Parents of disabled dependants have great needs, and extensive research has been carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has done admirable work over the years, on the role of carers. However, the research to which I refer is a study of parents with disabled children who are now adults. The study is called 'Juggling Work and Care: the experiences of working carers of older adults'. As part of the study, the foundation interviewed 40 families who have tried to combine employment with caring for disabled adult children. They point out the difficulties that such parents have in sustaining secure but flexible work and how, as a consequence, many such families are trapped into poverty. Some had to give up work and were then dependent on benefits, but they do not want to be on benefits; they prefer to be out working to avoid feeling isolated and vulnerable, but they cannot reconcile the two. Now, for the first time, we have a Bill that is concerned with parental rights on flexible working, but it denies those rights to one of the most needy groups of all - the parents of disabled children who are over 18 years of age.

There was a widespread assumption about the mothers of disabled dependants being available for work at any time, if they were in work. As a consequence, that group was often afraid of being labelled "in need" and therefore needy. They did not want that to continue. They wanted to be able to speak about their special needs as parents of disabled dependants. When they were out of work they suffered excessive personal and financial hardship. If this Government can do anything about linking up pieces of legislation and preventing poverty - particularly the poverty of those with disabled children or disabled dependants - let them do it in the Employment Bill.

The foundation's study concluded that if the Government were to give employees a right to ask for flexible working arrangements, it would greatly help the parents of disabled dependants, since employees would have a legal right to have that request considered seriously by employers.

The Committee for Employment and Learning asked an official if there was any forthcoming legislation to take on board the role of carers. I am talking about the parents of disabled dependants, not other carers, although I hope that some day the Assembly will have legislation to deal with carers' responsibilities and rights in work. The official said that as far as he was aware no such legislation was being considered, so this amendment must be incorporated into the Employment Bill. If it is not, it will be lost.

The Committee for Employment and Learning took evidence from Ms McSorley from the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, who said:

Likewise, Prof Barry Fitzpatrick of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland said:

I have no doubt that that was the purpose of the legislation in the first place, and, therefore, it addresses the needs of parents whose children are under the age of six and parents who have disabled children up to the age of 18. Those disabled children will remain, to all intents and purposes, children, as in the word "dependants" of their parents, beyond the age of 18. Ann Hope, from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, rightly said:

Why is age 18 the cut-off point for disabled dependants? A departmental official responded to the Committee's inquiry. He stated:

Consensus emerged that the appropriate age was six for non-disabled children and 18 for disabled children. The next words are extremely important. He said:

Given all the scientific and empirical evidence about the needs of parents who have disabled children over the age of 18 but with the same needs as children under the age of six, I urge the Minister to become more scientific and extend them that right in this legislation. What will happen to parents whose children have reached the age of 18 by the time that the Bill is passed? Given that it is going to be prospective, they may have exactly the same needs as they previously had. We must address those needs.

The Bill implicitly states that if the contractual rights were there before they reached the age of 18, they may still have those rights after the age of 18. What happens to those who can be regarded, to all intents and purposes, as dependants - who are entitled to disability living allowance, which is the eligibility criteria - but who will be denied that right?

Given that the evidence was rather unscientific, it may lead to cases of indirect discrimination. Equality legislation under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 proves that people with or without dependants are not discriminated against in that category. The Equality Commission tells us that there is currently much confusion about the role of carers, particularly women who have caring responsibilities. If we do not include this amendment, we will add to that confusion. For example, if I were working and had a child who was under 18, and someone were working with me whose child had just turned 18 and had become incapacitated as the result of an unfortunate sporting accident, those two parents would have entirely different rights, yet that person's needs might be greater than mine.

With that mind, I am concerned that the Bill is unclear about what will happen to the group who are under the age of 18, after they become 18. However, it is equally important that Members should address the needs of those in poverty, particularly given that it is a priority in the Programme for Government, allow them the opportunity to work, give them flexible working rights and the same rights as those who have dependants under the age of 18.

I thank Prof McWilliams for raising this issue, which was discussed at length in several Committee meetings. It is sufficiently important to merit being raised again today.

The Bill, as it stands, states that the right of parents to request flexible working should be limited to cases where the child is aged under six or, if the child is disabled, 18. In a desire to be as helpful as possible to parents of disabled children, the Committee considered the possibility of removing the age limit of 18. However, the majority of Committee members determined against that course of action. The Committee identified two main problems, which seem to be attached also to the amendments.

First, the use of the term "disabled dependant" in amendment No 4 will widen the measure to include all dependants, not simply offspring. That is an important distinction that will widen the provision, no matter what the original intention of the amendment was. If that amendment is accepted, it will significantly change the nature of the Bill.

Secondly, there is a concern about the compliance and budgetary cost of the measure. When taking evidence, the Committee detected a certain lack of precision on the part of the Department about how many parents of disabled children would benefit from the provisions as they stand. That, in turn, makes it difficult to estimate how a wider casting of the net might increase eligibility and cost. That said, on page 74 of the Committee's report there are figures provided by Assembly Library and Research Services which include the number of people claiming disability living allowance plus attendance allowance, and which show that up to 211,000 people could be affected if we went for a form of words such as "disabled dependant".

If the Assembly is to go down that road, it will constitute a major policy change. It can be argued that that change should be considered, whatever its merits. It does have some merit, but such a change should be considered in its own right, rather than being introduced through amendments to the Bill.

Although I am bound to restate the view of the majority of Committee members on the subject, I appreciate that the amendments raise important policy issues. The position of carers other than parents must be considered, and I urge the Minister to do so, because it is part of the general theme of tackling the so-called work/life balance.

The Bill is concerned with granting the right to request flexible working. In the case of parents of disabled children, that right exists until the child reaches the age of 18. However, as Ms McWilliams pointed out, if flexible working is granted, there is a question about whether that right continues after the child reaches the age of 18. As I understand it, it would continue. However, given that that is a sufficiently important issue, it would be useful if the Minister would clarify the position of such cases.

In other words, once flexible working has been granted to a parent, does that continue once the disabled child has passed the age of 18? In previous discussions, a majority of the Committee came down against this group of amendments, although I concede that there was another view.

However, I should certainly like to hear the Minister's views this afternoon regarding some of the issues raised by Ms McWilliams, particularly on two points. First, what does the Department propose regarding equitable treatment of carers in the round - other than simply those who care for children? Secondly, what happens once the right to flexible working has been granted but the child is no longer under the age limit specified in the Bill?

Ms Gildernew: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the amendments. The issue was discussed at length on several occasions, as the Chairperson of the Committee for Employment and Learning has said, and we took a vote on it. Although the Chairperson kept talking about the majority of the Committee, that majority was of only one. Committee members were, by and large, very sympathetic to the view that a person who has a disabled child under 18 years of age and who is entitled to flexible working arrangements should be able to continue those hours after the child has turned 18.

We all know families with children who are over the age of 18 but who are still very much dependent on their parents. Those families have many problems to deal with. People come to me about matters as simple as lowered kerbs in the town centre so that they can get about adequately in a wheelchair. They come to me about the benefits system and the disabled living allowance for their children. They come to me about transport and educational arrangements. Often an entire family is disabled by the circumstances in which it finds itself with a disabled child.

If we are to do something good to benefit the wider community, we must be more imaginative and creative in bringing about legislation that will make a real difference to people's lives. Extending the flexible working arrangements to families who have children over the age of 18 who are still dependent would make a huge difference.

The Committee has discussed the issue at length. I agree with much of what Monica McWilliams said on the issue and support her amendments. It is critically important that we try, in the limited time that we have left in this Assembly - and it might be even more limited today than it was last week - to pass legislation that will improve people's lives. These amendments, if carried, will do that, and I support them. Go raibh míle maith agat.

I understand that, in proposing these amendments, the Member intends to give the parents of disabled children the statutory right to continue with flexible working arrangements when their child passes the age of 18. Secondly, she would like the right to flexible working for the parents of disabled children who are over 18 years of age when the parents request flexible working arrangements.

I fully support the Member's sentiments. Indeed, I have worked for many years with the parents of disabled children. I share their concerns. After all, just because a disabled child turns 18 years of age does not mean that it is no longer dependent on its parents. Parents of disabled children still require the right to flexible working arrangements when their children become adults.

The Employment Bill confers on parents of disabled children the right to request flexible working arrangements, not just until children reach six years of age, but throughout the childhood of a disabled person. Although the request for flexible working hours must be made before a child with a disability reaches the age of 18, the flexible working arrangement does not end at that point.

I want to clarify what would happen in practice with regard to flexible working arrangements under the provisions of the Bill. When the parents of a child under the age of six, or of a disabled child under the age of 18, request flexible working arrangements, the employer and employee will enter into dialogue to explore how the request can be accommodated without there being a detrimental effect on the employer's business. I am confident that the request can be facilitated in most cases and that a mutually suitable arrangement will be reflected in the permanent employment contract between employer and employee.

The permanent contract would continue indefinitely until an event occurs, such as the employee leaving, the employer ceasing to operate, a new contract being established or a contract being varied. A contract can only be varied, or a new contract entered into, after due consultation involving both parties. The contract would continue indefinitely. Therefore, a situation would arise in which employees who are parents of disabled persons over the age of 18 would continue with that flexible working arrangement.

I cannot agree with Ms McWilliams's amendment. It would confer the right to request flexible working arrangements beyond the targeted beneficiaries of the Bill. I sincerely appreciate the fact that parents of disabled children over the age of 18 when the application is made for flexible working arrangements will miss out: that goes beyond the targeted beneficiaries of the Bill. However, the Department will review the legislation and if it is working successfully for employer and employee, the Department may extend its scope. I hope that the Member will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

I am pleased that it was clarified that much debate took place in the Committee and that the majority was only one. Had the Committee considered the issue at greater length, certain members might have been won over by some of the arguments. It is good to have the Minister's clarification that the contractual arrangement could be varied for those who have the right and are beyond the age of 18.

However, I was taken by the Minister's own words when she said that a disabled person's dependency does not necessarily end at the age of 18. I am heartened that the Minister, having worked with the parents of disabled adults, understands their needs. I believe, therefore, that it is possible for the Assembly to work on the amendment. I am not referring to the wider interpretation that covers all carers of dependants. I agree that that may require further legislation. I am referring to the working parents of a disabled dependent child or adult who is beyond the age of 18. The Assembly must legislate for that group. Therefore, the amendment must stand. If it is passed, the Assembly can agree upon the legal wording that will accommodate that group.

Given the current political situation, it would not serve us well to leave it out of the legislation and to have to tell interested groups that we may return to it one day. The time is now, and it is a good time to include the amendment in the legislation.

Question put, That amendment No 3 be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 19; Noes 35.

As amendment No 3 has fallen, consequential amendments No 4, No 5, No 6 and No 7 shall not be called.

Question proposed, That the schedule stand part of the Bill.

I beg to move amendment No 9: In page 37, line 32, at end insert -

No 11: in page 39, line 7, at end insert -

Amendments No 9 and No 11 have the effect of enabling the Labour Relations Agency both to conciliate in disputes about flexible working and to extend its binding arbitration scheme to such disputes. A key principle behind the flexible working provisions is that of promoting dialogue. It is important to encourage employers and employees to find solutions that suit both. Conciliation and arbitration can help to achieve that. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that disputes be settled to the satisfaction of the parties without recourse to the tribunal system. The flexible working provisions lend themselves well to conciliation and arbitration, which are well suited to resolving straightforward cases. Essentially, the issues to be resolved are factual rather than legal. The Labour Relations Agency has much expertise in the areas of conciliation and arbitration. The resource should be made available when disputes arise over flexible working. To that end, I have tabled the two technical amendments.

The Committee supports the principle of this group of amendments, whereby individuals can choose to use the Labour Relations Agency instead of industrial tribunals. I therefore urge support for them.

I beg to move amendment No 10: In page 39, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert

This amendment will have the effect of exempting members of the armed forces from the Bill's flexible working provisions.

As drafted, those provisions apply to all employees, and that, by and large, is how it should be. However, if national interest requires it, members of the armed forces are placed in the unusual position of being deployed at little or no notice. Those unique working conditions make it impractical to apply flexible working arrangements to service personnel.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the Ministry of Defence requested that I accept their proposed amendments, and for the reasons given, I decided to agree. The Ministry of Defence intends to explore how it can, nevertheless, comply with the spirit of the legislation, subject to overriding operational requirements.

The Committee considered the proposed amendment and sought clarification from the Minister, whereby it was pointed out that the exemption would not apply to emergency services such as the Ambulance Service or the Fire Service. The Committee supports the amendment in principle.

Amendment No 11 made: In page 39, line 7, at end insert -

I beg to move amendment No 12: In page 39, line 7, at end insert -

Amendment No 12 will enable my Department to extend the rights conferred by the Employment Bill to additional classes of workers. The Committee for Employment and Learning has expressed concern that the Bill's provisions do not cover the relatively small group of workers not classed as employees. The right that the Bill confers applies to employees for several practical reasons, which have been accepted by the Committee.

I am sympathetic to the Committee's interest in the rights and benefits afforded to workers. My Department recently issued two related consultation documents on employment status and working conditions for temporary and agency workers. I look forward to hearing views that may arise from the public consultations on individual employment rights, including those introduced by the Bill. The Employment Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 gives the Department the power to extend the rights contained in some existing employment legislation. Some of the rights introduced by the Employment Bill will be covered by that power because they are inserted in existing legislation. Other rights are, however, only contained in the Bill, and to ensure that they can be extended, I tabled amendment No 12.

Amendment No 12 is especially significant in the context of the two consultation exercises that the Minister mentioned. As she rightly said, the Committee urges that this opportunity be used to consider whether "workers" could in some cases be given rights equal to those that apply to people who are defined as "employees". The Committee supports the amendment in principle.

That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Employment Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

TOP

Oral Answers to Questions

First Minister and Deputy First Minister

1.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) what provisions have been made, in the draft Budget, for the Office's plans regarding the reform and reinvestment initiative.

(AQO 250/02)

Our office is taking the lead in developing legislation on behalf of the Executive to establish the strategic investment board and to allow for the regeneration, through the reinvestment and reform initiative, of former security and military sites. The draft Budget does not contain specific provision for the strategic investment board or for the costs associated with the transfer of sites because we were unable to quantify those meaningfully when proposals for the draft Budget were drawn up. The situation will be reviewed when the final Budget is prepared and when work on the initiative is taken into account in the next few moths.

The provision in the draft Budget for infrastructure for 2004-05 and 2005-06, which was announced on 24 September, is insufficient to tackle our infrastructure deficit. More is needed for our capital programmes, but more will come through the reinvestment and reform initiative, which we hope will be announced later in the autumn.

Does the First Minister agree that the reinvestment and reform initiative provides an important financial opportunity to address the water and sewerage infrastructure deficits which exist throughout Northern Ireland and which are restricting development in my constituency? Does the Minister agree that the reinvestment and reform initiative could play an important role in maintaining existing jobs and, perhaps, in creating new ones?

The Member is correct; the object of the exercise is to address the infrastructure deficit and to provide resources for it. We already have a significant increase in resources, thanks to the immediate measures that we negotiated with the Treasury, and we expect legislation to be forthcoming from Westminster that will give us a substantial borrowing power that will greatly add to our available options. Of course, the Administration and the Assembly must consider carefully how those options are exercised.

Will the First Minister confirm that all the infrastructure work that was referred to in the last question could be carried out by the existing Departments, without setting up an expensive strategic investment board or expensive development corporations, as proposed in the Strategic Planning Bill? Will he tell the House whether setting up new quangos is consistent with the promises that he made to sweep away quangos as a result of administrative reform? Does he not find it grotesque that, while talking about tumbling the institutions, he is in the process of putting through a Bill that is designed only to give him more opportunities to promote his cronies?

The Member is tempting fate by using the word "grotesque", and I shall not pursue that further. There is substantial underinvestment in infrastructure, and a substantial job must be done. The initiative is not merely about reinvestment; it is about reinvestment and reform. The intention is to improve how we do things, and the Administration has not been as effective as we would have liked in pursuing public-private partnerships and exploring the options there. We are centralising expertise so that the 10 Departments do not each have to reinvent the wheel. That is why we want to attract skills and disciplines from parts of the private sector to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the system. It will be cost-effective, but working through the existing Departments - the old silo-type system - has clearly been inadequate and is unlikely to be adequate for our current situation. I am sorry that the Member is such an old stick-in-the-mud.

I wish to advise the House that question 5, standing in the name of Mr Fee, has been withdrawn and will receive a written answer.

TOP

2.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to give an update on the implementation of the Equality Commission's legal services' audit report recommendations; and to make a statement.

(AQO 244/02)

In January 2002, the Department queried the Equality Commission's increasing expenditure on legal fees. The Department asked the Commission to carry out an internal audit of its financial systems and procedures relating to the legal services budget. We agreed the terms of reference for the audit, which covered three distinct areas: the reasons for the increasing expenditure on legal fees; a review of the processes for commissioning and paying legal fees and budgetary financial management and approval systems; and a review of systems and processes in the legal division as a whole, with reference to the integration of services across all the legislative grounds.

The auditor's final report on the first two areas was presented to the Equality Commission on 5 July, and the Department asked the Commission to draw up an implementation plan for the recommendations. That has been accomplished and is being monitored by the Department. Significant progress has been made on implementing those recommendations.

The third part of the review, which will include benchmarking the legal services directorate against other organisations carrying out similar functions, is due to be completed by the end of November.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his answer to that important question. Does he agree that recent newspaper reports on this, which I understand are generally inaccurate, must be dealt with, so that staff morale is not further undermined?

I recognise that concerns have arisen over newspaper reports. Staff morale is a significant factor, and the Department hopes to ensure that any damage is compensated for by progress. As well as that, those who want the Equality Commission to be available to give support must have their confidence in and concerns about the Commission addressed.

Is OFMDFM concerned that some people have had legal assistance withdrawn at short notice, and was it aware that that would happen? Does OFMDFM agree that the Equality Commission is well funded, and can it say what support it provides?

I agree that the Equality Commission is well funded. It gets £6·7 million each year while the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission gets only £750,000 and the South's equality authority gets 5 million euros - about half the funding for twice the number of people. The Commission may spend up to £1·8 million on legal assistance this financial year. That is well over budget. Last year it is estimated that the UK Disability Rights Commission spent £220,000.

OFMDFM was not aware that the Equality Commission had started to withdraw assistance at short notice, and as it was concerned about that, it met with the Equality Commission. OFMDFM is monitoring the situation to see what additional resources should be made available to it this year to ensure that important aspects of its work are carried forward, while dealing with increased expenditure on legal fees. OFMDFM wants to ensure that assistance is not withdrawn at short notice and that the large increase in expenditure and legal aid do not prevent the Commission from carrying out other important aspects of its work. OFMDFM has also agreed measures to assist the Commission to manage its legal aid strategy. The Equality Commission is not a legal aid body and should not be expected to act as such. At a personal level, I would like to see legal aid made available for such cases.

Will the Minister agree that, in the past, the Equality Commission has been too willing to back every case brought to it and that that has been the cause of its financial problems? That policy has also discredited the Equality Commission in the eyes of the public.

Unlawful discrimination is unacceptable. The Equality Commission is a strategic enforcement body that enforces existing anti-discrimination law and uses its resources to ensure the development of legal issues. Support to complainants is one of the ways in which the Equality Commission can fulfil its functions to eliminate unlawful discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity.

Last year, in recognition of the increasing proportion of its budget that was being taken up by legal fees, and of the need to bring a more strategic focus and coherence to the consideration of requests for assistance, the Equality Commission undertook a review of its legal assistance strategy. The review identified the need for a more strategic use of its legal budget. Again, I make the point that the Equality Commission is not responsible for providing legal aid and cannot be expected to act as if it is. Legal aid is a reserved matter, and it is the Lord Chancellor's policy not to provide legal aid to tribunal cases. I have already given my view on that matter.

TOP

3.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline the date of the next Executive meeting and what will be on the agenda.

(AQO 251/02)

There is a schedule, but unless there are some dramatic developments, I have great difficulty in seeing how the Executive, as presently constituted, can meet again.

Hear, hear.

Is it conceivable that, had security matters rested with the Executive, infiltration to the extent admitted by the Secretary of State would have happened under the First Minister's watch?

He helped it.

I will get back to my point and leave Flipper to get on with it.

Furthermore, would the question of concealing stolen documents to that scale of for more than three months have arisen?

The Member raises hypothetical points, and some of those matters may be unknowable. However, there is no doubt that serious questions must be asked about how the Northern Ireland Office conducted its business and the level of regulation that it imposed. I hope that, at an appropriate time, in the not-too-distant future, the Secretary of State will institute a proper inquiry into what happened on his watch and put the findings in the public domain.

Will the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister ask the Executive, if and when they meet, to recall the Minister for Regional Development's triumphant statement to the Assembly on 20 May this year? The Minister announced approval for development at Harland & Wolff's harbour estate of land that was no longer required for shipbuilding, permitting the financing of a new business plan. Will he establish whether the proposal of 200 redundancies is part of that business plan, or whether it is an attempt to free up even more Harland & Wolff land for disgraceful speculative profit at the expense of those unfortunate workers?

There was a brief discussion of those matters at the Executive's last meeting. Sir Reg Empey gave the Executive an account of the development of the situation. As I recall - and I hope that I recall accurately - the protective notices with regard to redundancy were necessitated by the state of the construction of vessels at Harland & Wolff; the second ship is about to be completed. He also told us about discussions on the development of the harbour estate. Plans are being prepared, and these matters will be brought before the Executive again, when appropriate. With regard to the redevelopment of the estate, an effort is being made to include more light industry and commercial development as a means to replace the jobs that are threatened and the jobs that have already been lost.

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Will the First Minister speak and act with caution - as a lawyer, he ought to know to do so - so as not to further prejudice legal proceedings against an individual who works in this Assembly?

The phrase about beams and motes comes to mind, with regard to the behaviour, not only of the Member who asked that question, but of his party. If he considers the way in which his party and his associates have behaved over the course of recent weeks and months, he might have thought twice about asking such a question.

TOP

4.

asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what progress has been made towards establishing a linkage with a Third-World country; and to make a statement.

(AQO 247/02)

No official or formal links have yet been established between the Executive and a developing country. However, we recognise that the people of Northern Ireland have a long and well-renowned tradition of supportive links with developing countries through the valuable work of Concern, Trocaire, Christian Aid and other charities. I had intended to visit Malawi in late August to see the excellent work being carried out by Concern and other relief organisations. However, due to my mother's terminal illness, I was unable to go.

In the Assembly we have already established an all-party group on international development. We need to consider how the work of that group and perhaps the activities of something such as the commonwealth local government good practice scheme, which is funded by the UK Government, can assist in developing stronger and more valuable links with developing countries, as recently reflected in the Member's comments during the Programme for Government debate.

I applaud the Minister's interest in Third-World issues. Is he aware that Coleraine Borough Council has recently established a linkage with the city council in Zomba in Malawi, the country that he referred to? Will he encourage other councils to consider similar procedures? Assuming that normality breaks out in the House, would he avail of an early opportunity to visit Malawi so that he can reinforce the Assembly's concern for the people of Africa and the Third World generally?

The links being developed between Coleraine Borough Council and Malawi through the twinning process are worthy of our fullest support. I would certainly encourage other councils to follow that sort of initiative. I am aware that in the past similar initiatives were undertaken by Derry City Council in relation to Kebele 37 in Addis Ababa. More recently, there have been some links between Derry and El Salvador. Sharing experience and expertise between local authorities and developing countries can lead to mutually beneficial relationships through which we can all learn. In circumstances where many of us like to tell each other that the eyes of the world are upon us - when the truth is the eyes of the world more generally roll up to heaven every time we seem to put ourselves into another crisis - it is right that that we take a wider view of the world and see our responsibilities and our role in that world context.

Is the Deputy First Minister content that his partner in Government has already got Third-World links with a terrorist guerrilla organisation in Colombia? Does he not believe that it sets a bad example to the Third World that we have gunmen established in our Government? During the last 72 hours, has the First Minister expressed to the Deputy First Minister a willingness to remove his Ministers, who prop up Sinn Féin in this Government?

The Member is referring to matters that are the subject of legal proceedings in Colombia. We must let those events take their course there.

In circumstances where there are all sorts of stories about all sorts of conversations and records of conversations being leaked and briefed, I will let the Member receive whatever leak he has or may get of any conversation that I have had with the First Minister through the DUP's normal course, rather than taking the opportunity to reveal those conversations here.

In view of the fact that we now have a Health Service that has the longest waiting lists in Europe, a sewerage infrastructure that forbids the development of property and a water system that is currently inviting fines from the EU, does the Deputy First Minister agree that we have much in common with Third-World countries and much to learn from their experiences?

The Deputy First Minister: We face significant challenges in relation to infrastructure and the public service estate. We have undertaken the reinvestment and reform initiative precisely because we face those significant challenges due to the backlog of underinvestment during direct rule. We treat those problems seriously.

As to likening those challenges to some of the challenges that the Third World faces, I would say - as I would in relation to any developing countries - that the best context in which they can face those challenges, and manage those public expenditure and public service issues, is by having truly democratic arrangements available and in operation.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>