came into office one of my priorities was to address the situation that I found and that the Member's party would also have found, had it not passed over this portfolio. The situation was that, for many years, there had not been sufficient investment in hospital or community services, capacity, equipment, staff or staff training. Therefore, one of my major achievements has been to highlight and document that in workforce planning and to seek, and to some extent gain, the funding to put that in place. With regard to the scarcity of community care packages, people will see that, since I took on this portfolio, there has been a shift towards community care and more money invested in community care than there had been for some time.
Members have recognised that.
There is also integrated working as shown by the work that was done originally on winter pressures, and that has been extended to greater integrated working in the whole service. As Members know through a variety of announcements, work has also been done on replacing equipment; on new additional staff, particularly for nurse training; on the provision of an overall strategic view of the way forward; and, specifically, to address delayed discharges and inappropriate admissions to hospital.
Five-Year Tobacco Action Plan
6.
Dr Birnie
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety how many responses have so far been made to the public consultation on the five-year tobacco action plan.
Ms de Brún:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Fuarthas freagra is tríocha go nuige. Críochnaíonn an tréimhse chomhairliúcháin ar 15 Samhain 2002.
Thirty-one responses have been received so far. The consultation period ends on 15 November 2002.
Dr Birnie:
Since the plan's aim is to reduce the amount of smoking in the Northern Ireland population, can the Minister assure us that her Department leads by example? What measures are in place among her staff to discourage smoking in the Department? For example, are there smoking rooms in the departmental headquarters and such buildings?
Ms de Brún:
We have taken considerable steps to discourage smoking. The Member knows that all steps have been taken to ensure that our staff, as others, lead by example in the work that must be done on this. We have undertaken public information campaigns. We have television advertisements, a web site and a magazine, all aimed at discouraging smoking among young people. Earlier this year we released the hard-hitting television advertisement entitled 'Artery', which we saw earlier this year. That was aimed mainly at adult smokers, particularly disadvantaged adults. There is a campaign to promote a telephone helpline service. The Member will be pleased to note that work on a new campaign is well under way, as is action to award a contract for a permanent telephone helpline to complement cessation services.
Mr Shannon:
How can the Minister take any action on the responses to the five-year tobacco action plan when she has singularly failed to address the waiting lists for operations; the deficit of staff in almost every sector; and the total lack of confidence of the general public in her ability to do the job?
Ms de Brún:
I am somewhat reluctant to respond to a series of questions that, like the heckling today, has more to do with current selection conventions in the Unionist community to choose candidates for forthcoming elections than with services.
However, the work that I outlined in answer to the previous question is only a small part of all the work that has been done. We have been working towards a ban on tobacco advertising. There have been public information campaigns, and considerable work has been done on the key target groups. We have also been working to get the public health messages out, and we have been working particularly hard to ensure that the public are personally engaged in this, so that all aspects of one of the greatest causes of disease in our population are tackled and fought. That is alongside the wider social and economic determinants of health, which I am delighted that we have been able to address in our 'Investing for Health' strategy.
Fire Service
7.
Mr C Murphy
asked the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety what steps she is taking to create a neutral working environment in Fire Service properties.
Ms de Brún:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Agus í ag coimhlíonadh a gealltanais timpeallacht neodrach oibre a chruthú i ngach áitreabh de chuid na Seirbhíse Dóiteáin, tá polasaí comhionannais deise agus scéim chomhionannais alt 75 i bhfeidhm ag an Údarás Dóiteáin. D'aontaigh an t-údarás chomh maith le hionadaithe foirne ar chomhfhógairt chosanta a bhfuil sé de aidhm aici timpeallacht chomhchuibhiúil oibre a chur chun cinn d'fhoireann na Seirbhíse Dóiteáin go léir. Tá cóip di ar taispeáint i ngach áitreabh de chuid na Seirbhíse Dóiteáin.
3.30 pm
In fulfilling its commitment to the creation of a neutral working environment in all Fire Service premises, the Fire Authority has an equal opportunities policy and the corresponding section 75 equality scheme in place. The authority has also agreed with staff side representatives a joint declaration of protection aimed at promoting a harmonious working environment for all Fire Service staff, a copy of which is displayed in all Fire Service properties.
Mr Speaker:
I regret that the Member will not be able to ask a supplementary question on this occasion.
Finance and Personnel
Peace II Programme
1.
Mr Byrne
asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to provide an update on the implementation of the Peace II programme.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Dr Farren): The implementation - [Interruption].
Mr Speaker:
Order.
Dr Farren:
Implementation of the Peace II programme is, I am pleased to say, progressing steadily. All implementation bodies have been appointed, and all measures have been opened. Nearly 2,700 applications have been received, and many grant offers have been made. Payments to projects began in May, and discussions are taking place with the European Commission to finalise the programme complement as soon as possible. The Special EU Programmes Body will be working with all implementation bodies to ensure that targets for expenditure under the programme are met.
Mr Byrne:
The Peace II programme provides a great basis for building more voluntary and community capacity. There were reports about difficulties with certain sectors, particularly the community and voluntary sectors. What is the Minister doing to address the situation that some of those sectors find themselves in when dealing with funding difficulties?
Dr Farren:
I have been made aware of concerns in the community and voluntary sectors about funding allocations and applications being assessed in time. I have directed that work being introduced on several fronts should address those concerns. Discussions have taken place in the Administration and with the implementing bodies for the programme. I regret to say that following today's Question Time one of my last official duties will be to meet with representatives of intermediary funding bodies to hear their concerns and to tell them how these are being addressed, so that we can identify and remove obstacles to the more rapid allocation of money to projects and groups that have applied for funding.
There will be a review of the application form that has caused some concern and a review of processes to make submitting applications easier. There will be continuing discussions with the European Commission to identify ways of simplifying the application of its regulations, and there will be a review of the scope of activities that can be funded from measures in the programme in consultation with the monitoring committee. At a meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in Ballycastle last Wednesday, my counterpart from the Dublin Government, Tom Parlon, Minister of State at the Department of Finance, and I had a report from the chief executive officer of the Special EU Programmes Body on some of those issues. As I have already said, I will be taking forward some of those discussions with representatives of intermediary funding bodies later this afternoon.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair).
Mr Shannon:
Can the Minister confirm the uptake for the Peace II programme in constituencies across the Province, particularly in Strangford? What steps is his Department taking to ensure that equitable funding is available for all sustainable projects in the Province, especially in Strangford?
Dr Farren:
The Member has asked a question that has been submitted for answer later. He would not expect me to have, either at my fingertips or in my head, the kind of details that he seeks on constituency allocations. Allocations are not made on a constituency basis; preference is given according to measures within the different priorities. In my response to Mr Byrne's question, I said that more than 2,700 applications have been received from organisations and from community and voluntary groups throughout Northern Ireland. Although not all have been successful, many have been, and the assessment process is ongoing. Details are available regularly.
The Special EU Programmes Body has been submitting monitoring reports to the Department of Finance and Personnel and will continue to do so. I am in a position to make those reports available to my Executive Colleagues, so that we can see where money is being allocated. As the Member will appreciate, meeting social need is an important requirement. Identifying areas of social need is one of the horizontal principles that must be borne in mind when determining allocations. In particular, allocations made under the local strategy partnerships, which are responsible for two of the measures in priority 3, have directly taken account of relative need in all 26 district councils.
Mr Hussey:
I listened carefully to the Minister's answer and welcome the fact that Peace II funding has begun. I also welcome the possibility of simplifying the complex application forms for Peace II funding. Can the Minister explain, in the light of the community's great concern, the delay in delivering that funding? Why have we had to wait until now? I and many other Members understood that the funding would be on stream long before now.
I share the Minister's concern that he is carrying out his final duties today. However, he must remember that if his party had joined with the rest of us, 82% of this place would not be disenfranchised by the 18% sitting on the Benches opposite.
Dr Farren:
I shall respond to the first part of the Member's question, for which, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, I am directly responsible. Although there have been some delays, allocations have been made since May 2002. There have been some considerable delays in the establishment of some of our local strategy partnerships and the development of their local strategy plans. Further delays were the result of the long and detailed consideration that must be given to applications. There is an understandable concern that applications are assessed fully, according to the criteria.
The criteria for Peace II funding are different in several respects from those applicable to Peace I funding. The particular emphasis on the "distinctiveness" criterion has caused some problems. The Special EU Programmes Body and the intermediary funding bodies are anxious to address the problems and to help groups articulate their aims and objectives as effectively as possible with respect to all the criteria. It is hoped that those groups do not find themselves in a situation in which their applications are returned for further clarification and elaboration. That has already happened and has therefore contributed to some of the delay. However, there is a significant momentum behind the Peace II programme, and I am confident that we can deliver on the spending objectives - not only in the immediate future but throughout the period for which the programme will operate.
Additional Moneys
2.
Mr Dallat
asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline his plans for raising additional moneys to meet increased commitments; and to make a statement.
Dr Farren:
The draft Budget presented to the Assembly on 24 September is predicated on the use of the reinvestment and reform initiative and on the use of public-private partnerships to address infrastructure deficits. Beyond the immediate borrowing facility of £125 million for 2003-04, details of which have already been announced, the extent to which we can borrow is limited by our ability to raise additional revenue to service the debt. Any decisions will be taken with due regard to the recent consultation exercise on the review of rating policy.
As I have previously made clear, there will be no increase in regional rate beyond the pattern of recent years unless and until a fairer system is in place. In the meantime, I have proposed to the Executive a package of allocations from the September monitoring round for 2002-03 amounting to £144 million and, in conjunction with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, a further package of £19 million this year and £47 million in 2003-04 from two of the Executive programme funds. As it will not be possible to announce these in the usual way - by a statement to the Assembly after Executive agreement - I have made details of the proposals available to Members through a press release.
Mr Dallat:
I thank the Minister for his answer and for his good news on a day when there is not a lot to be happy about. Will the Minister assure the House that, before he goes home tonight, he will have written all the cheques he is entitled to in favour of the socially disadvantaged groups? In doing so, will he remember to take account of potential efficiency savings as well as the sale of Government-held assets in constructing his Budget proposals? We do not want to leave anything untouched.
Dr Farren:
I must be careful when responding to the Chairperson of the Audit Committee and member of the Public Accounts Committee in this regard. Both of us will cease to hold our respective offices from midnight this evening, but when Members read the press releases on September monitoring and further allocations from two of the Executive programme funds, they will see that the Executive have done all in their power to redirect and add to the scope for investment in such vital services as health, education, roads infrastructure, transport facilities and the Water Service. It is a legacy of which we can be proud.
The responsibility for the actual spend will not be with the Minister of Finance and Personnel but with the Ministers who have responsibility for the various Departments. My Budget proposals contained a clear invitation and a requirement on all Departments to submit a report by the end of October on how they will address efficiency and asset management issues - and I trust that the present hiatus will not be a cause for any delay in that regard. When the Assembly returns - as I hope it will in the not too distant future - it is hoped that Members will find that considerable progress has been made with respect to what was proposed in the reforming and, as I said at the time, radical Budget.
3.45 pm
Census
3.
Dr McDonnell
asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline the timescale for the release of future census data.
12.
Mr McClarty
asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel when further key information from the Northern Ireland Census 2002 will be made available.
Dr Farren:
With the Deputy Speaker's permission, I will take questions 3 and 12 together. A census key statistics release will be published as a printed report at the end of December 2002. That will provide basic counts on each census question at Northern Ireland and district council levels. It will include, among other things, information on religion, employment and general health. Similar statistics for ward and sub-ward output areas, of which there are approximately 5,000, will be made available on compact disc and on the census web site. Standard area statistics that provide detailed cross-tabulations required by census users are planned for the first half of next year. They will comprise a printed report at Northern Ireland level with 900,000 further cross-tabulations at local authority ward and sub-ward output area level. The report will be available on compact disc, on high-capacity digital versatile disc and on the census web site.
A census output prospectus, which details the form and content of census outputs, is available on the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency web site, and that will be updated as necessary. The Department of Finance and Personnel plans to release census outputs in accordance with a timescale set out at the beginning of the process.
I thank all those who participated in, and worked on, the 2001 census: the public who took the time to complete and return the forms; the 3,000-strong field force of enumerators and supervisory staff who worked to deliver and, where necessary, collect the forms; and the census office staff who undertook the processing and reporting of the forms. It was a major exercise, and considerable value will be drawn from it for the future planning of services for which the Department is responsible.
Dr McDonnell:
Why will the census results not be published before the end of December?
Dr Farren:
The first set of census results was published a few weeks ago. The details related to the gender breakdown across Northern Ireland at district council and ward levels. They were released in accordance with the timetable set out at the beginning of the census process, and in parallel with the release of similar information in England, Scotland and Wales. There has been no undue delay in the release of data, but an exercise of the scale of a census requires a considerable period of processing and a timetable for the release of the various parts of the data that have been collected. The next tranche of data will be released towards the end of the year, and it will contain the information that I have highlighted.
European Funding
4.
Mr Poots
asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how he intends to ensure that European funding is properly spent without having to return substantial sums to Europe.
Dr Farren:
The current projections indicate that the building sustainable prosperity programme will exceed its expenditure targets, but that the Peace II programme needs to increase its rate of spending to meet the level required by its first target date of 31 December 2003.
All implementation bodies are aware of that position, and the Special EU Programmes Body will monitor the expenditure closely. I have discussed this with the Executive, the North/South Ministerial Council and the Special EU Programmes Body, and I will discuss similar issues with representatives of the intermediary funding bodies later this afternoon.
If necessary, proposals will be put to the monitoring committee about moving money from slower-spending to faster-spending measures. However, we must have some sense of the pattern of spend in the different priority areas. The Special EU Programmes Body, as the managing authority, is examining that.
Mr Poots:
Does the Minister recognise that some problems result from some of the Departments dragging their feet in spending the money? There is concern that money was misallocated the last time, so it is imperative that proper control measures are put in place to ensure that money is not squandered. Nevertheless, the Departments must create the impetus to ensure that the money is properly spent and does not go back to Europe, because Northern Ireland badly needs it.
Dr Farren:
I thank the Member for his comment, but I have dealt with many of his points. I have been monitoring the situation since early summer. I have been in touch with ministerial Colleagues. I have reported to the Special EU Programmes Body and the North/South Ministerial Council, and I will be in touch with the intermediary funding bodies this afternoon. We are attempting to ensure that spending profiles will be met on target. The first target is 31 December 2003, and everything possible is being done to ensure that it is met. I am confident that we will achieve it.
Mr Beggs:
Will the Minister acknowledge that the application process could contribute to underspending of European funding, because it is bureaucratic and off-putting to small and medium-sized projects? Will he urge his Department to review the appropriateness, or otherwise, of the application process, so that projects can be accurately assessed according to their value?
Dr Farren:
As I said, I am reviewing all those matters. The fact that the Department has received 2,700 applications, many of which came from smaller organisations, suggests that the difficulties can be overcome with the assistance of the intermediary funding bodies and the Special EU Programmes Body. Notwithstanding that, I am aware that there are concerns, and they are being addressed immediately and expeditiously.
Springvale Educational Village
5.
Mr Kennedy
asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel whether the recent uncertainty expressed on the long-term sustainability of the Springvale Educational Village was conveyed to his Department prior to the publication of the draft Budget.
Dr Farren:
I understand that the question relates to the main Springvale campus, which has been the subject of recent media attention. Officials in the Department for Employment and Learning alerted the Department of Finance and Personnel informally at the end of June this year that a potential problem had emerged with the Springvale outline business case that concerned initial affordability by the institutions rather than the long-term sustainability of the project. The Minister for Employment and Learning wrote to me formally on this on 25 September.
Mr Kennedy:
Given the important scrutiny role of the Committees, will the Minister say whether the matter was drawn to the attention of the relevant Committee, and, if not, why not?
Dr Farren:
I cannot answer that because I am not responsible for the Department for Employment and Learning, nor do I know of the engagement between that Department and its statutory Committee.
Draft Budget
6.
Ms Lewsley
asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel to outline (a) any consultation which has taken place on the draft Budget and (b) the timetable for the presentation of a revised Budget to the Assembly.
Dr Farren:
As I said earlier, the draft Budget was introduced on 24 September, which marks the start of the formal consultation period. The Executive's intention has been to engage fully with the Assembly and other groups on the content of the draft Budget and the draft Programme for Government, which it supports. We will do that in an integrated way, consulting on those documents together. Both documents have been made widely available to social partners, business, trade unions and the voluntary and community sector. In addition, a series of workshops and seminars has been arranged to enable as many people as possible to put forward their views, and I am assured that those workshops and seminars will be held notwithstanding the suspension.
During October and early November we would have taken evidence from other Committees on the draft Budget, which would have been followed by a "take note" debate on the subject. Any proposed changes would then have been incorporated into a revised Budget to be presented, if we were here, in early December, and, miracle of miracles, we might be. A detailed timetable for the presentation of our revised Budget is contained in the draft Budget document. I trust that the Ministers who will take over responsibility for our respective Departments will take note of the level of agreement reached on the proposals in the draft Budget, and I have a high degree of expectation that we can await the implementation of the Budget in accordance with the desires of the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
Ms Lewsley:
What specific steps does the Minister hope will take place to ensure that outside interests have a chance to participate fully in the consultation?
Dr Farren:
I trust that the range of interests which I mentioned in my previous response will be consulted. The Member, and all Members of the House, will be satisfied that an adequate opportunity has been provided across all sectors for a response to and an input into the draft Budget. I cannot, with any certainty, predict what the Ministers taking over will decide. Nonetheless, they will come back to the broad proposals in the Budget and make their final determination, taking those views into account.
Review of Rating Policy
7.
Mrs Courtney
asked the Minister of Finance and Personnel how many responses were received to the review of rating policy.
Dr Farren:
At the close of the consultation phase of the review of rating policy, 95 responses had been received. The respondees include political parties, Assembly Committees, district councils, numerous interested organisations and groups and many individual ratepayers.
Mrs Courtney:
Now that the Assembly is being suspended, does the Minister believe that the review of rating policy will suffer the same fate?
Dr Farren:
As I have said, I cannot say with any certainty what will happen to that or any other policies of the Executive, the Assembly or its Committees.
4.00 pm
It was widely acknowledged and accepted around the House that the current rating system contains not only many anomalies but many inequities. The incoming Ministers will be mindful of the urgency with which the issue must be addressed so that we can have a fair and equitable system for all.
Mrs Carson:
What response did the Minister receive from domestic ratepayers and the small-business sector?
Dr Farren:
The Member asks me to detail what two interest groups have said. Responses have been received from many people in the small-business sector and from individual ratepayers. The one plea that tends to come out in all the submissions is that every group wishes to be exempt from rates. We should be in some difficulty if we heeded that plea for no one to have rates levied on him or her.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. - [Mr Deputy Speaker.]
The Future of the Mater Hospital
Mr A Maginness:
On 2 July 2002, the McAuley Building was opened at the Mater Hospital. It is a new, state-of-the-art building that will service the hospital. It was called after Mother Catherine McAuley, a Catholic religious sister in the nineteenth century who founded the Sisters of Mercy, an order particularly dedicated to teaching and nursing. She was a sort of nineteenth-century Mother Teresa in Ireland. She and her sisters founded many schools, hospitals and other institutions the length and breadth of Ireland for the Irish people - Catholic and Protestant, from north and south. In many ways, together with other religious orders and people, both Catholic and Protestant, she established the foundations and infrastructure for schools, the education system and the health service in Ireland.
Part of those foundations was the Mater Hospital, which was founded in Belfast in 1883. By 1909, the hospital's status in Ireland was such that it was recognised as a university teaching hospital. The Mater maternity unit was eventually opened in 1945, adding a further service to the hospital. In 1972, the hospital, which had previously been under Catholic control and which had been independent throughout its history, became part of the National Health Service. A deed of arrangement underpinned the transfer of the hospital to the NHS. That was a guarantee from the Government of the time that the hospital's character and ethos would continue. I shall say more about that later.
Until 1972, the hospital was funded by the Young Philanthropists, of which my late father was a member. It was an imaginative and far-sighted group, for it saw that it was important to put moneys necessary for the hospital's future into trust funds. Indeed, the group raised a great deal of money. Over the years, thanks to the financial wizardry of a very distinguished cleric called Monsignor Mullally, the money was transformed into a multimillion-pound fund. The upshot was that the McAuley Building was opened in July 2002. Built at the cost of £17 million, it was virtually a new hospital. None of that money came from the state. It was raised by generations of Belfast people. It was used to build and equip the building. It was, in effect, a gift of £17 million to the public Health Service by a private charitable trust.
The Mater Hospital has, however, been informed, following the Department's document 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures', which was published in June 2002, that it is to be downgraded to a local hospital. It will no longer be an acute hospital. In substance, that means that its acute services will be systematically removed over several years. It will end up as little more than a glorified nursing home.
Despite what the Department says, the hospital will lose many of its services. It will lose its accident and emergency service, which - as those who live in north Belfast know - is crucial to the people of the area. That area has the lowest car ownership in Belfast - indeed, in Northern Ireland - yet the Department is persisting in its views. The Department also insists that intensive care and high dependency units will be removed. Inpatient general medicine, inpatient cardiology and the coronary care unit, inpatient diabetic services, inpatient respiratory medicine, inpatient general surgery, inpatient urology services, inpatient cardiac investigation, inpatient gynaecology, inpatient laboratory services and inpatient anaesthetic services will also go. I contend that there will be nothing left if the Department's proposals are implemented.
The developing better services document takes the form of a White Paper. It not called a White Paper, but that is what it is. It represents the Department's and the Minister's thinking. In fact, the Minister had to be pushed into extending the period of consultation. She said that consultation should end in September 2002. That has now been extended to the end of October 2002. That demonstrates the Department's commitment to the proposals contained in the document. There is no doubt that if the proposals are implemented, it will be the end of the Mater Hospital as an acute service hospital in Belfast.
Furthermore, the continuance of maternity services is also under threat. That threat is not as explicit as the threat to other services. The survival of the service is conditional upon the Mater Hospital's working with the new centralised Belfast Maternity Service. That is code for "If you do not do what you are told, you will lose your maternity services". That is what the Minister and the Department are saying to the Mater Hospital.
The Department says that the Mater Hospital's teaching status will remain. I mentioned that such was the status of the Mater Hospital at the beginning of the century that it was granted university teaching status. The Department says that that status will remain. How credible is that proposal, when the Minister is taking away the acute services that would encourage doctors and nurses to come to the Mater Hospital to train? Its teaching status might remain in name, but in reality it will not remain at all. It does not take a genius or a medical expert to reach that conclusion.
The Department says that the developing better services document is in line with the Hayes Report - the acute hospitals review group report. That is untrue. I ask Members to check the document and the Hayes Report. It is not in line with the proposal for partnership with the Whiteabbey Hospital to deliver acute services to north Belfast, Carrickfergus and Newtownabbey. It is not true for the Department to assert that.
There is no proposal to retain acute services at the Mater for the foreseeable future. Some of the acute services that I mentioned will be retained for a few years, but they will be phased out. However, the Hayes Report stated that acute services at the Mater would be retained for the foreseeable future - in other words, for an indefinite period. The Minister's document does not say that; it says that it is merely a transitional arrangement. Further to that, the Hayes Report states that a regional service should be located in the Mater, but that is not mentioned in the Minister's document at all.
The effect in north Belfast will be considerable and significant. The effect on employment alone will be substantial. Around 1,000 people are employed by the Mater Hospital. It is possibly one of the biggest employers in north Belfast. Ancillary, clerical, medical, clinical and nursing staff will be systematically removed. In a few years' time, the number of employees might be down to 500 or 600 staff - and still falling. Think of the effect that that will have on north Belfast.
The latest analysis of north Belfast contained in the North Belfast Community Action Project Report states:
"The population served by the North and West Belfast Health & Social Services Trust has some of the poorest health and social care indices with high incidences of cancer, asthma, bronchitis and other diseases. Seventeen out of the 20 wards in North Belfast are in the 25% most health deprived wards in Northern Ireland. Ten out of 20 wards in the area are in the 25% of wards in Northern Ireland with the highest ratios for cancer. These are all causally linked to the levels of deprivation experienced by this population."
Acute hospital services will be removed from the people who most need them. What sort of madness is this coming from the Department of Health? North Belfast has some of the highest rates of suicide, substance abuse and mental ill health. How can any of these proposals ameliorate that situation?
The Mater Hospital serves the community, and has served it very well. Over 45,000 people have used the accident and emergency service in the Mater Hospital over the past year. There were 6,000 medical or surgical emergencies and 1,000 births. That is a more than creditable performance for any Northern Ireland hospital.
The Minister's proposals are unacceptable and wrong. They are dangerous and will hurt the long-suffering people of north Belfast. They are an offence to good public policy. Is it not ironic that a Minister who is ostensibly committed to the equality agenda is, through her proposals, undermining that agenda and disadvantaging the people of north Belfast, Catholic and Protestant?
The proposals also run contrary to the deed of arrangement, because they undermine the historic character and ethos of the hospital. Not only are the proposals legally questionable, they are undoubtedly politically unacceptable and objectionable to the people of north Belfast. During this little political interlude, let us hope that the Minister will have a change of mind, or that her mind will be changed, by the time we return.
4.15 pm
The Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Dr Hendron): Wearing my hat as Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I wish to express my disappointment that no decisions have been made on the future of not only the Mater Hospital, but of all acute hospitals in Northern Ireland. I want to make it clear that I in no way point the finger at the Minister. Other reports were published long before the Hayes Report, but it is the most recent. It was followed by the Minister's consultation document 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures'. I hope that when the Assembly is reinstated the Minister, or any future Minister, will make decisions on that.
I will now speak not as Chairperson of the Committee but as MLA for West Belfast and as one who has spent many years in west and north Belfast - I sometimes say how many years, but I will decline to do so now. I have long experience of the Mater Hospital, the Royal Victoria Hospital and the City Hospital.
Alban Maginness has already mentioned the new £17 million development at the Mater Hospital. Every hospital has its origins, and people become attached to them. The Mater is in many ways unique, but I will not dwell on that point because it has already been well covered. It seems odd that it has been proposed that the Mater Hospital, with its new £17 million development, is to be stripped of its acute status.
Alban Maginness rightly says that 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures' is in effect a White Paper. When asked, the permanent secretary made it clear that it was a White Paper. The odds of the proposals contained in a White Paper being put into effect are at least 50 to one on. Consultation will still take place, and perhaps in special circumstances changes will be made, but as Members will know, generally speaking, the recommendations contained in a White Paper will be carried out. The part of the document that deals with organisation does not have "White Paper status", because it is part of the review of local services.
It is proposed in the document that the Mater Hospital become a local hospital and a key institution in the fields of medical and nurse training and that its links with Queen's University be put on a statutory basis to formalise its role as a teaching hospital. I was taught in the Mater Hospital and also in the Royal. The teaching role of the Mater Hospital is well known in this country and far beyond. No formality or legal standing is needed in that regard. It is an outstanding teaching hospital. I find the suggestion that somebody from Queen's University should be on the hospital's board of management condescending. It is as if the hospital is being given some sort of important status when, in fact, it is being slowly destroyed by the removal of its acute services.
The Mater Hospital has been outstanding in its diagnosis and treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which is associated with emphysema, smoking and dust in the air. North Belfast has twice as many cases of that terrible condition as other parts of Northern Ireland. It seems odd that, although the Mater Hospital is so well established and recognised for its treatment of chest disease, it may lose its acute services over the next 10 years. The hospital has piloted a multidisciplinary approach to treating patients with COPD, and it is the only hospital in the North with a specialist COPD clinic. Only two years ago, a young nurse there was named UK Respiratory Nurse of the Year.
The McAuley Building houses facilities to provide the most advanced acute services for the benefit not only of its catchment area, but of a much wider community through regional and outreach services and clinics.
I speak not only from my own years of experience, but as someone who has visited the accident and emergency (A&E) departments in all the major hospitals, including the Mater Hospital. Let me take those of the Royal Victoria Hospital and Belfast City Hospital as examples. I have nothing but respect for the nurses, doctors and other staff who work there, but they cannot cope, and not only in winter. I shall not go into the whole matter of trolleys and people waiting, but acute services, especially A&E, are not coping.
I emphasise that the picture is the same in Belfast City Hospital and in Antrim Area Hospital. I have visited all those hospitals. I suppose that no matter what Maurice Hayes and his people said about hospitals, they could not possibly satisfy everyone. However, with regard to overall principles, I have no difficulty in accepting the Hayes Report, and I am aware of what it said about the Mater Hospital.
I understand that every politician will make a case for the hospital in his or her area. However, in respect of the Minister's points, there is something about the Mater Hospital that is not fully realised. The Antrim Area Hospital and the Royal Victoria Hospital could not cope with north Belfast. It has nothing to do with sentiment, although that is involved in all hospitals. It comes down to the direct clinical issues that affect north Belfast, which Members will accept is the most impoverished area in these islands. To remove acute services - even in a few years' time - is the beginning of the end of that hospital. It must be borne in mind that the other hospitals cannot cope.
I appreciate and understand that it was not easy for the Minister to make the decisions in her White Paper. Were someone to ask me what I recommended, I should not find it easy, taking account of the picture across Northern Ireland. However, the sums have either been done incorrectly or wrongly interpreted. I should like the Minister and her Department to examine those figures again. They must realise that the people of north Belfast - Catholic and Protestant alike - could not cope without the Mater Hospital. Its proud tradition extends to the Shankill Road, the Antrim Road, Glengormley and the ever-increasing population of Newtownabbey and beyond. As I said earlier, Antrim Area Hospital could not cope either.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
The Business Committee set a maximum of 60 minutes aside for this debate. Ten of those minutes will be allocated to the Minister. I simply ask Members who speak from this point on to bear that in mind. I have five or perhaps six Members on the list.
Mr Dodds:
I shall endeavour to bear that in mind to allow others to make a contribution.
I thank Alban Maginness for raising this matter. He has very ably set out the case that must be made for the retention of services at the Mater Hospital. Most Members should be able to agree with that, and I concur with many of the remarks made by the Chairperson of the Health Committee, Dr Joe Hendron. He knows from his personal, professional experience how the Mater Hospital has met the needs of the people of north and west Belfast.
I remember that, a few years ago, a public meeting was called in Newtownabbey in relation to the proposals that had been announced for the Whiteabbey Hospital. Hundreds of people attended, including trade unionists, staff, doctors, people in the medical profession, people whose relatives had been treated at Whiteabbey Hospital and members of the public. The common cry at that meeting was that if, at some stage, as part of a devolved Government, there was a Minister from Northern Ireland, no locally based Minister could possibly take such a decision. Unfortunately, as a result of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety's 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures' document, we are now faced with proposals that not only confirm the bad news about Whiteabbey Hospital, but deliver a bolt out of the blue for the Mater Hospital.
As was rightly stated by Mr Maginness and Dr Hendron, Dr Hayes did not suggest the sweeping, radical downgrading of the Mater Hospital that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has proposed. That must be emphasised, and, as demonstrated at a recent meeting of Belfast City Council, any attempt to pin the blame on the Hayes Report must be stopped.
The proposals are resisted and opposed across the community in north and west Belfast. I met recently with Lady McCollum and Patricia Gordon, community workers and medical staff. I visited the Mater Hospital and toured the McAuley Building. There is unanimous dismay and bewilderment at the decision to implement the proposals now, especially, as other Members stated, given that £17 million of investment was privately raised - with not a penny of that coming from the public purse. The suggestion is that the Mater Hospital should be downgraded to the same status as a local hospital.
Aside from the impact that that will have on the delivery of medical services in the most deprived and needy area of our Province, we must remember that the Mater Hospital, which serves both communities, is perhaps the biggest employer in the area. It is situated in Crumlin, which is the most deprived ward in Northern Ireland. When I toured the hospital, I was struck by the number of people from both sides of the community divide who work in it and who receive treatment in it. Both sets of people, regardless of their background, are devastated that the Mater Hospital is to be downgraded from its current status to nothing more than a local hospital.
It has been argued that some provision, such as maternity services, will be retained. However, if specialists such as anaesthetists are not retained, the long-term outlook for maternity services is poor, because it would not provide value for money to pay for those services simply to cover maternity provision. That the Mater Hospital could be retained as a major teaching hospital without the throughput of specialised services is not tenable and will not happen in practice.
The Minister is delivering a death knell to the Mater Hospital, unless she changes her mind; is forced to change her mind; or her successor reverses the disastrous course along which she seeks to set the hospital.
At a recent meeting of Belfast City Council, the political parties unanimously supported the retention of the Mater Hospital's status. There is unanimous support in the communities, and it is to be hoped that there is unanimous support among political representatives. I appeal to the Department and to those civil servants who will guide and advise the person who succeeds the current Minister.
Perhaps the Minister and her party have decided that this attack on a vital service in the most needy community - north Belfast - will go ahead. However, I hope that the new Minister will be advised that the House has united in opposition to the proposal and that the clear message will go out that there should be no interference with, and no downgrading of, the services that the Mater Hospital provides. If anything, we should recognise the valuable contribution that the hospital has made over many years, and we should work to retain and strengthen it.
Mr G Kelly:
Although I accept the general thrust of 'Developing Better Services: ModernisingHospitals and Reforming Structures', issues such as the Mater Hospital must be sorted out. Given the needs of the local community and the standards that the hospital sets, its proposed services are insufficient.
4.30 pm
I am very concerned about the proposal to remove accident and emergency (A&E) services from the hospital, bearing in mind what that would mean for the provision of acute services, particularly A&E services themselves. My worries about the removal of full casualty services from the Mater Hospital are not merely a matter of defending a facility in my constituency - although you may note, Mr Deputy Speaker, that all the Members from North Belfast agree on a lot of what is being said today, simply because of the hospital's location.
However, as one of the most deprived areas of Ireland, North Belfast relies greatly on the Mater Hospital, which contributes to the health of the population. Mr Alban Maginness mentioned the number of patients who are treated, but he did so in a different context than I. There is no justification for the closure of the Mater Hospital's A&E department. According to the figures that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety published last month, the Mater Hospital's A&E department treats over 10,000 more patients each year than Daisy Hill Hospital and over 20,000 more than either the Causeway Hospital or the Downe Hospital, yet all those hospitals are earmarked for A&E services while the Mater Hospital is not.
I fully accept that A&E units require a certain throughput to maintain effectiveness and efficiency, but I cannot see any justification for failing the Mater on those grounds. Indeed, although we are all aware of the debates about the site of the acute hospital west of the Bann, the Mater's A&E department treats more people than the Enniskillen and Omagh hospitals together. Even in Belfast, the Mater's A&E department treats over 90% of the volume of patients who are treated at the City Hospital's A&E department, and apparently treats them more efficiently.
We have two hospitals in the same city that treat roughly the same volume of people every year. One of those hospitals is located within a few hundred metres of the main trauma unit in the Six Counties, while the other is in another part of the city. What justification is there for favouring the hospital that is so close to the Royal Victoria Hospital? Considering the differences in the performances of those two units, the argument in favour of maintaining the Mater's A&E department as part of the provision of casualty services in Belfast becomes stronger.
In developing better services, it is conceded that the proposed change in the role of the Mater Hospital will take some considerable time: it will be at least 10 years before anything is done with casualty provision there. A week in politics is a long time, and a decade is simply beyond reasonable foresight. How can anyone tell with any accuracy what the healthcare needs of the people of Belfast and, in particular those of north Belfast, will be in 2013?
That being so, is there any rationale for making decisions now about what should happen so far in the future? I urge the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to take that on board and guarantee to maintain the Mater Hospital indefinitely. That is not to say that with the properly funded development of reasonable trauma services in Belfast, there may not be a need in future to review the Mater's A&E department, but we can have that debate when it comes.
Other Members have given reasons for maintaining and assisting the Mater. There have been 30 years of conflict, and north Belfast has seen a disproportionate amount of death, injury, imprisonment and militarisation. Its condition today is a consequence of decades of statutory neglect, and Mr Alban Maginness said that the amount of money that the North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust, as opposed to the Executive, gives to the area speaks volumes. The Mater Hospital is an important local employer, and removing the A&E department will have a detrimental effect on the cohesion and morale of the hospital staff as a whole.
The staff of the Mater Hospital, whom I have also met, and the unions both fear that the removal of the A&E department will in turn undermine the hospital as a whole, compromising job security and the ability to attract doctors, nurses, and so forth. Some of the reductions in health services make no sense when political representatives from all parties are arguing for more resources in north Belfast for education, youth provision, job creation, leisure provision, and so forth. Go raibh maith agat.
Mr B Hutchinson:
Other Members have covered many of the issues. However, the only way the problems of health and acute hospitals will be solved is through the restructuring of the Health Service. When that time arrives we will have to consider the Mater Hospital's position.
There are two issues involved. First, someone gave the Mater Hospital permission to build the fabulous McAuley Building, because it was felt that more beds were needed. Why did that happen? The money did not come from the Government; the community raised it, and it could have been better spent elsewhere. Everyone knows that in north Belfast health issues such as mental health and the levels of suicide have been neglected. Unfortunately, the Government gave the Mater Hospital that permission and, in many ways, gave it a vision for the future.
The second issue relates to the contradictions in the acute hospitals review group report with regard to what is being said now. Those contradictions have been well rehearsed. There was a proposal for the partnership of the Mater Hospital with the Whiteabbey Hospital for the provision of services for north Belfast, Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus. Where has that proposal gone? It was included in the recommendations of the review group. We were also told that a regional service would be provided at the Mater Hospital. That has now gone.
I would like to hear from the Minister why permission was given to build the McAuley Building when the situation was to change. Also, why are there contradictions between the two reports?
Dr Adamson:
As a former medical registrar at the Mater Infirmorum Hospital, I add my support to the retention of this great and unique hospital. Following a visit to Lourdes, I wrote my second book, 'Bangor: Light of the World', which told how Bangor became the focus of a religious life of great depth and power in the early medieval period of Europe. With the fall of the Roman Empire, Irish and British monks were left to salvage what was left of Christian civilisation and share in its traditions the secrets of wisdom, justice and mercy for all mankind. That is what the Mater Hospital means to me.
There are many who believe that we have reached a stage of nothingness and have invented the philosophy of the void. The wisdom that makes the Mater Hospital what it is is not irrelevant today, especially in our present circumstances. It is not just an embodiment of what is or even what will be; it is a temple built with living stones, with doctors, nurses and auxiliaries from both the active and contemplative life from both religious traditions, dedicated to the rights and duties of the person, imbued with a sense of honour, justice, mercy and self-sacrifice and of holy hope and high humility. Their patients are from the Shankill and the New Lodge roads. They are all asking, as one, for entry to their own sanctuary. They are the secret suffering poor of north Belfast, but they are all pilgrims on the road to paradise.
Rev Dr Ian Paisley:
I support the comments of Mr Maginness. Perhaps no one in the House knows, but in the dying days of the old Stormont Parliament, I was Leader of the Opposition, which consisted of the Member of Parliament for the Shankill Road, Mr Desmond Boal; the Member of Parliament for Woodvale, Mr Johnny McQuade; and my Colleague from South Antrim, Rev William Beattie. If Members care to read that Hansard, they will find that the four of us supported, and gave unanimous approval for, the Mater Hospital to be given grants by the Government and to be rightly treated. Some people like to paint us as anti-Catholic, anti-Roman Catholic, and so on, but if Members read that debate, they will realise just where we stand.
The Mater Hospital has a right to exist, and it needs to exist. As I have seen in my area, once acute services are taken away from a hospital, its position is destroyed, and it ceases to be a real hospital. I am glad to see that Dr Hendron agrees with that. It is a fact.
If ever the Mater Hospital was needed as an acute services hospital, it is today; there is a crying need for its services. It is located in an area of dense housing and intense poverty. If there was ever a time when we should maintain the hospital, it is now. What grieves me is that, while many hospitals such as the Mater Hospital have been supported and maintained by the voluntary contributions of charitable groups, the Department has stolen the money that those charities gave.
In my area, we helped to lead actions to raise large sums of money for a special heart treatment service in Ballymena Hospital. The Department stole that money and took it away to Antrim. No harm to the people of Antrim - including the Deputy Speaker - but they did not raise that money. It was raised for my area, and those benefits should have remained in that area. As was rightly said by one Member, planners tell people to give their money to ensure that hospital extensions are possible, but at the end of the day, the benefit may be taken away from them.
I want to end on a good note. Although I would not cross every "t" and dot every "i" of what Dr Adamson said, he is my friend. He used to give me jags, and every time I left for a Third-World country, he came to my home and jagged me with great relish, as an Official Unionist would want to jag Democratic Unionist flesh, but I never held that against him.
The hospital that has done this work; the people who backed the hospital with their gifts and all its workers from both sides of the community deserve to be supported. I trust that, if it is the last thing that this Assembly does, it will save the Mater Hospital from being demoralised and reduced to being a glorified nursing home. The Mater Hospital should be maintained as a thoroughgoing acute hospital, giving the people of that area all the services that they deserve and need.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Dr Paisley, you have tremendous trust in your doctor. [Laughter].
Sir John Gorman:
I will not take a moment. I just want to say that I have some experience of the Mater Hospital. My mother, who suffered acutely from a serious problem before the war, went there in an emergency and recovered. I had many friends in the RUC - now the PSNI - who were very happy to be taken there as a result of bombings and shootings, and so on, because they believed that they would receive the best of attention, irrespective of what the political slant might be.
It strikes me as particularly wrong that £17 million collected by people years ago - which is probably worth about £80 million in today's terms - should be now seen as simply a resource to be absorbed. The attitude seems to be: "Never mind where it came from or what the motives were for collecting it". That is quite wrong. I beg the Minister in her last few hours to reconsider the matter to see whether some of the phrases used in Dr Hayes's report in relation to the Mater Hospital might be given rather more favourable connotations. I do not doubt that, being the man he is, he was probably keen not to show favouritism to a hospital of which he was chairman for so many years.
4.45 pm
Possibly, he was almost too fair. I ask the Minister to re-examine the issue to see if, at least, the Mater's teaching and accident and emergency roles can be retained. It would be to the benefit of the entire country to see in the Chamber, where so many antipathetic remarks have been made among parties, unanimity from every party in order to save the Mater Hospital.
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún):
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá mo chuid moltaí do thodhchaí Ospidéal an Mater leagtha amach i mo cháipéis chomhairliúcháin 'Seirbhísí Níos Fearr a Fhorbairt: Ospidéil a Nuachóiriú agus Struchtúir a Leasú'. An chéad rud is mian liom a rá is é nach raibh sé riamh i gceist go dtarlódh na hathruithe atá molta agam thar oíche. Leanfaidh an Mater de bheith ina ospidéal géarchúraim go ceann i bhfad ina mbeidh raon iomlán de ghéarsheirbhísí ar fáil. Tiocfaidh an comhairliúchán chun críche ar 31 Deireadh Fómhair agus is mian liom béim a leagan air nach ndéanfar aon chinneadh ar aon cheann de mo chuid moltaí go dtí go mbeidh faill agam mo mhachnamh a dhéanamh ar iomlán na fianaise agus an eolais dá bhfuil ar fáil.
Aithním, áfach, gur ábhar imní do fhoireann an Mater agus do mhuintir thuaisceart Bhéal Feirste mo mholadh gur chóir go ndéanfaí ospidéal áitiúil nua-aimseartha den Mater, agus is maith liom an deis seo a bheith agam tabhairt faoin imní sin.
Proposals for the future of the Mater Hospital are set out in the consultation document 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures'. The changes proposed were never planned to happen overnight. The Mater Hospital will continue as an acute hospital for the foreseeable future, providing a full range of acute services. The consultation will end on 31 October, and I stress that no decisions will be made on any of the proposals until there has been an opportunity to consider fully all the evidence and information available.
However, I recognise that the proposal that the Mater Hospital should become a modern local hospital has caused concern, both to its staff and to the people of north Belfast. I welcome this opportunity to address their concerns.
My objective is to provide high-quality modern hospital services to the population here. It is clear that hospitals in future will need to collaborate as part of clinical networks. Proposals for the Mater Hospital are that it should become a modern local hospital with strong clinical links to the acute hospitals network, both at the Royal Group of Hospitals and Belfast City Hospital. I would expect the Mater, as a local hospital, to make full use of its modern facilities to provide increasingly sophisticated methods of investigation, diagnosis and day procedures.
In relation to the recent £17 million investment and the tremendous work done by people in the community to bring that about, we must in future ensure that the investment in the Mater is used to its fullest in serving the population of the area. That must be given careful consideration before coming to any final decisions.
Under these proposals, the Mater Hospital will also provide a base for a range of expert clinicians, specialist nurses and other health professionals, who will relate to the hospital needs of the population it serves, making a distinctive contribution to the overall provision of modern, high-quality services in the heart of the local community. Developing local hospitals in this way will require considerable and continuing investment in modern equipment and staff training.
I have proposed that maternity services at the Mater Hospital should be retained, but the hospital has been experiencing increasing difficulties in maintaining those services. Therefore, I have proposed that it should exploit its close proximity to the new centralised maternity hospital on either the Royal Group of Hospitals or Belfast City Hospital site to open up new opportunities for supporting maternity services at the Mater Hospital on a close partnership basis. I expect that the new centralised maternity hospital and the Mater Hospital will develop those opportunities to the full.
I also realise the concerns of the staff who live in north Belfast, where the Mater Hospital is a significant employer. They fear that their jobs might be lost in the hospital's transformation to a modern local hospital. The Mater Hospital will continue to be a large and busy hospital, and it will continue to provide much-needed employment for the area.
It is not possible to be specific about how staff might be affected at this stage, and detailed work will need to be undertaken with the health and personal social services organisations and other key interested parties to identify long-term staffing needs. During the consultation process, I was aware of the growing cross-party and cross-community support for retaining acute services at the Mater Hospital, as well as the strong lobby from the Mater Hospital Trust and staff at the hospital. I am sure that that will continue to be reflected in the responses to my consultation up until its close on 31 October, as it has been in Members' contributions today.
I assure Members that, as stated in the report 'Developing Better Services: Modernising Hospitals and Reforming Structures', the importance of making full use of the modern facilities at the Mater Hospital is fully accepted. The hospital has an excellent range of facilities, and in any future configuration of hospital services we must ensure that those facilities are used to their best advantage through clinical networking and building on new achievements in medical treatment and technology.
Members raised points about the phasing out of services. Acute services will continue for the foreseeable future and will be reviewed according to levels of capacity and deprivation as those are assessed. There is no question of phasing out acute services over the years in the way that has been suggested. Any decisions will look at the needs assessed at a particular time and the overall capacity of the service to deliver those services to people in the area.
Teaching status will remain as part of a clinical network of acute and local hospitals, and opportunities for more rounded training for medical staff will be available.
Before coming to any decision on the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinic, we must look very carefully at the services provided in any area where such a disease is a feature of deprivation and associated ill health. A final decision has not been made, and the information referred to in this debate will be reflected in the responses to the consultation.
Mr A Maginness:
Will the Minister accept an intervention?
Mr Deputy Speaker:
It is up to the Minister if she feels like giving way.
Ms de Brún:
I have been told that I have very limited time, and, therefore, I do not think it is possible.
Mr A Maginness:
A very quick -
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order. Does the Minister want to give way?
Ms de Brún:
I have had signals that my time is almost up, so, unfortunately, that will not be possible.
The points raised during the period of consultation, and those raised today, will be taken on board when considering the outcome of the consultation process. This is a real consultation process, as I have said in debates about other aspects of the consultation proposals. I have stressed that people's views will be listened to and taken on board. The terminology used today should not suggest that the consultation process is just about going through the motions.
I thank Members for their contributions today and for the contact they had with me during the consultation period. I shall ask the Department to consider carefully the Mater Hospital's future profile in the light of the deeply held cross-community and cross-party concerns expressed in the debate and elsewhere.
I stress that, in common with all my proposals to develop better services, no decisions have yet been taken. All the responses to the consultation, including any new evidence or information that arises from it, will be carefully considered before any final decisions are made on the Mater Hospital's future.
I take this opportunity to add my voice to those that have paid tribute to the sterling work that has been carried out over the years by the staff, and those who support them, at the Mater Hospital. I pay tribute to those who have ensured that its services have been delivered. I thank Members for their kind words, and I shall ensure that they are passed on to the staff.
Mr Wells:
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
Order. Ample opportunity was given this morning, and ample opportunity was taken this morning, to raise points of order.
Mr Wells:
It is on a totally different matter.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
I am taking no further points of order.
Adjourned at 4.57 pm.
